HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2015 Goal Setting Agenda Packet
2015-17 Financial Plan
GOAL-SETTING AGENDA PACKET
January 13, 2015 Community Forum
January 24, 2015 Goal-Setting Workshop
2015-17 Financial Plan
COMMUNITY FORUM & GOAL-SETTING AGENDA PACKET
January 13 and January 24, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AGENDAS
1. Workshop Agendas
January 13: Community Forum
January 24: Council Goal-Setting Workshop
RECOMMENDED CITY GOALS
2. Council Advisory Bodies
Introduction 3
Architectural Review Commission 4
Bicycle Advisory Committee 6
Cultural Heritage Committee 9
Human Relations Commission 11
Jack House Committee 12
Mass Transportation Committee 13
Parks and Recreation Commission 14
Planning Commission 15
Promotional Coordinating Committee 16
Tourism Business Improvement District Board 17
Tree Committee 18
Advisory Body Role in the Budget Process
3. Community Priorities Survey
Responses received after December 22 will be distributed
on January 19
4. Community Groups/Others
Items received after December 22 will be distributed on
January 19
Notice to Community Groups and Interested Individuals
5. Results from Community Forum
To be distributed on January 19
6. Council Member Goals
Candidate Goal Submittal Form
Other Program and Service Changes Submittal Form
Consolidated Goals to be distributed on January 22
BACKGROUND MATERIALS
7. Goal-Setting Process for 2015-17
December 16, 2014 Council Agenda Report
Goal-Setting Process for 2015-17 1
including the following attachments:
Community Priorities Survey 13
Notice to Community Groups 16
Measure Y Integration Report 18
Goal-Setting Guidelines 25
Criteria for Major City Goals 26
Budget and Fiscal Policies 27
White Paper Discussion on Prepaying Unfunded
Pension Liabilities 52
8. Status Reports from November 13, 2014 Workshop
1. Status of 2013-15 Goals and Objectives
Introduction 1
Major City Goals 2
Other Important Council Objectives 28
Carryover Goals and Objectives 39
Status of Major CIP Projects 41
2. Status of Current CIP Projects
Introduction 3
Status Report: Major CIP Projects 6
Status Report: All CIP Projects 7
3. Status of General Plan Implementation Programs
Introduction 1
Status by Element 8
Status by Area Plan 27
4. Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Introduction 3
CIP Project Summary by Function 5
Cost Summary by Function 13
9. Fiscal Outlook: December 16, 2014 Forecast
Five-Year General Fund Fiscal Forecast: 2015-2020
10. Results from Public Opinion Research
Community Assessment and Ballot Measure Issues Survey
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
11. Notes and Other Materials
Provides a place for notes and other supplemental
materials
Section 1
WORKSHOP AGENDAS
January 13: Community Forum
January 24: Council Goal-Setting Workshop
Community Forum
6:00 PM to 9:00 PM, Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Ludwick Community Center
6:00 Welcome Mayor
6:05 Process, Current Goals, Local Sales Tax Priorities and Fiscal Outlook City Manager/
Finance & IT Director
6:30 Public Comment
1. Members of public who desire to speak complete public comment cards and indicate topic.
Where a group has several members present, we encourage them to select a spokesperson and
have others in their group indicate support for the same position with a show of hands.
2. We invite each speaker to address:
a. What do you recommend as a Major City Goal?
b. Why is it important to you and the City?
c. How do you suggest that it might be accomplished?
3. Facilitator calls upon a speaker and identifies general topic.
4. Department Head in the budget category for the topic steps up to write the idea on a flip chart
sheet and clarifies any linkages with existing programs or plans.
5. Staff posts the public comment in the relevant budget category.
6. All participants provided with half-page “post-its” to note any suggestions or concerns about
the ideas.
8:40 Closing remarks Mayor
8:45 Participants Vote on Top Priorities with Dots (no more than 1 green and orange dot per item)
9:00 Adjourn
Preparation
Prepare handouts on budget process; current goals & objectives and local revenue measure riorities;
and Community Priorities Survey results.
Set up the room with posting area for each of the budget categories.
Provide participants with half-page post-its.
After receiving public comments, provide the following adhesive dots per attendee: 6 orange for top
Local Sales Tax priorities and 6 green for overall goal priorities.
Council Goal-Setting Workshop
8:30 AM to 4:30 PM
Saturday, January 24, 2015
City-County Library Community Room
8:30 - 9:00 a.m. Refreshments
9:00 - 9:05 a.m. Welcome and Introductions Mayor
9:05 - 9:10 a.m. Purpose, Process & Guidelines Facilitator
9:10 – Noon Review Goals by Category Council
Discuss Relationship of Goals to Current Activities
Formulate and Select Candidate Goals
Noon – 12:15 p.m. [Council may accept further comments from the
public that have not been previously presented]
12:15 – 1:15 Lunch Break [staff compiles candidate goals]
1:15 - 2:15 p.m. Discuss and Clarify the Goals Council
Each Member Prepares a Written Ballot Ranking the Goals
2:15 - 3:15 p.m. Break while staff tabulates the results Staff
3:15 - 4:00 p.m. Review and Identify Major City Goals Council
4:00 - 4:30 p.m. Discuss Next Steps Council/Staff
Preparation
Staff compiles and distributes composite list of candidate goals to Council members.
Staff prepares a template for Council ballot sheet.
Assign staff to enter goal statements into spreadsheet as Council formulates them.
Section 2
Recommended City Goals
COUNCIL ADVISORY BODIES
2015-17 Financial Plan
Council Advisory Body
RECOMMENDED GOALS
December 15, 2014
INTRODUCTION
- 2 -
COUNCIL ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDED GOALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Council Advisory Body Recommended Goals
Architectural Review Commission 4
Bicycle Advisory Committee 6
Cultural Heritage Committee 9
Human Relations Commission 11
Jack House Committee 12
Mass Transportation Committee 13
Parks and Recreation Commission 14
Planning Commission 15
Promotional Coordinating Committee 16
Tourism Business Improvement District Board 17
Tree Committee 18
The following Advisory Bodies did not provide a goal listing:
Housing Authority
Joint Recreational Use Committee
INTRODUCTION
- 3 -
This document summarizes advisory body recommendations to the City Council for
consideration during the 2015-17 Financial Plan period. The goals are listed by advisory body in
alphabetical order.
BACKGROUND
Community input is imperative to the City’s budget process. As part of its extensive outreach
effort, the City Council asks its appointed advisory bodies to provide input as to the most
important projects and tasks the City should pursue during the next two-year financial plan
period. Each advisory body first provides a list of goals independently and is then provided with
a summary of all advisory body goals submitted. This process allows each advisory body to
consider what the other bodies deem important objectives to be accomplished over the next two
years.
REVIEW PROCESS
In 2014, all advisory bodies provided the initial listing of goals after their October meeting. A
consolidated listing of all recommended draft advisory body goals was sent on November 21,
2014 for their review. The final recommendations from each advisory body are provided in
alphabetical order in this report.
GOAL SUMMARY
Several of the goals listed appeared on more than one advisory body submittal and are listed
below:
Alternative Transportation (Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements)
o Architectural Review Commission
o Bicycle Advisory Committee
o Parks & Recreation Commission
o Planning Commission
o Tourism Business Improvement District Board
Homeless Issues and Affordable Housing
o Human Relations Commission
o Planning Commission
o Tourism Board Improvement District
Beatification
o Architectural Review Commission
o Promotional Coordinating Committee
o Tourism Business Improvement District Board
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
- 4 -
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) requests Council consideration of the following
budget goals in priority order:
1. Downtown Concept Plan: Implement the Downtown Concept Plan with focus on the
following:
a. Prepare preliminary plans to enlarge and improve Mission Plaza, including but not
limited to, the Broad Street dogleg.
b. Prepare preliminary plans to extend and improve facilities along the downtown creek-
walk.
Why it’s important: Mission Plaza is the heart and soul of downtown and a premier
gathering spot for concerts and other special events. It is popular with tourists and locals
alike with its location adjacent to the historic Mission and creek walk area. Keeping it vital
and looking at ways to expand it has been a long-term goal.
How to Make it Happen: Use part of the Council authorized $100,000 for a Mission Plaza
Master Plan as part of the 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget review to further explore ways to
achieve the stated goals.
2. Alternative Transportation Incentives:
Use in-lieu parking fees and other transportation revenue sources to implement continuous
bicycle path linkages throughout the city.
3. Community Design Guidelines Update: Prepare updates to the document including:
a. Develop criteria for compatible development in historic zones.
b. Augment and enhance the existing criteria for infill residential development to prevent
out of scale and non-compatible development.
c. Update CDG for neighborhood compatibility to address transitions between
neighborhood commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods
(LUCE §3.5.7.9).
d. Include more images and reference photos to highlight guideline language.
e. Review existing visual resource inventory and provide recommendations for additional
database improvements. Provide guidelines for use of data base in the analysis of
projects as well as additional guidance for the protection of views and vistas (LUCE
§15.1.2).
f. Strengthen and more clearly define guidelines for storefronts and windows in
commercial areas to maintain transparency and prevent the installation of opaque film
and interior signs and displays that obstruct views into stores.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
- 5 -
Why it’s important: The Community Design Guidelines (CDG) is the key document
utilized in the evaluation of design projects. While much more comprehensive and detailed
than past City design documents, it has been 12 years since the basic version of the CDG
was originally adopted. There have been some amendments and additions since 2002, but
the document could use updating, additional graphics, and expanded topics.
How to Make it Happen: Request new funding in the next budget cycle to hire a consultant
to assist with the needed CDG updates.
4. Area Concept Plans:
Create concept plans to look at possible extension of in-lieu parking fees, improved bicycle
and pedestrian improvements, and form-based zoning for other areas of the city, such as:
a. Upper Monterey Street from Santa Rosa to Grand Avenue.
b. Mid Higuera plan area including Higuera and Marsh Streets north to Nipomo.
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- 6 -
On November 20, 2014 the Bicycle Advisory Committee finalized its recommended FY 2015-17
goals for Council consideration. The following table presents the Committee’s goals which are
aligned with current City Goals and not listed in any specific order.
Recommended Goal Why Goal is Important Candidate Funding
PROJECTS
Railroad Safety Trail-
Design and construct:
1) Phillips to Pepper
2) Pepper to the train station
3) Jennifer St. bridge to
Iris (connecting to French
Hospital Trail)
Bob Jones Trail-
Design and construct:
1) Grade separated
crossing of LOVR at
Highway 101
2) Bike path extension from
LOVR to the Octagon
Barn
3) Prefumo Creek bike path
from Target to Calle
Joaquin.
Foothill/Ferrini-
Design and construct
enhanced
bicycle/pedestrian
crossing
Foothill/Patricia/La Entrada-
Design and construct
enhanced
bicycle/pedestrian
crossing
Prado Road Class I-
Design and construct a Class
I bikeway from the current
terminus of Prado Road
to Broad Street.
Broad Street Class I-
Design and construct a Class
I bikeway from Damon
Garcia sports fields to
This goal provides a huge safety
enhancement for a large volume of
bicyclists, a safe bike route to the
University, schools, & parks: implements
General Plan goals to increase bicycle
use and supports Grand Jury
recommendations to close gaps.
The City-to-Sea trail continues to be a
high priority for residents. Additionally,
SLO County is moving forward with their
section of the trail which will increase the
desire for the crossing.
This project has been requested by
neighborhood families that have difficulty
crossing Foothill as they walk and
bicycle their kids to school.
This project has been requested by
neighborhood families that have difficulty
crossing Foothill as they walk and
bicycle their kids to school.
Constructing this bikeway connection
ahead of development will provide an
important east/west bikeway connection
and alternative to Tank Farm Road
during the Chevron remediation efforts.
In conjunction with the Prado Class I
bikeway, this segment provides an
alternative route to the busy Broad
Street corridor.
Project Funding Sources:
State funds
Federal funds
General Fund
City debt financing
Fundraising efforts
Measure G
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- 7 -
Rockview Place.
Penny Lane Bridge-
Design and construct a
bicycle/pedestrian bridge
over the railroad tracks at
Penny Lane.
Sinsheimer Park Pathway-
Construct a paved path
through Sinsheimer Park
from Helena Street to the
Railroad Safety Trail.
Highland/Chorro-
Design and construct a break
in the median to allow for
left turn bicycle
movements.
Madonna Rd Cycle Track-
Design and construct a two-
way bike path on NW side
of Madonna Road from
the Madonna Inn to
Oceanaire Drive.
Islay Bicycle Boulevard-
Design and construct the
City’s second bicycle
boulevard.
Misc. Bicycle Facility
Improvements-
Provide $100,000 in annual
funding for misc. projects
such as safe routes to
school, signing & striping
projects ideally
incorporated into other
construction projects.
This bridge will provide a connection
from downtown to the Johnson Avenue
and Ella Street neighborhoods via the
bicycle facilities currently under
construction at French Hospital.
This project has been requested by
residents from throughout the
community.
This project has been requested by
residents from throughout the
community.
This project will improve bicycle access
to Laguna Middle School.
Bicycle boulevards are facilities that
bicyclists of all abilities feel comfortable
using and therefore increase ridership.
Completing these projects as part of
other construction projects results in
substantial cost savings.
PROGRAMS
Bicycle Safety Education:
Maintain $7,500 in annual
funding
Ped/Bikeway Maintenance:
Maintain $60,000 annually for
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities
Educating the public on cycling
awareness and safety reduces
collisions. Goal supports Grand Jury
goal of promoting safe cycling.
Performing pavement maintenance and
weed control on pedestrian and bicycle
paths will increase the life of these
facilities and reduce the risk of
Program Funding Sources:
State and Federal grants
Transportation Development
Act funds
General Fund
Measure G
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- 8 -
accidents.
STAFFING
Principal Transportation
Planner-
Maintain position.
¼ time Transportation
Programs Assistant-
Restore funding to 0.50 FTE
Bicycle Coordinator-
Add a full time bicycle
coordinator position.
The Principal Transportation Planner
position oversees the City’s bicycle
program in addition to other
transportation duties.
This position was reduced to ¼ time as
part of budget cuts during the Great
Recession.
A permanent full time Bicycle
Coordinator position would
implement Bicycle Transportation
Plan policies and programs, prepare
grant applications, and help manage
capital projects.
Staffing Funding Sources:
General Fund
Measure G
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
- 9 -
Cultural Heritage Committee Goals FY 2015-2017
The Cultural Heritage Committee requests the City Council consider the following goals:
1. City owned Adobes
A. Focus efforts on the preservation and adaptive re-use of the City owned La Loma
Adobe on Lizzie Street and work with the Friends of La Loma Adobe to support their
efforts in stewarding the fundraising efforts towards the property. The structure is in dire
need of a new roof, site maintenance, and exterior work to help avoid the loss of the
resource.
B. Create a re-use plan and preservation plan for the Rosa Butron Adobe on Dana Street.
The structure is in need of a new roof, the removal of non-historic additions, and
maintenance of the site to alleviate potential attractive nuisances.
Why it’s important/How to accomplish:
A. The La Loma adobe is the most significant residential adobe structure in the City with
ties to early California history and regional ties to significant early California families
dating back to 1782. Expedite the partnership with the Friends group by completing an
MOU and assisting with future plans for the property. Outline efforts that can be
completed now within a City CIP.
B. The Butron Adobe can be rehabilitated into a significant community asset, utilizing
the site and grounds for community events and allowing a caretaker to occupy the
residence. Create an adaptive re-use plan for the property and include projects to secure
the structure in an upcoming CIP.
2. Historic Preservation Guidelines Integrate/Update the Historic Context Statement with
the Historic Preservation Guidelines and update the Community Design Guidelines to
include historic preservation standards.
Why it’s important/How to accomplish:
The Historic Preservation Guidelines help guide the development of new projects in
historic districts and the treatment of historic properties. The City’s Context Statement
was completed in 2013 and will further refine the development of the both the Historic
Preservation Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines. Prioritize completion of
these projects in the 2015-2017 budget.
3. Historic Resource Surveys/Historic District Boundaries In alignment with the City’s
status as a Certified Local Government, continue historic resource survey efforts and
examine the boundaries of existing historic districts to determine if amendments are
needed. Utilize a CLG grant and matching City funds to assist with this effort.
Why it’s important/How to accomplish:
The City’s historic districts are comprised of significant historic structures, some of
which have changed over time and some of which have not been surveyed. Other areas of
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
- 10 -
the City such as the Anholm neighborhood contain collections of historic residences that
have not been surveyed for inclusion into a district. This effort could be completed with
the assistance of a consultant utilizing CLG grant funds and matching City “in-kind”
funds.
4. Cultural Heritage “Commission” Explore options for additional collaboration between
the Architectural Review Commission and the CHC -or allow the committee to seek
Commission status to gain autonomy and to allow final actions to be taken, thereby
streamlining and focusing the development review process for historic properties or
historic districts.
Why it’s important/How to accomplish:
The overlap between CHC and ARC for the review of projects in historic districts can be
problematic due to conflicting views/goals. Additional training opportunities, a mixture
of backgrounds for commission/committee members (architectural experts on CHC or
Historic experts on ARC) or the ability for the CHC to take final action on projects within
Historic districts may help.
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
- 11 -
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) makes recommendations to the City Council and staff
on how to best address social concerns and human needs in San Luis Obispo. The HRC serves
as a conduit for input from community members and social service organizations and has the
opportunity to encourage cooperation and collaboration between nonprofit agencies and city
departments.
Why:
A community’s moral value is determined by how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Therefore, the HRC recommends to the Council that the support of basic human needs be
established as a major city goal for 2015-17.
What:
Although there are many worthwhile needs such as senior services, support for youth at risk and
others, given the current fiscal constraints we encourage the city to focus on homeless
prevention, transitional housing and supportive services, including hunger prevention.
Homeless Prevention and Transition Plan
Continue to support a long-term, comprehensive, proactive, sustainable program that addresses
homelessness and focuses on transitioning children, families and individuals out of
homelessness.
How:
1. Continue to work with the County and other local municipalities in implementing the San
Luis Obispo Countywide 10-year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness.
2. Support the development of a comprehensive homeless services facility that includes the
implementation of a Good Neighbor Plan and requires case management enrollment.
3. Balance needs of the homeless population and neighborhood wellness e.g. expanded safe
parking program, transitional programs, meals, etc.
4. Explore ways to increase the affordable and transitional housing inventory using creative
financing, master leasing, and purchase programs.
5. Increase the Grants in Aid budget and General Fund support.
JACK HOUSE COMMITTEE
- 12 -
1. Window Restoration and Residential Elevator Lift Removal: For over 39 years it has been a
goal of those associated with the Jack House to restore the Bay Window on the south side of the
house to its original charm and elegance. The Bay Window used to serve the first floor dining room
and the second floor master bedroom. The Bay Window was removed and replaced with an exterior
elevator shaft to serve the resident at the time. Removing the residential elevator list and restoring
the windows would restore its elegance as well as the missing south light quality to the dining room
and master bedroom. The Jack House Committee (JHC) Advisory Body has worked closely with
the Paragon architectural firm, which has completed the construction documents and cost estimates
for this restoration. The JHC Advisory Body used its own recourses for completion of this phase of
the work. It is anticipated that funding for this project would be a combination of JHC Advisory
Body funds, Kathleen Kaetzel’s endowment to the Jack House Foundation and the remaining
funding from the City general fund.
2. New Outdoor Storage Facility: The Jack House Docents, Parks and Recreation Staff and Public
Works personnel who tend to the Jack House and Gardens have a need for a common storage
facility. At present part of the Buggy Shed, the Jack House Basement and various closets are used in
a make shift manner. A common storage facility would solve this problem and free up the Buggy
Shed for future public uses and historical displays. The JHC Advisory Body recommends a site
located adjacent to the Buggy Shed where the driveway dead ends.
3. Buggy Shed makeover and updating for public use: The Buggy Shed continues to be an integral
part of the Jack House and Gardens. The seismic upgrade is complete and the volunteers have done
an ample amount of work to prepare the space for future public use. However the planning of future
use for small gatherings and the historical display of artifacts cannot be proceed until a new storage
facility is completed on site to accommodate items stored in the Buggy Shed.
4. Marsh Street Cross Walk: The JHC Advisory Body recommends a cross walk be established
between the Manse housing project, the bank and the Jack House. It is long overdue and has become
a dangerous crossing for pedestrians. This cross walk could also serve a future trolley stop. A
member of the Committee has been invited to serve on workshops, meetings and other efforts in the
Pedestrian Plan development for the City.
5. Installation and Design of Original Cistern Pump: The original cistern reservoir still exists under
the rear patio at the back of the House. Its location and image can be discerned by the design of the
paving pattern. However, the final design remains unfinished. To complete the final design the
cistern pump, which is in storage, needs to be remounted in the original location in a similar manner
and designed as it formerly was.
6. Digital Collections Catalog: The Jack House collection inventory - the responsibility of
maintaining an inventory of the collection is outlined in the Grant Deed - exists currently as
handwritten inventory sheets. For improved access and security of collections data, the inventory
sheets will be transcribed and entered into a digital database program. The inventory will
simultaneously be updated and expanded to include history, condition, and legal status for each
object. Objects will be linked to their data records with improved labeling. This effort comes in
conjunction with the creation of a Collections Management Policy which is now being written.
MASS TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- 13 -
On November 12th, 2014 the Mass Transit Advisory Committee drafted its recommended FY 2015-17
goals for Council consideration. The following table presents the Committee’s draft goals which are
aligned with current City Goals and not listed in any specific order.
RECOMMENDED GOAL
WHY GOAL IS IMPORTANT
CANDIDATE FUNDING
Projects
Additional Staffing:
Create additional full-time staffing
position for Transportation
Programs Implementation.
Currently there are only two
staff members maintaining
transit financial, operational and
administrative functions. The
City's adopted goals for modal
split puts a significant emphasis
on public transit, which in turn
will need the additional support.
Project Funding Sources:
Transit Enterprise Fund
Expanded Services: Support
expanded transit services into
evening, weekends and summer
periods.
Public transit is a viable and life
sustaining means of transportation
for those who elect alternative
transportation and especially for
those who are transit-dependent.
Service levels need to ensure
availability of services beyond
current levels to meet daily
activities of those who use transit.
Of course, where feasible and are
supported by the public.
Project Funding Sources: Transit
Enterprise Fund
Representation In Planning
Review Process: Ensure Transit
has a presence in development
planning and review processes.
To ensure that developments are
designed transit-friendly and take
into consideration best-practices
and the needs of those who elect to
use public transit as well as those
who are transit-dependent.
Project Funding Sources: Transit
Enterprise Fund As part of
Developer's process
Reduce Impact of Public Events
On Transit :
Include Transit review and impact
mitigation measures from public
events which impact and cut-off
vital transit services.
While representing economic
development for our City, public
events have a social-economic
impact on those who elect to use
public transit and especially to
those who are transit-dependent
when they deny access to transit
services.
Program Funding Sources:
Transit Enterprise Fund
As part of Event Planner's process
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
- 14 -
General Goals:
1. Proactively address the community’s current and future recreational needs. Accomplish
this by providing the sufficient resources to the Parks and Recreation Department to:
a. Complete a Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment.
b. Complete the evaluation and update the Parks and Recreation Element.
c. Complete a Parks and Recreation Master Plan for current and future parks and
recreation and open space needs which could include new facilities, parks and open
space land acquisitions, trails, and amenities, as well as the maintenance of the same.
2. Support the ongoing maintenance of parks and recreation facilities and open space
through adequate staffing and funding for the same.
Specific Goal Regarding Sinsheimer Park Tennis Courts:
Provide lighting at the existing tennis courts at a Sinsheimer Park for use by the general public.
Specific Goal Regarding Laguna Lake Conservation Plan:
Implement the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and use the Parks and
Recreation Commission as an Advisory Body monitoring progress on the same.
PLANNING COMMISSION
- 15 -
On October 22, 2014, the Planning Commission discussed budget goals and recommended
priorities to the City Council for consideration in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Below is their list
of recommended budget goals. We have scheduled their final review of the budget goals for
December 10, 2014 to allow enough time for review of the Consolidated Advisory Body goals.
Draft Planning Commission Recommended Goals:
1. Emphasize affordable housing programs, encourage workforce housing, and identify
partnerships for financing opportunities.
2. Address and improve the relations between students and residents in neighborhoods
surrounding Cal Poly, including housing, communication, neighborhood protection, parking,
and infrastructure. Explore the creation of an Overlay Zone near Cal Poly with regulations
on density, neighborhood compatibility, housing types, parking, and behavior.
3. Increase support for non-auto related transportation alternatives in plan and project approvals
as well as program implementation through budgeting priorities. Analyze parking in
neighborhoods comprehensively as a way to encourage non-automobile alternatives by
addressing rebalancing, innovation, pricing, guidance, and parking structures.
4. Stress early implementation of the updated Land Use and Circulation Element high-priority
programs.
5. Encourage expansion and stewardship of City Open Space.
6. Maintain a sustainable City budget and level of services by focusing on infrastructure
maintenance, new revenue sources, and prudent use of Measure G funds.
7. Implement the Economic Development Strategic Plan.
PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE
- 16 -
Proposed Major City Goals for 2015-17
Background
Consistent with its assigned role, the adopted goals concentrate on improvements and
enhancements that would make the City of San Luis Obispo an even better place to reside and
visit. The PCC did not weigh the goals since the members felt that they were equally important.
Goals
Beautification of the City and opportunities to incorporate art into public spaces. Support
the enforcement of City policies affecting the look of the City and the gateways.
Increase the efforts to make SLO more pedestrian and bike friendly by enhancing the
local infrastructure and signage, and increase the awareness of their availability.
Enhance awareness and availability of the natural spaces in and around town to residents
and visitors. Support the effort of the Tree Committee and the enhancement of the Urban
Forrest.
Support the collaboration between the PCC and TBID to ensure an excellent and unique
SLO experience for residents and visitors.
Support collaboration with local cultural, recreational and competitive sports events to
drive visitors to San Luis Obispo.
Continue to implement the process to make event organization and permitting easy, cost
effective, and user friendly. As a City embrace and facilitate events as much as possible.
Finish the build-out of the directional wayfinding program.
Increase PCC funding to promote cultural, recreational, and social events that enhance
the quality of life for residents and bring and keep tourists in San Luis Obispo. Consider
establishing a correlation between PCC funding and TOT collection.
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD
- 17 -
Proposed Major City Goals for 2015-17
Background
The Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) board reviewed its 2013-15 goals and felt
that they were still valid. The board recommended some updates and additions and the members
hope that some of the goals will make it into the 2015-17 work program to improve the visitor
experience in San Luis Obispo. The TBID board did not weigh its goals, keeping them all
equally important.
Goals
Recognize tourism as an integral aspect of the City’s economic development efforts and
support the tourism promotion activities of the TBID and PCC.
Continue to develop a process to make event organization and permitting easy, cost
effective, and user friendly. As a City embrace and facilitate events as much as possible.
Support the San Luis Obispo Airport in its efforts to keep airline services in town and
assist with marketing efforts to bring visitors to San Luis Obispo by plane. Encourage the
upgrade of the arrival area in the airport as well as the expansion of the regional airport.
Establish a City shuttle service to outer areas (LOVR, Madonna, Airport) as well as the
train station to facilitate visits to Downtown San Luis Obispo.
Increase funding for the Promotional Coordinating Committee in its efforts to promote
cultural, recreational, and social events that bring and keep tourists in San Luis Obispo.
Consider establishing a correlation between PCC funding and TOT collection.
Beautification of City Gateways and the City’s downtown core and continue the
implementation of the wayfinding sign program i.e.; Monument/entrances, plant fountain
Enhance security relative to transient populations throughout the City so residents and
tourists can feel safe while enjoying activities in San Luis Obispo.
Increase emphasis on making the City more bike and pedestrian friendly and completion
of the Bob Jones bike path as a connection between San Luis Obispo and the beach.
TREE COMMITTEE
- 18 -
Increase the operating budget and staffing for the Urban Forest (Program 50220 Tree Maintenance)
Why?
To ensure the vitality of our urban forest, where trees are trimmed on a regular basis, trees are replaced, new
trees are planted and all the trees under our jurisdiction within the city are cared for in a manner that adds
value to the city and reduces risk. San Luis Obispo has been a Tree City USA, for 31 consecutive years now
since 1983.
How?
1. Increase staffing by adding a fourth full time position to the Tree Crew. Three people is the industry
standard size crew for most efficient tree trimming. The division needs a fourth full time small tree care
specialists to maintain the Commemorative Grove and the numerous replacements and newly planted
trees. A full time position was approved last budget cycle for that task; however the division gave up a
Management position and two Part Time field employees for the one position.
2. Increase the budget $ 20,000 for Contract Services from $40,000 to the historical amount of $60.000
before cuts over the last 10 years decreased this critical element of maintaining the Urban Forest and
contract dollars do not go as far as they once did.
3. Increase budget for one year to purchase a stump grinder for Tree Crew for $30,000.00.
4. Increase overall budget by $10,000.00 a year to keep up with necessary tools, training, education and
operating expenses.
5. Approve the proposed Urban Forest Capital Improvement Project requests in order to catch up from
years of declining rotation time and drought related issues.
These increases will help to bring the city closer to parity with other cities of a similar population and
number of trees. The City has 20,000 street and park trees under our direct jurisdiction that are cared for by
the Urban Forestry Crew, as well as assisting with Creek and Open Space issues. Many cities with a similar
number of trees under their care have much larger budgets and personnel for the Urban Forest.
ADVISORY BODIES, GOAL-SETTING & THE BUDGET PROCESS
PURPOSE OF THE CITY’S BUDGET
The City has adopted a number of long term goals
and plans – General Plan, Water and Sewer Master
Plans, Source Reduction, Recycling & Hazardous
Materials Plans, Pavement Management Plan, Short
Range Transit Plan, Downtown Access and Parking
Plan, Waterways Management Plan, Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program, Bicycle Plan, Public
Art Policy, Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s
Center and Facilities Master Plan.
The Financial Plan is the key tool for
programming implementation of these goals, plans
and policies by allocating the resources necessary
to do so.
This requires a budget process that:
Clearly sets major City goals and other
important objectives.
Establishes reasonable timeframes and
organizational responsibility for achieving them.
Allocates resources for programs and projects.
FINANCIAL PLAN FEATURES
Goal-Driven
Policy-Based
Multi-Year
Automated, Rigorous, Technically Sound
COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING
First Step in the Budget Process. Linking goals
with resources requires a budget process that
identifies key objectives at the very beginning of the
process. Setting goals and priorities should drive
the budget process, not follow it.
PROCESS FOR 2015-17
Setting the Stage: November 13, 2014. Council
Workshop to Review the status of the General Plan
programs, current Major City Goals, long-term
Capital Improvement Plan, current CIP projects, and
the City’s general fiscal condition and outlook.
Budget Foundation: December 16, 2014. Finalize
plans for the goal-setting process and the
Community Forum, review fiscal policies, review
financial results for 2013-14 and general fiscal
outlook, including General Fund Five-Year Fiscal
Forecast.
Community Forum: January 13, 2015 Consider
candidate goals from Council advisory bodies,
community groups and interested individuals.
Council Goal-Setting Workshop: January 24,
2015. Discuss candidate goals presented at January
13 workshop; discuss Council member goals; and
prioritize and set major City goals for 2015-17.
Major City Goal Work Programs: April 21, 2015
(revised date). Conceptually approve detailed work
programs for major City goals and set strategic
budget direction for 2015-17.
ADVISORY BODY ROLE
By providing the Council with their goal
recommendations, advisory bodies play a very
important part in this process. For example,
virtually all of the advisory body recommendations
received as part of this process two years ago were
included in some way in the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Council goals, by their nature, tend to be broader in
scope than those developed by advisory bodies. In
your recommendations to the Council, please
consider what you believe would be appropriate
City goals, both from the perspective of your
advisory body’s purpose, as well as any perceived
community-wide concerns and needs.
Council advisory body goals are due on November
18, 2014. Advisory bodies will receive a
consolidated listing of all recommended advisory
body goals on November 21, 2014. This provides
advisory bodies with an opportunity to review what
other advisory bodies see as high community
priorities; and while not required, it is also an
opportunity to revise goals in light of these if they
want to do so. Changes in goals, if any, are due on
December 15, 2014. The Council will receive the
final report with all advisory body recommendations
before they begin the goal-setting process in January
2015.
Section 3
Recommended City Goals
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES SURVEY
RESULTS OF COMMUNITY PRIORITIES SURVEY
BACKGROUND
Citizen feedback and input is a cornerstone of the
City’s budget process and an integral part of the
decision making on Major City Goals.
In addition to encouraging participation in the
budget workshops, the community survey asks the
City’s residents to share their priorities for the City
to accomplish over the next two years. Additionally
it asks for feedback on possible program and service
adjustment in order to accomplish the goals.
SURVEY DISTRIBUTION
In order to reach as many residents as possible, the
City utilizes several outreach methods including:
• Utility Invoice inserts
• City website
o Open City Hall
• City public counters
• Newspaper ads
• Outreach to 200 community groups
SURVEY PARTICIPATION
470 online and hard copy survey responses were
received by December 22, 2014. It is worth noting
that this reflects a 68% increase in participation
compared to the same survey conducted two years
ago, when 279 responses were received over the
same time period. This increase is primarily
attributable to increased outreach efforts and the
City’s new open government portal, where survey
responses were submitted online at
www.slocity.org/opencityhall. Of the 470 responses
received, 291 were submitted via mail and 179 were
submitted online on the Open City Hall website.
This volume of responses is also notable since the
survey is an “open-ended” template which requires
thought and effort on the part of respondents. As
surveys continue to be received, the Council will
receive an updated summary on January 21, 2015.
SURVEY RESULTS
It is important to point out that this is not a
“scientific survey” and as such caution should be
used when interpreting the results. Nonetheless,
staff believe the results are useful—especially when
viewed in conjunction with the other forms of
feedback the Council will receive in this process—in
gaining additional insight into the wishes, views, and
concerns of the community.
Since these are “open-ended” responses, it is not
possible to provide a simple, analytical summary of
the results. Nonetheless, clear themes emerged. The
charts below summarize “Top Themes,” presented in
order of the most common responses.
How Does this Compare with Other Surveys?
Two Years Ago. The same survey on priorities was
conducted two years ago as part of the 2013-15
Financial Plan. The results are similar for both,
community priorities and related program
adjustments. Although the importance of priorities
has changed over time, most of the themes have
remained consistent.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
What should be the most important, highest priority
goals during 2015-17?
Responses are reproduced verbatim. Where a response is shown more than once, it was received in duplicate.
1. Use more technology to better communicate with residents
2. Find better solutions to homeless problem
3. Explore ways to reach a better balance in neighborhoods w/ students and non-students
4. Continue support of tech companies locating in the city
5. Affordable housing
1. My first priority is for an effective Neighborhood Wellness program. In order to be effective and
successful, it must be adequately funded. The addition of only two Neighborhood Specialists for the
entire city is inadequate. If something is done, it should be done right and fully funded. This
endeavor was doomed to inadequacy due to under-funding and understaffing.
2. I am in favor of the Rental Housing Inspection program but only if it is adequately funded. I believe
that I heard Derek Johnson make a statement at the Study Session that somewhere it is estimated
that one code enforcement representative is necessary for 4,000 homes. If the City believes that
only one code enforcement officer will be needed to inspect the 4,000 R-1 rental homes, I am afraid
that this will be another inadequately funded program and doomed to failure.
3. How does the City plan to pay for the mitigation of the proposed CP Freshman Dorm South project.
The City accepted a cap of $500,000 for all mitigation that CP accepted as their fair share. CP
accepted NO liability for the very intersection, Slack/Grand where the dorms will be built. The City
has already determined that a traffic signal is necessary at that corner. That is only one of the City
staff identified lacks in mitigation.
4. Will the City fund specific officers to police the neighborhoods surrounding CP on Thursday, Friday,
and Saturday to decrease the drugs, firearm use, petty crime, vandalism, nuisance, etc. Having two
police officers assigned to the downtown has been a big improvement to my lay enjoyment of
downtown. It would be nice to see the statistics on this program and see if it is as successful as I
perceive.
5. Will the City strongly encourage Cal Poly to enter into REITs to provide quick, economical, on-
campus housing to fulfill their responsibility? This may mean that Cal Poly would need to forgo
millions in profits but would provide housing quickly. Will the City be strongly encouraging Cal Poly
to rapidly build on-campus housing to accommodate at least 75% of their students before increasing
enrollment? This would help bring our rental percentages back to a normal level and provide
workforce housing that the City is so interested in providing.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Strongly encourage Cal Poly to house more students on campus, without destroying neighborhoods
as they did with their Housing South project.
2. Enforce limits on the high number of students packed illegally into individual rented homes, causing
neighborhoods to deteriorate.
3. Find ways to discourage real estate speculators from buying family homes and converting those into
mini-dorms, for the sole purpose of making money now, increasing home prices and decreasing
available family and workforce housing.
4. Actually cite, not just warn, students who disturb neighborhood peace by drinking and partying on
front lawns. Let Cal Poly, their parents, and property owners/managers know about these violators.
Make the property owners responsible for fines.
1. Bike and Pedestrian Paths are essential for tying neighborhoods and the town center together.
2. Better lighting on the walking/bike path along the railroad. It is currently unsafe to bike along the
path after dark. It is impossible to see pedestrians.
1. Expand Hours at SLO Swim Center, Have less closure dates
2. Continue Sports programs for kids
3. Continue Hiking & Open Space maintenance
4. Continue Street & Sidewalk Maintenance
1. To enhance tourism and local citizens' enjoyment of our City's scenery, our goal should be to
eliminate as many billboards as possible in the City and in its approaches on Hwy 101.
1. Protect Scenic 101 (PS101) is a local citizens' group dedicated to helping retire the "grandfathered"
billboards in SLO City and County. We urge the City to establish a program to help buy out a given
number of billboards each year.
1. Protecting personal property rights
2. Soccer Fields
3. Removing Aggressive Homeless
1. Improve traffic flow, widen Tank Farm.
2. Get homeless off streets and into housing
3. Help Transitions Mental Health with projects
4. Add hours to rec programs esp. Sinsheimer
5. Encourage Cal Poly to increase housing
1. Controlling rentals and their impact on neighborhoods.
2. Better policing of students regarding alcohol, drugs, partying - especially near campus.
3. Homeless people, including safety of others, especially in downtown area.
4. Downtown has become primarily bars and eating places. It has lost its importance in shopping.
Because rents are too high?
5. Downtown is now the social fulfillment center!
1. Homeless issues.
2. Community - student issues (renters).
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Deferred maintenance of building.
2. Paying off debt.
3. Not increasing taxes.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
5. Economic development.
1. Reconsider building 1,600 more houses?
2. Come on - are we wanting to change the beauty here? Build it... and they will come!
3. Look at LOVR - what a mess - the traffic!
1. Homeless youth - getting them off the street safe from human-trafficking vulnerability.
1. Sales tax: this City is in urgent need of a good department store (like Macy's), City Council - make
this happen so sales taxes remain in SLO.
1. Traffic Flow
2. Construction of Pickleball courts
3. Continued water conservation
1. Develop Prado overpass and connection to Broad
2. New softball fields within city limits
1. Transients
2. Traffic (infrastructure)
1. promoting mid range cost housing
2. promoting high tech industry
3. keeping downtown clean and safe
1. Head of Household jobs
2. Affordable Housing
3. Reducing Homeless and coordinating the services that are available in this city to be more effective
4. Paying down the Unfunded Pension Liability
5. Vocational Education
1. Keep costs down. What's the point? Won't happen.
1. I suspect that a lot of homeless and mentally ill people are migrating or being dumped on our city by
other cities and counties because of our generosity.
1. Homelessness!!! People must realize that homeless are humans and most are: mental & lazy.
2. Good old "common sense"!! What happened?? So many good things come from it. Like: manners,
right & wrong.
3. The police officers: Some have their head in the clouds, others hide to give tickets 'cause they're
running behind.
4. Recreation for: young adults, seniors and most of all our younger kids of all ages.
5. (GANGS) of any kind. Need to be stopped before, in people get hurt and starts a domino effect.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Homelessness.
2. Put utility lines underground.
3. Put utility lines underground.
4. Economic development.
5. Provide ways for moderate-income folks to live here.
1. Live within your own budget instead of raising fees. We have to!
1. Keeping SLO SLO. Small town USA. Not too big business. Keep it unique.
2. Homelessness issues. Please work to keep low income housing to an absolute minimum (crime goes
up).
1. Bike and pedestrian, especially paths along with lanes.
2. Smart growth or "no" growth (we don't / won't have water or schools).
3. Homelessness.
4. Neighborhood wellness / code violations.
5. Open space.
1. Re-establish residential R-1 housing as owner-occupied: not by 12 Cal Poly students!
2. Re-establish residential R-1 housing as owner-occupied: not by 12 Cal Poly students!
3. Keep all streets paved and planted.
4. Do not encourage homeless to come here: no more expansion of "shelters."
5. Hire and treat well good City employees: buy domestic vehicles for City use: no Prius!
1. Homelessness.
2. Essential service / infrastructure / fiscal health.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
1. Remove homeless from downtown.
2. Fix streets.
3. Curb drunken Cal Poly students, etc.
1. Repair (replace) aging underground infrastructure for water and sewer.
2. Redirect some of the profound downtown improvement expenditures and direct them toward the
rest of our neighborhoods.
3. Continue the good progress with homeless issues.
4. Do more to deter downtown panhandling.
5. Slow down the rampant new development.
1. Making sure growth downtown fits in with existing structures so the architecture matches existing
(i.e. not like Cal Poly).
2. Homeless problem - panhandlers downtown.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Essential services, infrastructure, street maintenance.
2. Neighborhood wellness.
3. Homelessness.
4. Economic development.
5. Keep downtown safe and attractive.
1. Open space - Why is it, even though it was citizen choice #1 for 2 years, it got shunted to "extras"?
2. Convincing Cal Poly to house more students on campus with shuttles etc. like Santa Cruz.
3. Vigilant maintenance of what we have. Growth should be in quality, not expansion.
4. Improving rental control until progress on #2 above is made (new affordable homes can quickly add
to the rental percentage).
5. Homeless services.
1. Too many people in our downtown area.
2. Bicycle riders not obeying traffic laws.
3. Red curbs need to be painted near fire hydrants.
4. Too many bars in downtown SLO.
5. Sidewalks in downtown need to be cleaned.
1. Maintain open space, bike paths, parks etc. for quality of life and unique character of City.
2. Attract higher-end department store(s) such as Macy's. There are professional people other than
students who work here.
3. Continue community events such as those downtown or at Mission Plaza - great for community
well-being.
1. Essential services / infrastructure.
2. Bike and pedestrian paths.
3. Renew downtown.
4. Economic development.
5. Homelessness.
1. Keep the City clean and attractive.
2. Safe for hikers and bikers.
3. Ticket speeders and those that do not make full stops at stop signs.
1. Homelessness.
2. Assess and renew downtown.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
4. Get this done, it will be enough.
1. Have one bill per month for water - not two.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Reconsider the ill-advised vote on expanding housing near the airport. This vote is not in the best
interests housing wise for the city's citizens. To say the city will not be responsible for any accidents
or problems as a result of this housing construction is ridiculous ... of course, the city will be held
responsible and tax dollars will be used to pay for resulting lawsuits.
2. Assist in the completion of the homeless shelter.
3. Expand open space and walking/biking trail opportunities.
4. Improve traffic signal wait times at high use intersections (e.g., Madonna and Oceannaire, Madonna
and LOVR).
1. Implement the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Plan
2. Light the Tennis Courts at Sinsheimer Park
3. Help Small Businesses keep young family workforce (housing)
4. Support development within City Area Specific plans
5. Plan funding for maintenance/on-going costs with all new projects
1. Limit over development-residential
2. Improve water conservation
3. Improve recycling options
1. Protection of Laguna Lake
2. Open Space maintenance
1. Repair streets and roads
2. Protect neighborhoods from students, homeless and commercial encroachment
3. Mitigate traffic impacts
4. Better bike lanes
5. Expand programs at Sinsheimer Pool.
1. Maintenance of existing infrastructure.
2. Additional funding for sports fields.
1. Public Facility upgrades
1. full sized baseball facility
1. Dredge Laguna Lake
2. Manage homeless in parks and downtown
3. Increase police foot patrols downtown evenings
1. citizen safety
2. maintenance of infrastructure
3. enforcing safety laws, especially traffic.
1. More bicycle lanes and walkable areas
2. Dredging Laguna Lake
3. Less traffic
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Repave all the City streets that need repair.
2. Dredge Laguna Lake for refilling. It is a benefit to all citizens. Even though I live on San Luis
Mountain, I use Laguna Park at times.
3. Other than above, I am happy with the City. I have lived here since 1943 and in my house on Luneta
Drive since 1959!
1. Keeping homeless off City streets.
2. Curbing student rentals.
3. Housing for active senior couples and some people like to walk - less attention on bicycles.
4. Traffic lights - Taft & California. Require sidewalks citywide and fix broken sidewalks.
5. Macy's, Dillard’s - major retailers for downtown.
1. Finish Bob Jones Trail.
2. Finish Bob Jones Trail.
3. Finish Bob Jones Trail.
1. Essential services, infrastructure, fiscal health.
2. Neighborhood wellness.
3. Homelessness.
4. Economic development.
1. Safety.
2. Neighborhood wellness and street and sidewalk maintenance.
3. Tree trimming - 2 trucks had their roof damaged by our low limbs.
4. Creek maintenance - It is now a wilderness back there.
5. Essential services to all of us taxpayers. NO on skate park - will get sued when kids are hurt!
1. Dredge & restore Laguna Lake.
2. Dredge & restore Laguna Lake.
3. Dredge & restore Laguna Lake.
4. Dredge & restore Laguna Lake.
5. Dredge & restore Laguna Lake.
1. Open space preservation.
2. Neighborhood stabilization and wellness.
3. Maintain infrastructure and essential services and fiscal health.
4. Bicycle and pedestrian paths (railroad safety trail).
5. Homelessness. Rehabilitate Laguna Lake and create special benefit district.
1. Finish Bob Jones Trail.
2. Clean downtown up! Disgusting.
1. Complete the Bob Jones Trail.
2. Keep persons from begging in downtown streets.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Reducing the homeless from our streets.
2. Maintaining utility and streets infrastructure.
3. Keep quality staff / attracting quality staff.
4. Keeping character of downtown - not losing landmarks, or figuring out how to incorporate into new
development / honor (e.g. Foster's Freeze).
5. Keep SLO great!
1. Bike lanes.
2. Why are we building more out by the airport? Where are they getting their water? I hope not by
taking from us old-timers.
3. Ease up on the students - they live on both sides of us and they haven't been a problem, but they
have gotten tickets.
4. Who in our neighborhood complain about everything getting tired of.
1. Safety for citizens.
2. Moral leadership in our County.
3. Streets.
4. You mostly do a very good job of administration.
1. Homeless, especially homeless mentally ill. Get Sunny Acres going and new Prado, Hope Village,
temporary places.
2. Panhandling & downtown safety. It's a "lark" for some young men.
3. Bike paths.
4. Neighborhood wellness. I do trash pickup with dogs. Assign jail crews, "honor farm" etc.
5. Skate park. Young men need places to go besides downtown benches.
1. Deal with the "transients" throughout the City, not just the downtown. The City should differentiate
between transients and the truly homeless.
2. Finally dredge Laguna Lake.
3. Improve the efficiency of our traffic lights - this would improve traffic congestion a bit.
4. Senior programs - this has been a long-time neglected area.
5. Maintain out current parks. Some are, but many look bad, tree stumps should be removed, weeds,
replace downed trees / major cracks in sidewalks, rusted picnic tables, etc.
1. Workforce housing
2. increased economic opportunity/good jobs
3. improve physical infrastructure
4. making a "walkable" resident-friendly community
5. support/provide physical fitness activities for all populations
1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
2. Control of influx of aggressive vagrant population.
3. Improve traffic flow within City limits.
4. Improve sanitation to downtown - clean vomit from sidewalks on Higuera and Marsh and Rachel
Bridge.
5. Improve responsiveness of City employees / Administration to resident needs and concerns.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Protect people from transients
2. Crack down on drunken students
3. Control overcrowded rentals in family areas
1. Reducing homeless population and aggressive panhandling
2. Providing more services for senior citizens - larger, more accessible senior center, perhaps adult day
care/activities with transportation included
3. Maintaining streets and providing for better traffic flow
4. Finding ways to encourage small, local businesses - especially in the downtown area
5. Address future pension obligations
1. Reduce pension obligations (long-term problem).
2. Reduce County staff by outsourcing as many functions as possible.
3. Actively lobby (by litigation if necessary) to force Cal Poly to create sufficient on-campus housing to
cover 85% of enrollment.
4. Remove subjectivity from County Planning Department Staff. Decision should be based on objective
standards.
1. Remove vagrants from downtown areas, library, and kids parks.
2. Widen Tank Farm road between Higuera and Broad Streets.
3. Widen Orcutt Road between Johnson and Tank Farm.
4. Crack down on public drunkenness downtown at night.
5. Divert Buckley Road so it comes out nearer LOVR instead of Suburban Road.
1. Continue renewing and improving infrastructure on Higuera Street between Osos and Nipomo.
2. Construct improvements to reduce flooding on Mid-Higuera area.
3. Continue to improve arterial street capacity by completion of widening in uncompleted areas. (Mid-
Higuera, lower Higuera, Madonna, Los Osos Valley Road).
4. A) Adopt plan line for Los Osos Valley Road - Buckley Road connection and B) construction of Prado
Road structure at 101.
5. Dredge Laguna Lake.
1. Infrastructure, essential services, fiscal health.
2. Homelessness / jobs training, mental health educations.
3. Economic vitality.
4. Bike and pedestrian paths.
5. Government transparency.
1. Essential services - 1. Water system. 2. Road maintenance. 3. Fiscal health.
2. Create and maintain open space.
3. Neighborhood wellness - 1. Noise abatement. 2. Code enforcement.
4. Library funding.
5. More funding for tree program - so that staff's available to check and enforce Tree Committee
decisions.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Essential services - emergency preparedness (Fire Department). Police Department seems TOO well-
funded to us.
2. Infrastructure - streets, sewers, water, gas lines, electric lines all need to be safe and well-
maintained.
3. Neighborhood wellness (Parks and Rec) bike paths, walks. I would like a bike path from
neighborhoods to downtown.
4. Economic development = business and poor families development gives kids a change for work
experience of business start-up.
5. Keep downtown growing and beautiful.
1. Reduce the number of rentals - get more owner-occupied homes. Crack down on rental abuses and
noisy renters.
1. Parking for Bishop Peak Trailhead.
2. Parking for Bishop Peak Trailhead.
3. Parking for Bishop Peak Trailhead.
4. Parking for Bishop Peak Trailhead.
5. Parking for Bishop Peak Trailhead.
1. Enlarge current reservoirs to increase capacity to retain as much rain as possible.
1. Hold all increases to any budget. The City needs to hold all companies to a budget and not keep
increasing costs. MY budget does not go up because you can't manage.
1. Preserve and protect the City's open spaces and hillsides and view corridors.
2. Control density and building growth. Keep SLO a small urban core surrounded by nature and ag uses
i.e. keep and maintain the quality of our environment.
3. Anything else is secondary and minor.
1. Neighborhood wellness.
2. Essential services, etc.
3. Assess and renew downtown.
4. Homelessness.
5. Bike and pedestrian paths.
1. Homelessness.
2. Downtown - dealing with transients, making safer and cleaner.
3. Economic development - we need more head-of-household jobs.
4. Renew infrastructure.
5. More youth recreation opportunities.
1. Water conservation.
2. Solar energy.
3. Homeless services.
4. Free vacant spaces instead of new development.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Removing homeless from downtown.
2. Keeping sidewalks clean by pressure washing on a regular schedule.
3. No meters on Sunday.
4. No more bars downtown.
5. A department store!!
1. Add housing supply to the market.
2. Increase efficiency and reduce uncertainty in the approval process for development projects.
3. Remove affordable housing policies that increase the costs of market rate housing.
4. Seek alternative funding sources for regional parks and infrastructure projects currently
overburdening new housing projects and inflating the costs of market rate housing.
5. Improve alignment of City zoning with City design guidelines so intended and planned for densities
can be achieved.
1. Working with City neighborhoods to deny the building of CAL POLY's dorm project adjacent to Slack
Ave.
2. Reducing the number of bars in close proimity to each other. i.e. Higuera Str.
3. Securing a method to discourage employers from hiring illegals.
1. Creating an All-Age Friendly Community
2. Public Safety (street lighting, sidewalk repair, traffic speeding etc)
3. Encourage real estate developers to propose senior friendly housing
4. Invest in Repair of City Parks (Meadow)
5. Expedite a Humane Homeless Shelter
1. Reversing the flood of student rentals taking over family housing and neighborhoods
2. Focus more on maintaining healthy family neighborhoods, to encourage owner occupancy and
workforce housing
3. Focus less on making the downtown "pretty".
4. Discourage commercial "sprawl" to the Madonna and LOVR commercial zones.
1. Neighborhood Wellness
2. Get CP to take responsibility for the adverse effects on the neighborhoods
3. Fund more Neighborhood Services Specialists
4. Hire more Indians and fewer chiefs
1. Reduce or alleviate number of parked cars in residential areas. I live next to a house with 5 students,
and with their friends, there are often six or seven cards parked in front of or right next to my house,
225 Jeffrey Drive.
2. Limit the number of student rentals in my neighborhood.
1. Remove politicians who are self-serving that have agendas (not congruent to the populace or the
context of philosophy that they serve) with validated elections nationwide.
1. Become efficient! The City is becoming very bureaucratic. The Public Works department would be a
good place to start.
2. The police seem more interested in writing tickets than supporting our community.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Lower taxes by saving money. How many envelopes do you mail with water bills to people on
automatic payment>
1. Homeless - support DuVall in his efforts. Rather than one huge new homeless shelter, I'd like several
(or a few smaller - more homey) ones.
2. Enforce ordinances against visible trash barrels and noisy vehicles.
3. Bring back free parking on Sundays!
1. Enforce "all" traffic laws for "everyone," including students! (Students get a free ride here. It's just
plain wrong).
2. Review the process that Santa Cruz used for handling homelessness.
3. Bike and pedestrian paths. There are far too many vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents.
4. Neighborhood wellness. "Be proud of where you live."
5. Economic development with better wages.
1. Homelessness.
2. Bike and pedestrian paths.
3. Skate park.
4. Essential services, infrastructure, fiscal health.
5. Neighborhood wellness.
1. Eradicate homelessness or put it under control!!
2. Curtail personal assaults in downtown area and the rest of the cities.
1. Neighborhood wellness.
2. Essential services, infrastructure and fiscal health.
1. Homelessness - housing first.
2. Re-entry services for ex-offenders coming back to our community due to AB 109 and Prop 47.
3. Detox and treatment center in County.
1. Stop adding taxes to the middle income families! We do more to help those with nothing (and who
contribute nothing monetary) than we do for the group who pays for those programs! It's killing the
middle class!!
1. Assess and renew the downtown.
2. Economic development.
3. Essential services, infrastructure and fiscal health.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Neighborhood wellness - includes more effective patrol of neighborhood collector streets Thursday
p.m. - Saturday/Sunday p.m./a.m. and on holidays when student are still here; partnering with local
colleges to change studentification and student culture, e.g. during WOW (police walk-thru); using
grant money to teach ordinances and better behavior; restoring R-1 housing to affordable workforce
housing with restrictive deeds; rental inspections of R1-R2 and SO ON...
2. Relieve traffic congestion.
3. Maintain open space and ag land.
4. Energy efficiency.
5. Water supply and quality.
1. Essential services, infrastructure and fiscal health.
2. Neighborhood wellness.
3. Homelessness.
4. Assess and renew downtown.
5. Economic development. Bike and pedestrian paths.
1. These area all good priorities. I would put open space funding near the top of the list. It would also
be nice to see funding go to our address and other historical sites.
1. Traffic mitigation, especially near 101 and Target area.
2. Economic development (bring more retail stores to area).
3. Build student housing on campus.
4. Homelessness.
1. Homeless conduct in city! They are ruining our town!
1. Fiscal responsibility by reducing taxes.
1. 86 Diablo!
1. Keep creeks clean.
2. Public transportation as-is, and evening service.
3. Work on fixing curb cuts for wheelchair access.
4. Maintain noise control in evening after 10:00 p.m.
5. Work on pedestrian-friendly access downtown.
1. Homelessness - they're camping on my property adjacent to Madonna property.
2. Bike paths.
3. Better policing of: 1. Cars and trucks who deny cyclists their rights (I use bikes for everything and it is
terrible!) 2. Pedestrians who ignore red lights downtown, again, denying rights of cyclists who obey
laws. Sorry, this is not a bicycle-friendly town. We need police support!
1. Repeal property tax increase - schools.
2. Infrastructure.
1. Implement the Laguna Lake Nature Reserve Master Plan
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Enforce the laws of the road on bicyclists.
2. Lower water and sewer rates.
3. Prado Road overpass at US101
4. Work with county on Airport Enhancement
5. Encourage Business relocation to Area
1. Essential services, infrastructure and fiscal health
2. Economic development
3. Homelessness
4. Assess and renew the downtown
5. Neighborhood wellness
1. Bike transportation/paths/ Safe routes to schools
2. Hiring more planning dept and building dept. staff so projects can proceed
3. Planting more trees
1. Implement the Laguna Lake Nature Reserve Master Plan
2. Develop smarter ways of managing increasing traffic
3. Continue to address the needs of the homeless
4. Invest in maintenance of existing city assets
5. Encourage employment growth
1. Getting rid of vagrants in downtown area, library, and parks
2. Widening Tank Farm Road between Higuera and Broad Streets
3. Widening Orcutt Road between Johnson and Tank Farm
4. Removing parking meters from peripheral downtown streets
5. Cracking down on the evening drunks downtown
1. Neighborhood wellness
2. Fiscal health of the city
3. Vibrant downtown with businesses used by residents
4. Infrastructure - roads, pipelines, bridges
1. Our youths drinking and driving.
2. Sexual attacks.
3. Transients - panhandling, foul language, fights.
4. Water problem.
5. Vineyards.
1. Downtown streets can't handle the amount of traffic.
2. Bicycles need to be required to wear reflectors, blinking lights, neon vests and abide by all traffic
laws.
3. Quit the growth downtown. Don't need to compete with Santa Barbara.
4. Too many bars.
5. Don't destroy historic buildings.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Water cost has gotten out of control. It affects the affordability of living in SLO! You are one of the
only towns that doesn't have free retrofit shower and toilet programs. You also think that landlords
can pay any price for water. Not true - rent costs are expensive for locals who want to make SLO
their home. Please cut water prices and implement a water-saving program retrofit.
1. Limit new housing - it only creates problems like traffic, crime, rude people, and generic lifestyles.
Just like not everyone will be able to live in Malibu, not everyone will be able to live in SLO. SLO
works because it is small and different.
1. Reduce staffing cost compensation and benefits.
2. Minimize traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods, i.e. LOVR between Foothill and 101 overpass
and Madonna Road.
3. Protect 109 acres of prime ag land at Dalidio Ranch.
4. Per current update to LUCE, adaptation of specific plan projects: 1. Madonna at LOVR 2. San
Luis Ranch 3. Avila Ranch - should be voter approved.
5. Impact costs due to developments should be paid for by developer not by the taxpayer who will
bear the long-term cost.
1. Dredge and restore Laguna Lake!!
1. No growth or slow growth.
2. Bike lines expanded.
3. Limit college rentals in family neighborhoods.
4. Care of the homeless.
5. Enforce speed limits around town especially on Johnson Avenue.
1. Retain the charm of being a small town. Support downtown and what makes SLO unique.
2. Avoid big box retailers.
3. Avoid overbuilding of residences. Along these same lines, avoid sprawl by building residences close
to downtown.
1. Keep the homeless people from sleeping in neighborhoods (like next to my house and pooping and
leaving trash everywhere).
2. Keeping bicycles out of the way of cars.
3. Reducing taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc.
4. Stop making SLO "trashy" with more poor people stores (food outlet, 99-cent store types, etc.)
5. Make the big box stores outside of downtown have better architecture.
1. Essential services.
2. Neighborhood wellness.
3. Downtown.
4. Economic development.
1. Essential services.
2. Neighborhood wellness.
3. Downtown.
4. Economic development.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Discourage trespassing on Union Pacific Railroad property along railroad safety trail, replace fencing.
2. Build overpass over Union Pacific Railroad at Orcutt Road.
3. Need to encourage economic development.
1. Bike and walking paths.
2. Cap on construction - 1% growth max.
3. Water conservation and management
4. Strive for a solution on the homeless population.
5. Reduce property taxes.
1. Infrastructure (Marsh Street).
2. Essential services.
3. Fiscal health.
4. Economic development.
1. Open land conservation.
2. Trees - urban forestry.
3. Recreation.
4. Architecture less than 3 stories in downtown.
5. Good vibrant lively architecture.
1. Neighborhood Wellness
2. Economic Development
3. Essential Services, Infrastructure and Fiscal Health
4. Assess and Renew the Downtown
5. Bike and Pedestrian Paths
1. Creating a connected cross-town network of bicycle/pedestrian paths
2. Create more homeless housing and mental health services
3. Continue to acquire open space and build trails for active citizens
4. Incentivize higher-density "affordable by design" housing
5. Maintain/increase police presence to control transient issues downtown
1. Essential Services, Infrastructure & Fiscal Health
2. Neighborhood Wellness
1. Clean up the sidewalks downtown.
2. Finish Bob Jones Trail.
1. Allocate water resources at the most economical range.
2. Provide incentives for performance - lower rates - cost per gallon for usage reduction.
3. Seasonal adjustments should be available. When more water is available, charge less.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. We have lived in our neighborhood 30 years - over the past 20, students have slowly taken over at
least 50% and the properties surrounding us are in a steep decline in appearance - we are also
unable to sleep or have peace and quiet inside our home because of the behavior of our new young
neighbors. They are inconsiderate and hard to work in harmony with. Good luck helping other
people like us - but we give up and are moving, so soon our home will look as bad as the rest.
1. Homeless solution.
2. Amending general plan to override Airport.
3. Encouraging business growth.
1. Removing to somewhere else - the homeless!!
1. Build a homeless shelter.
2. Bike paths - Cal Poly to railroad station, SLO to Avila Beach, connection Bob Jones bike path.
3. Preservation of open space and public access to such.
4. Maintenance of parks, golf courses (esp. Laguna Lake).
1. Essential services.
2. Neighborhood wellness.
3. Downtown
4. Economic development.
1. Police department with 100% of "beat" officers with criminal justice, sociology or other B.A. or B.S.
degree.
2. Low-cost mass transit running later and earlier than it does now.
3. Preservation / increase of open space and green belt around the City.
4. Painted / striped designation of bike lanes (intersection of Madonna and Higuera) at all major
intersections within the city.
1. Mission Plaza
2. Economic Development
3. Police Downtown
4. Homelessness
1. Homelessness
2. Low income housing
3. Downtown vibrancy
4. Dalidio open ranch space for shopping
5. Community based high speed internet
1. Affordable Housing
2. Not enough housing
3. high cost of living
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Clean Safe Environment for ALL to live in.
2. Strengthen the relationship with Cal Poly. The city has a history of reacting to instead of working
with the Cal Poly Community. The students are the life blood of this city, without them the city
would die. We need to foster a relationship and bring the students into the community rather than
push them out.
1. Investigate community based high-speed internet (like city water)
2. Low income housing
3. Homelessness
4. Downtown vibrancy (not big box stores)
5. Use Dalido ranch as open space instead of shopping
1. Affordable housing
2. Increase minimum wage
3. Affordable housing
1. Open Space Maintenance/Upkeep
2. Workforce Housing
3. Homelessness
4. Affordable housing
5. Improved roads
1. Lights for Sinsheimer Courts
2. Lights for Sinsheimer Courts
3. Lights for Sinsheimer Courts
1. Enforce bike rules. I work near Cal Poly and have to use the sidewalk. I find it dangerous because the
bikers also use the sidewalk and not the bike lanes.
1. Continue to improve the downtown areas and support local small businesses
2. Address the increase in the homeless/transients in the downtown areas and resulting increase in
crime
3. Avoid urban sprawl and too many big-box stores
4. Hire additional police officers if necessary to control increased crime
5. Preserve open space
1. Get rid of the vagrants around downtown, especially the mission. They smoke, drink, litter, swear,
keep unlicensed pets and don't pick up droppings.
2. Save the potholes!
1. More rentals! Studios, 1 br, 2 br, affordable.
2. Secure downtown and City around from panhandlers etc.
3. Bring a decent major department store in e.g. Macy's.
4. Limit / decrease bars and other alcoholic establishments.
5. Better bike-to-car safety ratio.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Lower taxes.
2. Stop UPS trucks from illegal parking on Industrial Way.
1. Lower taxes.
2. Stop UPS trucks from illegal parking on Industrial Way.
1. Get control of the homeless situation!!!
2. Fix roads.
3. Consider putting desalinization issue back on the ballot.
1. City employee, Police, Fire accountability: controlling number of employees needed, to do the job.
Employee efficiency.
2. Control long-term financial obligations of employee (public), schools, benefit and retirement
packages.
3. City growth of infrastructure based on environmental concerns.
4. Returning artificial man-made greenbelts (lawn and grass) back to indigenous landscape - eliminate
labor-intensive landscape.
5. City Council must be responsible for controlling cost and overhead - we cannot afford lucrative
employee benefit packages anymore!!!
1. Connect bike paths! Off street!
2. Get rid of transients downtown.
3. Eliminate cut-through traffic from residential downtown street - Buchon / Pismo.
1. Open space / bike and pedestrian paths.
2. Infrastructure.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
4. Homeless.
5. Downtown.
1. Synchronize traffic lights on Madonna Road.
2. Dredge and define Laguna Lake.
3. Connect bike ways - finish Bob Jones Trails.
4. Connect sidewalk / pedestrian way from Oceanaire to Laguna Post Office - this is a dangerous
walking area.
5. Non-student housing - neighborhoods for families - reduce student cars lining streets.
1. Community crime / safety.
2. Bicycle lanes - separate from cars.
3. Sustainable / responsible growth.
4. Roads / traffic
5. Water conservation and open space.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Historic preservation - save downtown from overdevelopment and preserve the historic character of
our neighborhoods.
2. Open space preservation - acquire new lands and prevent encroachment into existing preserves
such as Righetti Hill.
3. Demilitarize our police force. Stop the war on the poor, the young, and the homeless; end
aggression and over-reach by law enforcement.
4. Install more EV charging stations around town - ticket gas vehicles that park in those spaces!
1. City infrastructure and circulation!!
2. Prado Road overpass is desperately needed. People in the LOVR-Madonna area are mired in traffic!!
Poor planning!
3. Clean-up downtown - sidewalks are filthy - trees tearing up sidewalks. Take care of one of the town's
best features/
4. Encourage more downtown development that capitalizes on the creek!! Missed opportunity.
5. More credit card meters!!
1. Water.
2. Cost of City services.
1. Homelessness - downtown vagrants.
2. Infrastructure - maintenance.
3. Fiscal health.
4. Renewing downtown to include lower Higuera.
1. Dredge Laguna Lake! (pond?)
1. Homeless.
2. Bike and walking paths.
3. Pickleball courts / Santa Rosa Park.
4. Clean up sidewalks and removed trash barrels from street that remain there all week. Worst
offender is Firestone Drive. They are filthy.
1. Homeless need and services (housing / health / food).
2. Neighborhood wellness (keep students on campus).
3. Senior services (low-income help).
4. Leave downtown alone / you have done enough damage!
5. Don't need a skate park - percentage of population that will use it? - Low.
1. Build the homeless center!
2. More bike paths NOT on streets used for cars. There is so much traffic on Broad - Santa Barbara -
Osos. The bicyclists are a hazard and are in danger of being hit.
3. Reduce / reroute traffic off Broad to 101 before Orcutt (northbound) - too fast, too congested,
unsafe to cross, walk, bike. Fix it!
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Essential infrastructure, sewer, power, network.
2. Water conservation.
3. Bike paths / trails.
4. We don't need a culturally insensitive building area like "Chinatown" especially with so many empty
stores.
5. Reduce City employee salaries. Fiscal responsibility.
1. Dredge Laguna Lake.
1. Energy. Alternative forms, encouraging everyone who wants solar to get it, with subsidies, etc.
2. Have a system where if the City underwrites solar for a homeowner, the homeowner "gives" 50%
energy back to the City.
3. More energy choices e.g. SLO Clean Energy.
4. Stop wasting time on non-issues such as Air B'n'B / short-term rentals. Let current rules and codes
take care of it.
5. Listen to the public. It should be the public's agenda.
1. Water usage.
2. Vehicle flow on City streets.
3. Bicycle lanes (more green lanes) etc.
4. Make downtown SLO more user-friendly for "residents." I feel it is oriented toward Cal Poly and
their out-of-town / tourist parents.
1. Dredge the lake, improve water quality and depth for City use.
2. Clean up the creeks, remove homeless / debris / trash.
3. Build the San Luis creek footpath to decrease homeless camps.
4. Continue to approve downtown projects, approve rebuilds / improvements.
5. Good job on LOVR!
1. Bike paths and safety.
2. Homeless (get rid of urban campers).
3. Continue to renew downtown.
4. Avoid public housing projects.
5. Co-operate with Cal Poly.
1. Traffic: Some parts of the city are bottlenecked at certain times of the day. We need a plan to
handle this more efficiently.
2. Homeless: I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but we need more services and a way to
prevent pandhandling.
3. Neighborhood wellbeing: An improved way to deal with all the student rentals and accompanying
issues.
4. Safer bike and pedestrian access throughout town.
5. Skate park: Affordable for kids; keeps them safe and off the streets.
1. Remove fluoride from the City water supply. It's toxic!
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Encourage sustainability: businesses, residents, other
2. Invest in managing, cultivating, and expanding our green public spaces
3. Create incentives for reusing existing buildings and developed areas to limit growth and sprawl
4. Make it easier for local tech and independent business to thrive (rather than national chains)
5. As a Cal Poly Kennedy Library employee who is committed to connecting to and providing programs
for the community, we should be partners (sharing resources and expertise) to making our city and
our campus more connected culturally.
1. Homeless downtown.
2. Speed up and simplify the building permit process.
1. Homeless and panhandling.
2. Traffic.
1. Homeless facilities and programs for our most needy.
2. Prado Road overpass over 101!
3. Widen Tank Farm Road between South Higuera and Broad Streets.
4. Infrastructure replacements - underground facilities - water lines and electric.
5. Youth programs for at-risk teens. (Vocational, summer jobs, recreation).
1. Fix street potholes.
2. Clean storm drains leading from fields into City storm drains back behind Calle Lupita open area.
3. Post each side of streets so street sweeper can sweep whole street. Get cars off of streets that sit
there for months.
4. Get tree crews to cut trees around stop signs to make more visible.
5. Get more sewer cleaning done. Get grease out of lines - less back-ups.
1. Repaving City streets.
1. Homeless in City parks.
2. Homeless in restaurants.
3. Homeless downtown.
4. Homeless.
5. Homeless.
1. To somehow make our city, especially the downtown area, safer and more pleasant to walk around.
In just 2 blocks, I was approached by 3 panhandlers and called a foul name when I refused one of
them. These are not homeless people, but rather individuals who are under the influence of drugs,
alcohol as well as mentally ill.
1. Planning for Livability
2. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
3. Limit urban sprawl
4. Public transportation
1. laguna lake....it's time!
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Maintain a safe, walkable environment, particularly downtown area at night.
2. Protect/maintain/preserve open space (including Laguna Lake).
3. Work toward future in terms of affordable housing for middle-class workforce; don't price renters
out of downtown area.
4. Work toward viable employment opportunities (beyond entry-level and techie-specific).
1. homeless / transient
2. traffic
3. regulate growth with infrastructure
1. Dredging the lake
1. alleviate traffic congestion
1. Continue to build bicycle traffic infrastructure.
2. Maintain Damon-Garcia soccer fields and other public parks for regular community use.
3. Provide younger professionals (20's - 30's) more opportunities to engage in community
organizations and local government positions.
1. Implement a plan for the long term survival of Laguna Lake - Dredging, improved access, erosion
control on creek, added plant diversity
2. Improved Bicycle connections at Madonna and LOVR, crossing 101 and Higuera and South Street.
3. Implementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development practices to control storm
water.
4. Improves bicycle access at broad street, foothill, tank farm and higuera.
5. traffic calming in all neighborhoods
1. Bike route development
2. lighting dark streets
3. maintenance
1. Traffic congestion on south Broad Street between Buckley and Price Canyon Road
2. Traffic safety on south Higuera between Suburban Road and LOVR
3. Pedestrian and bicycle safety in the airport area
4. More hiking trails in the Reservoir Canyon Area
5. Restore the COLA's for City employees
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1. Creek clean-up for flood control measures (overgrown trees, brush, and trash to be removed).
2. Re-calibrate City staff and supporting bodies to uphold development plan, and ensure correlates
with current laws and guidelines.
3. Expansion of bike lanes to more areas, enabling safer biking throughout the whole town.
4. Expansion of water storage and long-term water plans to meet the City's long-term needs.
5. Get a handle on the City's huge problem with vagrancy and enforce and establish rules which
prohibit constant panhandling.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Affordable housing.
2. Homelessness.
3. Economy.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
5. Renew downtown.
1. Assess and renew the downtown.
2. Economic development.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
4. Bike and pedestrian paths.
1. Make it the friendliest City.
2. Provide places for the homeless to stay overnight.
3. Don't work on streets during holiday time.
4. Bring back celebrations and parades. Re: La Fiesta.
1. Get people to SLOW down on residential streets - such as Rockview Place! Oceanaire! And Royal
Way.
1. Assess and renew downtown. Need to look at Boulder, Colorado for model. Have ample parking
structures and gold cart taxi if necessary. It would do us all good to walk. Everything downtown is
easily walkable.
2. Homelessness. I don't know the solution.
3. Pedestrian and bike paths! Need to be safe, lit, and separate from traffic.
4. I love this town!!
1. Economic development.
2. Assess and renew downtown.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
4. Homelessness.
5. Bike and walking paths.
1. Expand bike / running trails (e.g. Bob Jones) throughout the City.
2. Skate park.
1. Reducing speed limits on some roads (Madonna road for sure).
2. Have all downtown parking meters be equal i.e. 25 cents per 20 minutes, not 25 cents per 10
minutes for some.
1. Water conservation (I read that SLO was ranked poorly among California cities).
1. Housing (affordable) for families.
2. Bike and pedestrian paths including green space.
3. Continues reductions in City employee positions and salaries.
4. Reduction of City fees and fines.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Homeless / panhandling - provide more housing opportunities for legitimate homeless / aggressively
discourage obnoxious panhandling individuals downtown, etc.
2. Get serious about reclaiming Laguna Lake.
3. Develop realistic water needs and supplied for now and future - comments by City officials that SLO
has a 5- to 7-year water supply currently is absurd. There is only a total of 36,000 cubic feet in the 3
lakes that supply SLO (enough possibly for 5 years) but SLO is only entitled to a portion of this water.
Get real about water!!!
4. Improve street lighting - for example around Cal Poly, Hathway & Slack Streets is totally inadequate.
1. Economic development.
2. Homelessness.
3. Bike and pedestrian paths.
4. Affordable housing.
5. Traffic issues from overdevelopment.
1. Homelessness... especially kids!
2. State park? Does this mean MDO? I'm bummed no dogs allowed.
3. Bike and pedestrian paths - I use open space a ton! Dogs allowed essential!
4. Neighborhood wellness? Replace dying trees - or remove them so owners can.
5. Essential services?? I'm not sure what this means...
1. Have businesses use old vacant buildings instead of building new ones. There are a lot of empty
buildings not in use.
2. More outreach for homeless.
3. More painted streets for bikes and more parking for bikes.
4. Enforce automobile rules on bike riders.
1. Need bigger facility for homeless people and meals provided.
2. Homeless need counselor to get them back on their feet.
3. Need more safe bike lanes.
4. We need bikes to be ticketed when not obeying traffic rules. I bike all the time and I follow rules.
5. Skateboards downtown need to be ticketed.
1. Continue improvements of downtown (Chinatown, develop buildings with retail / office / residential
components. Pressure wash sidewalks downtown).
2. Improvement of roads, on/off ramps - traffic flow.
3. Maintain slow growth but allow some clean industries i.e. tech companies.
4. Maintain and expand open areas and incorporate SLO historical.
5. Another dog park on south side of town (airport).
1. Homelessness.
2. Bike / pedestrian path connection along tram tracks between Cal Poly and train station.
3. Graffiti clean-up - blight.
1. Education - math, science and trade skills and physical activity promotion.
2. Agriculture - specifically sustainable practices and opportunities for local farmers.
3. Responsible, local business expansion - bring in small-to-mid-size business - promote investment in
local business - provide funding to local business.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Expand mental health availability.
2. Do not increase growth because "the drought has ended." I'm not going to conserve just so the City
can build.
3. Stop approving buildings (commercial) without widows that open!
4. Maintain open space and parks. Increase parks / activities for teens.
1. Remove parking on the street along Higuera - Downtown.
2. Increase width of sidewalks downtown along Higuera.
1. Make biking safe for families and students to encourage "no car" lifestyles - see Davis, CA for how to
build Category 1 PROTECTED bike paths to downtown, to Cal Poly from major outskirts = Broad
Street (railroad path), Higuera (Bob Jones) and Cal Poly. Nightmare locations: Monterey and
California, Johnson from Tunnel to French, Broad (all of it), Foothill and California.
1. Continue road and congestion improvements and make developers pay their fair share.
2. Discontinue installing the ridiculous residential area corner re-constructions for ADA. I have yet to
see a disabled person utilize these.
3. Continue replacing our aging water and sewer mains.
1. Fiscal responsibility - not lumped essential services and infrastructure.
2. Fiscal responsibility - reduce pension and insurance costs now!!!
3. Repair and replace infrastructure - do not study it - FIX IT.
1. Water conservation - gray water incentives.
2. Take a more firm stand on watering lawns / gardens.
1. allow large apartment construction
2. stop more commercial development
3. discourage growth in population
1. Sorting out the traffic issues along the South Higuera corridor as well as throughout the southern
City limits to accommodate current and future developments.
2. Pedestrian and bicycle safety in the airport area and South Higuera corridor.
3. Bicycle safety as it regards to daily trips (commuting, shopping, school) throughout the City,
especially in the downtown core and S. Higuera / LOVR business and school areas. Bicycles need to
be able to safely enter and exit schools, workplaces and commercial developments throughout the
City without competing with vehicular traffic. Much of the infrastructure thusfar has been
recreationally focused and does not serve the daily needs of those wishing to travel by bike.
4. Encouraging residential conversion to reclaimed water and xeriscaping for landscape applications
through added infrastructure and conversion incentives.
5. Throughout the City, focus trasportation improvement funds on encouraging residential adoption of
multi-modal transportation, rather than prioritizing vehicular traffic (even in commercial areas). For
a true modal shift we should be focusing on improving infrastructure for cyclists along major
commercial corridors.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. preservation of open space
2. maintenance of infrastructure
3. rehabilitation of laguna lake (with special benefit district)
4. neighborhood stabilization programs
5. finishing railroad safety bicycle and pedestrian trail and Bob Jones connection
1. Address mental health issues such as getting people medicine and counseling.
2. Give tax incentives for new businesses in the City if the business is around for a period of time for
tax revenue.
1. Environmental - clean air, clean oceans.
2. Shut down Diablo.
3. Education.
1. Holding landlords responsible for yards, trash, blinds inside windows on streets (since many
students and other renters don't care). I guess this is neighborhood wellness.
1. Manage the homeless people. Effectively they are overrunning our neighborhoods and sleeping in
front yards.
2. Lots of drug-related and other criminal activities.
3. Our sidewalks are horrible, cracks and uneven, and cause tripping hazards.
4. Put a stop sign at corner (all 4) of Islay and Nipomo.
1. Clearing downtown of aggressive homeless, transients, "street urchins," panhandlers - whatever -
that have gotten "out-of-control" and are damaging SLO greatly! I don't even go downtown any
more, and I live here!
2. More stringent enforcement of continued water waste - including our City parks. Still lots of
examples of water being wasted needlessly.
1. Clearing downtown of aggressive homeless, transients,
1. To provide affordable water to all residents - with water maintenance measures - new measures if
needed.
2. Much slower growth for San Luis - leaving green space for all to enjoy.
3. NO MORE development of the Los Osos Valley Road area.
4. Less development in the downtown of San Luis - the feel of something special and quaint is going
away.
5. To have much less presence of homeless / vagrants downtown.
1. Essential services.
2. Homelessness.
3. Bike and pedestrian paths.
1. Not over-building; keeping historic sights, especially downtown core area.
2. Homeless downtown panhandling.
3. Street maintenance; pot holes.
4. Finish Bob Jones trail to Avila.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Street improvements.
2. Containing, i.e. reducing City salaries. I have not had a raise since I took a 20% cut in 2009!!!
3. Allow short-term rentals.
4. Clamp down on student housing "abuse" by landlords.
1. Water conservation.
1. Keep downtown economically vital and physically safe. Put stoplights at the midblock crosswalks
downtown and sync them to the ones at the intersections. State Street in Santa Barbara does this.
2. Resist the temptation to hire a lot of new permanent employees after the recent sales tax initiative
passed. The burden placed on pension costs will be ongoing.
3. Maintain quality of neighborhoods. Do all you can to encourage owner occupied housing.
4. Prohibit development that interferes with existing neighborhood quality of life.
5. The City needs to protect its neighborhoods. Those that are still "Poly-unsaturated" need to remain
so. Cal Poly is part of San Luis, not the other way around.
1. Maintain quality of neighborhoods. Do all you can to encourage owner occupied housing.
2. Prohibit development that interferes with existing neighborhood quality of life.
3. Keep downtown economically vital and physically safe. Put stoplights at the midblock crosswalks
downtown and sync them to the ones at the intersections. State Street in Santa Barbara does this.
4. Resist the temptation to hire a lot of new permanent employees after the recent sales tax initiative
passed. The burden placed on pension costs will be ongoing.
5. Traffic. Need I say more?
1. Homelessness.
2. Essential services, infrastructure, fiscal health.
3. Economic development.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
5. Skate park.
1. Get people to SLOW down on residential streets - such as Rockview Place! Oceanair! And Royal
Way.
1. Traffic control at Orcutt and Tank Farm at Islay Park.
2. Clean all creeks in Arbors area.
3. Re-pave paths in Islay Park.
4. Install video cameras downtown core / may discourage crime.
5. Clearly identify all open space trails in the City.
1. Secure water supply for the long term.
1. Stop spending money just because it's coming in! Pay off existing debt and save for the future. The
good times will NOT last.
1. City employee salary, pension and benefit obligations must remain below projected income
WITHOUT the 1/2% sales tax, or reducing other services.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Affordable housing.
2. Neighborhood quality.
3. Open space.
4. Traffic congestion.
1. Homelessness.
2. Mental health programs versus jail.
3. Panhandling in downtown.
4. Nighttime safety downtown and neighboring areas.
1. Where are the two employees recently hired to see that neighborhood garbage containers are off
the street?
1. Participate in forming a CCA for better energy; cleaner, cheaper, local control.
2. Plant more trees.
3. Work with Cal Poly to reduce town / gown conflict - dorms, traffic, neighborhood quality.
1. Bike lane to Avila.
2. Homeless people at Prado Road.
3. Economic growth.
1. Drive-through restaurants.
2. Curb cuts near Charles Smith school.
1. Economic development.
2. Essential services, infrastructure.
3. Homelessness.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
1. A complete make-over of retirement and compensation benefits for past and future public
employees. Face the facts that the current model is unsustainable. We (the private sector) cannot
afford retirements of the current amounts for administrators, police and fire. It is wrong and unfair
to burden the citizens with such high-priced benefits and very low-age retirement levels. It is not
fair!
1. The town needs to look cleaner. Chewing gum stamped into the sidewalks makes a sad, shabby
appearance. Educate people to care. A gum wall is a sorry excuse for a tourist attraction.
2. The area along the side of the library going from Palm to Monterey could make an attractive
walkway.
3. Plants, benches and a coffee cart would spruce up the dead space between the library and the
garage. We need more attractive pedestrian passageways.
1. Reduce expenses.
2. Reduce overhead.
3. Reduce staff.
4. Reduce regulations.
5. Reduce taxes.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Complete Prado Road from Madonna to Broad, including the 101 freeway overpass.
2. Expand Los Osos Valley Road overpass of freeway 101 to 4 lanes.
3. Shorten City response time on business code violations, especially when impacting the environment
of nearby residential areas.
1. Panhandlers on street corners. Cannot walk downtown without seeing 4 -5.
2. Neighborhood declining - 4 -5 families in one house - many cars lining the streets.
3. Bushes and tree branches blocking sidewalks.
4. High cost of living here.
5. Water conservation - in fact conservation of all resources.
1. Vagrants.
2. Clean out creeks to avoid downtown flooding (creeks are overgrown)
3. Improve/change ugly fountain at Marsh Street freeway exit (1st impression of our City is crummy).
1. Vagrants.
2. Clean out overgrown creeks to avoid downtown flooding.
3. Improve/change ugly fountain at Marsh / 101 offramp (main City entrance).
1. Fix the street pavements.
1. Homelessness and getting rid of panhandlers.
1. Infrastructure maintenance e.g. a Highway 101-N sign on Santa Rosa northbound; Broad Street (227)
surfacing - airport to landfill; Islay/Broad sightlines.
2. Homelessness - get behind a rooming house initiative.
3. Downtown - street sidewalk cleaning.
4. City workers' wage and pension reduction: lead/follow private industry.
1. Better working relationship with CalPoly
2. Homeless services/new shelter & resource center
3. Open space protection & acquisition
4. Bike trails/parks & recreation
5. Improve public transportation
1. Roads.
2. Infrastructure - not bike lanes and purchase of public property.
3. Road.
1. Homeless.
2. Garbage in the creks.
3. Noise in city, especially motorcycles, drunks.
4. Environment generally.
5. Green areas, trails, bike lanes and safety.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Essential services, infrastructure, fiscal health. Use/distribution of recycled water. Require new
construction to use recycled water for outdoor use & toilets.
2. Bike & Pedestrian paths/safety
3. Downtown improvements/renewal
4. Neighborhood wellness/homeless
5. Continue adding open space
1. Aggressive control/enforcement of safety in the downtown core.
2. A zero-tolerance for inappropriate panhandling / assault / theft.
3. Banning of persons from SLO City limits for infractions - why spend all these funds to improve the
core if no one feels safe there? Why pass measures for City improvements if there's no security for
strolling and enjoying the City? I would say this is the #1 priority. Will developers like the Copelands
invest in a core with these problems occurring more often?
1. Beautification and enhancement of downtown
2. Update and maintain city infrastructure
3. Preserve and enhance city open space and greenbelt
4. Increase availability of head of household jobs
1. Panhandling-especially agressive panhandling
2. Homeless
3. Road/infrastructure improvements & maintenance
4. Bike lanes/paths
1. Natural open space acquisition
2. Improve existing neighborhood quality of life over new business development in neighborhoods:
better & enrich.
3. No new tourist expenditures until existing streets, bike traffic and ped safety addressed
4. More citizen/resident input; less Chamber and PBA dictates
5. Real housing for service work providers
1. Stay within budget.
2. Keep costs down.
3. No growth.
1. To address the homeless situation. We need programs to be of assistance to the less fortunate.
2. To update and improve the current infrastructure.
1. Open space-for health and well being to all!
2. Traffic issues-enforcement (South St much better now)
3. Essential services infrastructure
4. Homelessness
5. Bike-ped paths (separate/side by side)?
1. Ask people to slow down when arriving in town.
2. Clean the streets.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Limit development to the lowest possible rate.
2. Use Measure G funds to acquire open space
3. Require residential developers to donate school sites
4. Support alternative energy projects
5. Envision a new traffic/parking plan
1. Getting rid of the homeless in downtown. It's dirty and unsafe.
2. Police need to patrol more on foot.
3. Getting rid of transients smoking pot at the creek.
4. Lower the downtown parking fines. Ridiculous!!!
1. Tighter control of pandlers in downtown SLO
1. Essential services, infrastructure, fiscal health.
2. Economic development.
3. Homelessness.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
1. Downtown panhandling as pooposed to homelessness
2. Downtown viability
3. Work w/ CalPoly to increase ON-CAMPUS housing
4. Bike & pedestrian paths & improvement.
1. Homelessness.
2. Essential services, fiscal health, infrastructure.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
4. Assess and renew downtown.
5. Bike and pedestrian paths.
1. Affordable housing for retail & service industry employees! Modular style construction is a MUST to
keep cost realistic.
2. More parking for downtown-ever more retail footage with ever less parking mean less money per
square foot of retail?!
3. Stop with the climate change madness - nothing unusual is going on! Stop wasting valuable time &
energy.
1. The ruination of SLO is sadly irreversible.
2. See comments below
1. Preserve open space, focus development to limit sprawl
2. Aggressively limit panhandling downtown and vagrant activity at City parks; SLO should not be a
destination for this activity and people.
3. Bike path to Avila Beach-more bike lanes downtown.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. To keep it's citizens safe. From violent homeless and those who have been pardoned & sent to live
in SLO by out of area courts (murderers)
2. De-salination plants to be funded and designed and taxes spent on "non-essential" items such as the
Tesla $500K government car I saw parked outside the county building on Monterey St
3. More public support of the SLO Police and Sheriff's office in protecting us from the increasing
amount of crime from gangs moving into our area from LA. Laws passed if necessary to do this.
4. The city SHOULD NOT press their agenda for homes built near the new airport. Not only will the
people who move in to them start complaining of the noise within months but without water. WE
DO NOT NEED MORE HOOKUPS.
5. Press officials to start campaigning for a pipe line up to Oregon or other states which have excesses
of water during the winter.
1. Do something about the transient/homeless problem
1. Looking to control staff salaries & benefits
2. Supporting/developing small business & local business. Keep money here in SLO
3. Los Osos Valley & Oceanaire signal is ridiculous. But engineer although called won't improve it.
4. Many staff need a course on having a servant's heart, how to help & solve not stonewall.
1. Homeless persons-5 years ago it was sporadic, 2 years ago is became persistent, today is now gangs
of 3-5 - all downtown.
2. Mission Park-better infrastructure-downtown-creek cleanup-minimize debris to avoid future
flooding.
3. Underground city utility pipes-fix the sidewalks!
4. Better and much more bike lanes for all & Cal-Poly students
1. Resource programs for mentally disabled and homeless populations
2. Gang activity/drug activity awareness & eradication
3. Hit & run activity by motorists
1. Keep taxes high enough to meet city's needs.
2. More bike paths please.
3. Over-rule airport commissions
4. Veto of further close-in development in SE part of City
1. Fix Laguna Lake
2. Fix roads, potholes, etc
1. Stop building.
2. Take care of water supply
3. You have failed as a city council
1. Promote jobs
2. Develop an industrial park that will bring in jobs to the city
3. Reduce take from developer trying to develop properties that will increase jobs.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Fix downtown sidewalks
2. Implement the Laguna Lake plan, including dredging.
3. Traffic safety, including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists
1. Prado road expansion
2. Deal with homeless issues downtown
3. Work on lowering rental rates, both business and residential
4. Roads/sidewalks-repaving and/or sealing
1. Safety including rule about panhandlers & rules on loud vulgar people on buses.
2. Transportation system: offer alternates for older people with disabilities. The ones now are limited
and highly restricted.
3. Library open on Sundays or earlier 9am
1. Promote small businesses
2. Encourage new employers to relocate to SLO
1. Vagrants
2. Clean out creeks (overgrown) to avoid downtown flooding
3. Improve/change ugly fountain at Marsh St freeway exit. (main entrance to our city).
1. control costs
2. increase accountability
3. allocate funds to capital improvements
4. stop personal animosity between council members from influencing decisions
1. Maintain a shopper & tourist friendly downtown (decrease the police presence)
2. Future government development to require 100% first floor retail space-no more buildings like the
recent ones on Monterey St!
3. Have a work/shelter with local church groups for the transient/permanent people without a
residence.
4. All public transportation should be free to encourage ridership & decrease traffic.
1. Addressing homeless population in downtown SLO. GET THEM OUT. Put them somewhere not
downtown.
2. Water conservation & supply for future generations.
3. Improve efficiency and reliability of public transit.
1. Watch downtown development that we don't have 3 story buildings throughout. We don't want to
be LA or New York City.
2. Do not develop every little piece of land in downtown. We need gardens and trees and little homes
and not just trees on sidewalks and we need people seen walking.
3. Essential Services, infrastructure and fiscal health
4. Economic Development
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Getting rid of the homeless population ruining our city.Don't build another homeless shelter. Ever
seen Field of Dreams?
2. Increase police & fire as our city is growing and those departments are overloaded/understaffed.
3. Get a real City attorney, the current one is a joke
4. Decrease building/permit fees - it is too expensive to build here!
1. Please reduce the cost of our city water. It is always increasing not decreasing.
1. neighborhood wellness
2. slow down economic development
3. focus on essential services
4. improve traffic flow on city streets
5. homelessness
1. Homeless resources and management
2. Water supply and distribution
3. Laguna Lake dredging and maintenance
4. Neighborhood services - noise, police patrolling
5. Infrastructure maintenance
1. Assess and renew downtown
2. Essencial services, infrastructure and fiscal health
3. Neighborhood wellness
4. Economic development
5. Neighborhood wellness
1. Reduce visibility of homeless population downtown and in parks
2. Continue focus on making city bike-friendly and complete bike path to the sea
3. Complete ring of open space throughout the city
4. Ensure coordination between public works/transportation and Internet fiber to provide high
bandwidth services to all areas of the City
5. Enforce rational growth controls to ensure that the City grows responsibly while maintaining its
character
1. Affordible Housing
2. Programs like "CARE" readjustments
1. Update Mission Plaza to be more visitor and event friendly i.e new restrooms people come here
from around the world.
2. Provide more maintenance dollars and manpower for existing and new facilities
3. Require community service for repeat drunks and panhandlers
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Eliminate the financial stranglehold that public safety has on the city
2. Quit squandering taxpayer money on public "art"
3. Address laguna lake issues, develop a plan to dredge the lake, and provide recreation activities on
the lake
4. Release performance metrics to the public, you are doing a lot of talk about transparency but only
with selected items that are low risk for the city to make public
5. Develop a plan for eliminating systematic abuse of overtime in the fire department
1. Continue to invest in and improve the downtown area.
2. Get tough on transients.
1. Repair traffic hazard at 2963 South Higuera
2. Enforce Vehicle Code on bike riders
1. Park maintenance, especially repair pathways and cut dead trees
2. Very poor street lighting - LED terribly inadequate
1. Open Space
2. Trails
3. Pump Track
1. Homeless
2. Prado Road Over Pass and thorough fare
3. Essential Services
4. Bike & Pedestrian Paths
1. Homeless
1. Affordable / Workforce Housing
2. Homeless Services
3. Mental Health Services
4. Keep City Salary & Pension Costs Down
5. Maximize Capital Improvements & Maintenance
1. Reform pension benefits to be in line with other solvent communities.
2. Make the City a more competitive place to locate all kinds of businesses, from Silicon Valley tech
firms seeking to relocate, to small businesses that aren't law offices.
3. Make sure downtown is still somewhere a tourist might want to spend a day.
4. Work on resisting the temptation to militarize the police and fire department. Curb brutality by
members of those forces, while on and off duty.
5. Keep our school districts among the nation's best.
1. bike and pedestrian paths
2. continue to renew downtown
1. Homelessness
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Work with the AirportCommission to find actual solution and revise the General Plan accordingly.
Keep housing away from the airport.
1. Dredging Laguna Lake
1. Dredging Laguna Lake
1. bike friendly features
1. Energy Efficiant: homes, businesses & city offices
2. Water-wise efficient: homes, businesses and city offices
3. Essential Services, infranstructure & Fiscal health
4. Bike & Pedestrian Paths
5. Neighborhood Wellness
1. Improving bicycle infrastructure
2. Improve downtown atmosphere with pedestrian/bicycle only streets (Garden Street would be a
good start)
3. Open space acquisition and preservation (build and improve trail system)
4. Reduce vehicle traffic with increased services of alternate transportation
1. Economic Development with Cal Poly
2. Improve outdated Facilities, Sinsheimer & Community Rooms
3. Fiscal health and clean up city manager public relations issue
4. Panhandling in Downtown area
1. Housing prices too high
2. More business friendly permitting and building process
3. Homelessness
4. Focus on strategic growth of the downtown- shaping it like downtown Santa Barbara
5. Give younger leaders a voice. Too many retired folks are shaping a community that needs to attract
and keep younger people
1. Gang violence prevention programs
2. Sexual and intimate partner violence prevention programs
3. Increased access to homeless service and affordable housing
4. Increased access to affordable, healthy food
5. Restricted commercial and residential water use
1. The City should enforce its littering laws, zoning laws and other health and safety laws, in the
residential district in and around downtown. Renters who have no stake in the community litter the
area as they walk to and from downtown. Numerous rental homes exceed the zoning requirements
in terms of # of families residing in the homes. Renters are packed in like sardines so that out of
town landlords can make the most money possible. In addition to littering, the renters take up all of
the available parking so that homeowners who actually live in San Luis cannot park in front of their
own homes. They negatively impact what is otherwise an ideal place to live.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. The City should begin enforcing its littering laws, zoning laws and other health and safety laws, in
the residential district in and around downtown. Renters who have no stake in the community litter
the area as they walk to and from downtown. Numerous rental homes exceed the zoning
requirements in terms of # of families residing in the homes. Renters are packed in like sardines so
that out of town landlords can make the most money possible. In addition to littering, the renters
take up all of the available parking so that homeowners who actually live in San Luis cannot park in
front of their own homes. They negatively impact what is otherwise an ideal place to live.
1. Homeless help. Assist police department with help on moving those in need to appropriate
programs. Police have other functions. Fund more mental health help.
2. Enforce codes for poor building and maintenance for housing. Our neighbor hoods look trashed and
some rentals are subpar.
3. Create better parking options downtown for ease of getting to merchants
4. Address traffic congestion in all areas: South, Higuera, Madonna mess
5. Stop encouraging dense housing. Loosen slow growth to allow affordable housing that is not on top
of a store front.
1. Well-connected bike lanes for crossing town
2. re-hab parks, e.g., Sinsheimer
3. traffic calming/complete streets
4. short/mid/long term viable solutions for south city traffic impacts
5. enforcement of traffic laws
1. Take back our benches downtown!
2. Prohibit panhandling/loitering
3. LOVR/Tank Farm Traffic
1. Dredging Laguna Lake
2. More help for homeless people
1. Neighborhood wellness.
2. Fiscal responsibility and services.
3. Homelessness.
1. Reduce panhandling and living in creek.
2. Improve parking downtown.
3. Reduce illegal student dwellings / Isla Vista problem.
1. Notifying City residents of changes occurring in neighborhoods before the changes are made. That
would be so nice.
2. The City is losing its small-town feeling with the constant building in and around downtown. The old
charm is on the losing end.
3. Traffic is increasingly difficult.
1. Walkability and public transportation incentive for business to support use.
2. Bike lanes and for California Boulevard, get a pedestrian crossing at some place between Hathaway
and the CHP office.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Stop growth! We now have traffic jams, too many people - quality of life is less.
2. More trees, parks, open space are needed now.
3. More bicycle paths needed.
4. Freeze salaries of anyone making over $100,000 per year! Only COLAs to people making less than
$100k!
1. To make Building and Planning Departments more responsive, less bureaucratic, more aware, less
aloof, more willing to help SLO residents with projects - both large and small - less focused on saying
"no" or finding every single negative view to avoid allowing improvements, at private expense, in
the City. It's maddening. There is no common sense at work in these offices.
1. Assess and renew downtown.
2. Homelessness.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
4. Bike and peds.
5. Skateparks.
1. Bike and pedestrian paths.
2. Essential services - fiscal health.
3. Homelessness.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
5. Economic Development.
1. Bike paths separate from street traffic. I am scared to bike with my kids even though we live close
enough to town to ride bikes.
2. Remaining eucalyptus trees around Taylor Field.
3. More flashing light pedestrian crossings like at post office.
4. No parking meters on Sunday!!!
1. Roads - repair!
2. Homeless services and protection. Allowing people to safely sleep out if not harming anyone or
becoming a nuisance. Working with them instead of criminalizing.
3. Drinking downtown issue.
4. Good low-cost housing.
1. FREE Hi Speed Wifi City Wide
2. Breakdown the Charter Cable Monopoly
3. Reduce City Govt Bureaucracy and encourage growth
1. Improve bike lanes
2. More open space
3. Improve traffic along Tank Farm Rd
4. Add to City Ranger staff
5. Homeless Services
1. Parking lot for the Bishop Peak trail head.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Essential services and infrastructure.
2. Community mobility - transit improvements before bike paths and pedestrian paths - first and
foremost: a bus to the airport.
3. Working on homelessness and its related panhandling.
4. Fiscal health.
5. Then, the frills such as "reviewing" a downtown that's not bad at all the way it is, thanks.
1. Water conservation! Plan for jet-stream-warming mega-drought.
2. Rebates to quit grass! (Lawns.)
3. SLO creek protection/preservation.
4. Keep us "SLO charmingly small!"
1. Housing the homeless and providing long-term services to get them on their feet.
2. Stop the chain store/large box store/stretch malls popping up everywhere.
3. Affordable housing for first-time buyers.
4. Water/clean water options.
1. Secure better water supply.
2. Watchdog Diablo - licensed for 10 years - now going on 40 - should it be shut down?
3. Attract better retail - i.e. Macy's
4. Encourage entrepreneurs who start their own company.
5. Attract more doctors - fight for better Medicare reimbursement for them.
1. Homeless children.
2. Homeless food and shelter.
3. Pave our old dangerous road - Dana SLO
1. Housing, including homeless service center and transitions MHO Bishop Street project; workforce
housing.
2. Traffic mitigation on Broad, Tank Farm, Los Osos Valley Road.
3. Better relations with Cal Poly to protect neighborhoods.
1. Essential services - fiscal health.
2. Economic Development.
3. Renew downtown.
4. Homelessness.
5. Neighborhood wellness.
1. Code enforcement for landlords adding illegal additional bedrooms.
2. Securing water sources for current residents before allowing new hookups.
1. Essential services.
2. Economic development.
3. Homelessness.
4. Neighborhood wellness.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Homeless and transient activity in downtown core and surrounding areas.
2. Bike and pedestrian paths.
3. Neighborhood wellness.
4. Public art - what's happening with the fountain at Marsh & Higuera?
1. Homeless issues - drugs and mental health.
2. Traffic congestion especially at 5:00 leaving town.
1. Connect the north and south railroad safety trails!
2. Finish all other bike boulevards.
3. Get rid of vagrants downtown.
1. Reduce taxes.
2. More parking.
3. Head of household jobs.
4. Economic housing for young couples - head of house.
5. Less government.
1. Supporting SLO Airport
2. Following ALUC guidelines
3. Promote clean (software, etc) industry
4. Create more well-paying jobs (not tourism/agriculture/wineries)
5. Support building of additional dorms on Cal Poly parking lots
1. Stop the spread of residential zoned commercial pot grows. It's driving down property values and
promotes addiction which cost us money in social services. Ignoring this issue promotes addiction
and negates the property taxes spent on educating our youth.
1. Neighborhood wellness.
2. Essential services, infrastructure and fiscal health.
3. Assess and renew the downtown.
4. Bike and pedestrian paths.
5. Economic development.
1. Deal with the transient population that disrupts the milieu of our town, especially downtown and
Mission Plaza. We need to feel safe in our city.
2. Adhere to LUCE and Community Design Guidelines that have been established for new and existing
buildings/designs in the downtown area.
3. No more new bars! SLO has more bars than it needs.
4. More bike and pedestrian friendly paths throughout the City.
5. Fiscal responsibility to ensure a healthy financial future.
1. Paving streets
2. Clean downtown sidewalks. Tan cement was a bad idea if you don't clean them. Many out-of-
towners say that SLO looks like a dump!!
3. Build the new homeless shelter. Also stop the panhandling (threats).
4. Expand the airport.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Open space - green belt
2. Bike paths - expansion
3. Fix sidewalks in downtown and adjacent neighborhoods
1. Street and sidewalks need to be checked for safety on Pismo St. between Morro and Chorro there is
no sidewalk on west side. Why is that?
2. More pedestrian and bike lanes please.
1. Purchase, preservation of more open space in greenbelt area -- you have thousands of acres more to
protect, and haven't been doing it; honor Measure G promises by making this #1
2. Fix neighborhood sidewalks
3. Terminate neighborhood wellness enforcement of petty offenses; focus on actually harmful code
violations like slumlording
4. Maintain storm structures and creeks -- hasn't been done in years
5. Develop an actual permanent affordable housing program with strict resale conditions in perpetuity;
the market will not provide affordable housing here
1. The City needs to protect its neighborhoods. Those that are still "Poly-unsaturated" need to remain
so. Cal Poly is part of San Luis, not the other way around.
2. Traffic. Need I say more?
3. Keep downtown economically vital and physically safe. Put stoplights at the midblock crosswalks
downtown and sync them to the ones at the intersections. State Street in Santa Barbara does this.
4. Resist the temptation to hire a lot of new permanent employees after the recent sales tax initiative
passed. The burden placed on pension costs will be ongoing.
1. Pension funding
2. Infrastructure updating, such as roads, bridges
3. Cooperation with Cal Poly to meet common goals
4. Economic development
5. Continue to address needs of homeless, especially with regard to mental health services
1. Traffic control (esp. Broad/Tank Farm area)
2. Managing the homeless
3. Park and open space management
1. Managing the homeless
1. GET RID OF POT FARMS IN THE CITY.
2. STOP INVITING HOMELESS TO OUR CITY.
1. Essential Services,Infrastruction,and Fiscal Health
2. Bike and Pedestrian Paths
3. Economic Development
4. Neighborhood Wellness
5. Homelessness
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Bike and pedestrian paths
2. Take care of Laguna Lake issues
3. a secondary road to Tank Farm that links the Higuera to Johnson
4. Johnson between bishop and laurel single lane in each direction with a center turn lane
5. Skate park
1. billboard removal
1. Bicycling Infrastructure - focus on connecting neighborhoods to schools (especially middle and high
school)
2. Traffic calming - if it is easy and cheap to drive and park, that is what people will do
3. open space
4. Pedestrian #1 priority - make it easier to cross the street on foot than in a car – EVERYWHERE
1. Billboard Removal, within and near SLO.
1. Use Measure G funds to help retire billboards in the City and its approaches.
1. Continue to work on building the homeless shelter at 40 Prado Road
2. Work with the other cities and the county to provide a detox center
3. improve resources and increase funding for mental health
4. work with the neighborhood officer and code compliance officers to improve our neighborhoods
city wide
5. encourage more people to use recycled water/ hook up to city resources for landscaping with
reclaimed water
1. Continue expansion of open space to preserve beauty of SLO, inlcuding using tax dollars to save old
Sunny Acres site
2. Take measures to stop attracting homeless and mentally ill people to SLO
3. Bear in mind that the City of SLO needs the young middle class families that have chosen to make
the financial sacrifice to live in SLO
1. Stop the spread of backyard pot farms in the city. Ask a real estate professional what it is doing to
neighbor's home values. Ask Cal Poly what the parents will think if they know their kids will be living
in a "pot farming friendly" community.
2. Set aside money more for drug treatment. Our High School kids are being told by the media and the
city council that pot does not have any adverse effects. Check in with our area treatment programs,
they'll tell you differently. We are making the problem worse everyday we do nothing.
3. Pot farms in SLO are wrecking our neighborhoods
4. Drug (Pot) deals are happening in front of my house.
5. I don't feel safe on my own block with the Pot growing and deals in the City of SLO
1. Reduce minute/hourly parking meter rates
2. Deal with homeless, including violent vagrants
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Neighborhood Civility and Wellness
2. Community Development Compatibility
3. Economic Development-Professional workforce
4. Essential Services-Infrastructure
5. Development of commercial outside downtown core
1. Fiscal responsibility - get the salaries and pensions under control so they don't strangle us financially
in the future.
2. Find ways to better utilize the resources of Cal Poly as it relates to commerce. Work on developing a
joint venture campus uniting current practices being taught at CP with experience of community
businesses.
1. Affordable renting! Some way to educate renters and landlords about the laws of renting! Students
especially are paying more for less and being taken advantage of! This is so so important because
their lives can be in danger due to nonexistent regulation and monitoring.
1. Decreasing the homeless population
2. Creating bike safe roads
3. Improve road quality by making them bigger and smoother
4. More police presence because there are horrible drivers in SLO! More so than the bay
5. Improve street lights!!!!!! Especially in residential neighborhoods
1. Homelessness
2. Essential Services & Infrastructure
3. Bike & Pedestrian paths
4. Economic Development
1. Implement Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan.
2. Improve and implement bike lanes.
1. Homelessness - contributing to the building of the Prado Shelter
2. Assess & renew downtown especially the creek area around the Mission
1. Lower liabilities for pension payments
2. create water reserves
3. increases bike paths/bike safety & awareness
4. preserve city parks & hiking trails
5. use renewed sales tax for community improvements & not city employee raises
1. Bicycle infrastructure
2. Pedestrian infrastructure
3. Bicyclist education
1. Expanding and improving bike lanes
2. Protecting downtown core from being overrun by chain stores. Reasonable incentives to encourage
and maintaing local businesses
3. Affordable housing
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. reduce the size and expense of government
2. proactively head off dangerous police militarization
3. remember we're a town, not a gated community
4. deprioritize motor vehicle infrastructure
1. Balance Budget
2. Distribute funding in smaller project costs
3. Communicate with public by television/in water bills
1. Expand the City's affordable housing options
2. Continue economic development, especially in downtown core
3. Expand comprehensive homeless services
4. Expand the use of technology for public engagement
5. Maintain dense housing requirements
1. Laguna Lake
2. reduce number of Homeless
3. increase bus service hours
4. road rehab programs
5. Maintain dense housing requirements
1. More parking
2. Improved public transportation
3. In n Out Burger brought to SLO
1. Laguna lake improvement
2. Homeless shelter
3. Clear the creeks
4. Real affordable housing
1. Community Relations
2. Housing
3. Transparency with Sale's Tax
4. Harassing Ordiences
5. City Accountability with paperwork processes
1. Community Relations
1. Laguna Lake restoration
1. Laguna Lake dredging and implementation of protection plan
2. Affordable housing - actually affordable, not starting in the 500's. The jobs housing imbalance isn't
addressed when we keep adding $600,000-$700,000 homes and condos.
3. Emphasis on creation and completion of biking and walking paths.
4. Create financial incentives enabling locally owned businesses to remain in the downtown core.
Downtown is going to lose it's unique draw with the unique businesses that leave.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. NO 1: Please help reduce homelessness
2. Tiny homes/cabins are needed NOW
3. Establishment of villages for cabins
4. Keep bathrooms open 24/7
5. Feed ALL homeless not just Prado/MLM folks
1. Adhering to the parking issues of the community
2. Water in SLO
3. Housing for Cal Poly students
4. Improving relationships between the community and Cal Poly students
5. Improving road construction
1. Laguna Lake
2. dredging of Laguna Lake
3. Protection of Laguna Lake resource
4. Protection of habitat at Laguna Lake
5. spending previously collected tax dollars to preserve Laguna Lake
1. Cleaning and trenching and restoration of Laguna Lake to maintain, nurture the natural habitat of
the community and the city.
1. reduce number of Homeless here
2. Continue bike lane improvements
3. Expand bus service hours
4. Continue road rehab programs
5. Maintain dense housing requirements
1. reduce number of Homeless here
2. Continue bike lane improvements
3. Expand bus service hours
1. Laguna Lake restoration
2. Completion of Los Osos/101 interchange
3. Downtown policing
1. Reclamation of Laguna Lake...a City treasure
2. Proper care of vegetation on the Prefumo Canyon Arm to Laguna Lake
1. Laguna Lake project
2. Clean up our creeks, especially downtown
3. Senior affordable housing
1. additional head of household jobs
2. additional workforce housing
3. adoption and implementation of LUCE Update
4. infrastructure LOVR and Tank Farm Road
5. plan for dealing with unfunded liabilities (pensions)
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Traffic control: reduce speeding and make walking feel safer
2. Add Laguna Lake dredging, and then lake maintenance, to the City's program
3. Fix downtown sidewalks
1. Restoration of Laguna Lake
2. Homeless shelters
3. education of any kind
4. infrastructure of roads, buildings etc
1. Pension reform & benefit cost containment
2. Workforce housing
3. LUCE
4. Mission Plaza regeneration & safety
1. Complete Bob Jones Bike Trail connection to Octagon Barn
2. With County and CAPSLO, complete Homeless Services Center at 40 Prado
3. Assist TMHA project at former Juvenile Hall (Bishop Street Studios)
4. Provide funding for open space acquisitions as warranted
5. Improve CalPERS pension fund situation by paying down unfunded liability
1. Police Presence to our City/Downtown safe and free from violence and panhandling.
2. Return to a reprieve on Sundays with the parking meters. It was really convenient being able to park
without concerning ourselves with feeding a meter because it’s SUNDAY a day of "rest."
3. Stop raising the rates on the meters and how about returning to giving a discount for those of us
that prepay for a meter key. That’s fair.
4. Repair some of the sidewalks that are being uprooted by the trees and also the driveways. The
pavers are coming up and all that’s done is temporary repair with blacktop filler? ing uprooted by
the trees downtown. People trip and fall on the roots and sidewalks then want to sue
5. Remove the old newspaper dispensers that are falling apart and that create an eyesore and
maintain the city landscaping better than it is with keeping the planters filled with plants and
maintained. This is all part of the beautification of SLO. We're paying for it but it’s not being done!
1. Dredging Laguna Lake
2. Transient Crime Reduction
1. Affordable Housing
2. Emphasis on creation and completion of biking and walking paths.
3. Create financial incentives enabling locally owned businesses to remain in the downtown core.
1. Designing and implementing a plan that will make sure we can meet our unfunded liabilities and
that we continually reduce the percentage of unfunded liabilities to net revenue until that ratio
reaches and stays at 0 in a defined time frame.
2. Adoption a streamlined process for the approval of developments that adhere to the LUCE
3. Maintenance and improvement of infrastructure with a focus on improved traffic flow
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Housing (workforce, but also larger SFR)
2. Infrastructure (more underground electric)
3. Commercial Development (downtown and elsewhere)
4. Improve parks
5. Downtown panhandling
1. Workforce housing
2. Downtown parking
1. Address unfunded pensions
2. Improve Mission Plaza
3. Adopt and implement LUCE
4. Streamline permitting to ensure uniform compliance and certainty
5. Increase capital spending
1. Neighborhood Wellness
2. Enforcement of our Ordinances
3. Maintain Essential Services
4. Traffic & Road Safety Improvements
5. Influence Cal Poly to build more student housing on campus
1. Neighborhood Wellness
2. Fiscal Responsibility
1. Downtown transients
2. Continued focus on economic development
3. Update/Upgrade Downtown, particularly Mission Plaza
4. Bike lanes, pedestrian and other forms of alternative transportation
5. Safe neighborhoods
1. Keep pension cost under control.
2. Clean up Laguna Lake'
3. Put in some pickleball courts.
1. Work with community and CAPSLO for new homeless shelter
2. Approve LUCE and begin implementing changes
3. Continue to promote tourism
4. Road improvement including cross walks
5. Find way to dredge and cleanup Laguna Lake
1. implement the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
2. Clear debris, remove flora and dredge Laguna lake
3. Low income housing
4. Services for the homeless (housing, food, WPA type work programs)
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. managing the homeless
2. affordable housing projects
3. managing the eventual transition from Diablo to high tech jobs etc
4. a full working TC, where open discourse is encouraged
5. fixing streets, like in front of the city planning building
1. restore Laguna Lake
2. Increase bus service
3. Benches downtown and parks
4. designated bike paths, not shoulders
5. widen LOVR at 101
1. implement the Laguna Lake Conservation Plan and dredge the lake
1. laguna lake needs to be dredged while it is empty thus saving the city money down the road.
2. Fixing that god awful overpass on los osos valloey rd.
3. Listen to what the airport land use commission tells you!
1. Excavating a dry Laguna Lake
2. dredging Laguna Lake
3. Implement the Laguna Lake Conservation Plan
4. Find space in new areas for Softball Complex
5. Prado Overpass needs on and off ramps
1. Laguna lake restoration.
1. Dredging or beginning to take care of Laguna Lake.
1. Restore and dredge Laguna lake
1. Begin to Dredge and restore Laguna Lake
2. Begin to Dredge and restore Laguna Lake
3. Accept responsibility for Laguna Lake
4. Repaint All Crosswalks outside Downtown
5. Install on-ground lights on all crosswalks on Madonna and LOVR
1. Dredge and restore Laguna Lake
2. Dredge and restore Laguna Lake
3. Accept responsibility for Laguna Lake
1. Implementing the Laguna Lake Master Plan
2. Maintaining Communication with the Public
3. Maintaining public facilities
4. Making the City attractive for High Tech businesses
5. Keeping the feeling of San Luis Obispo as a small welcoming college town
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PRIORITIES
1. Dredging Laguna Lake
2. Improving the conditions at Laguna Lake Park
3. Dealing with the insane traffic on Broad Street near the airport & the LOVR & Madonna area
4. Softball/Baseball training facilities (batting cages, etc.)
5. Open space acquisition and preservation
1. laguna lake dredging
2. bicycle motocross course
3. neighborhood street tree replanting program
4. open space acquisition
5. pedestrian improvements
1. Fix the infrastructure - specifically roads.
2. Reduce support for the homeless - nothing has yet worked after millions od dollars.
3. Dredge Laguna Lake before it refills from rains.
4. Seriously address the pension deficit.
5. Override the Airport development plan and support the city's development plan.
1. Fix the infrastructure - specifically roads.
2. Reduce support for the homeless - nothing has yet worked after millions of dollars.
1. Stronger police presence.
2. Open space
3. Dredging Laguna Lake
4. Urge home owners to NOT put in lawns.
1. More affordable housing
2. low-income housing
1. Increase recreational facilities for kids and adults
2. Install a lighted futsal/soccer facility
3. Install lights at Sinheimer tennis courts
4. Increase ease of bus use - frequency of service
5. Ban plastic bottles, bags and set goal for being the cleanest city
1. Minor League baseball: Bring a California League "A" ball team to SLO.
1. Parking
2. Shopping (Apparel)
3. Public Transportation
4. Clean Beaches/ parks
5. Homelessness
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
How might the City adjust other programs & services to
accomplish these priorities?
Responses are reproduced verbatim. Where a response is shown more than once, it was received in duplicate.
1. To improve affordability and reduce other negative externalities (jobs/housing imbalance, building
code infractions, commuting distances, etc) resulting from our artificially constrained housing
market, a number of improvements can be made.
2. First, while we all appreciate the benefits and openness of a public approval process, too many
committees and public hearings results in design by committee. Value is created in the process, but
the marginal utility is helpful only to a point. Committees disagree with each other, and individuals
disagree within committees. Too many hearings becomes process for the sake of process, losing
sight of improving community prosperity and wellness. Too much control decreases efficiency,
innovation, and overall value. Energy should be put into simplifying the approval process, and
adding enough constraint and enough flexibility to inspire innovation and unique lifestyle solutions.
3. Second, affordable housing policies that places restrictions on sales and rental rates are
counterproductive and costly to administer. The cost of subsidizing deed restricted units is borne by
the market rate units, creating a lottery system and a larger gap between those able to afford the
higher priced market rate units, and the small group uniquely suited to meeting the policy defined
constraints. The workforce ultimately loses, not able to afford the higher priced market rate
housing or qualify for the policy defined constraints. Affordable housing policy should focus more
on product, parking, design, and city imposed fees, and less on sales and rental restrictions.
4. Third, specific plans developed over the past 20 years for expansion areas have looked to new
development to pay for regional parks and infrastructure. New development should pay for its fair
share of new infrastructure projects, but a bias weighted toward burdening new development for
infrastructure projects that have widespread benefit. Energy should go into funding mechanisms
that better distribute infrastructure costs across the wider community benefitting from the
improvements.
5. Finally, City zoning and City design guidelines often result in contradicting guidance to design
professionals and a misrepresentation of property rights. Through a public process, land-use policy
and zoning regulations are created defining property rights. Density is encouraged in appropriate
areas with adequate service capacity, and as a means of meeting policy objectives. However, City
design guidelines create subjective means of discouraging height and massing, reducing intended
densities and infringing on the rights of property owners. Energy should be committed to adding
enough flexibility within design guidelines that design professionals can achieve the intended
densities. This will reduce uncertainty, improve efficiency, and reduce conflict in the approval
process.
6. Adding housing supply to the market is the best way to improve affordability without creating a
whole new set of unintended consequences. All four of the above suggestions will help to increase
the housing supply, and improve health, welfare, safety, and prosperity in our community.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Hire fewer consultants - train City staff.
2. Enforce business licenses, especially rentals.
3. Charge for open space rescues (reimburse).
4. Keep making new development pay its fair share.
5. Hire another Police Chief at less pay (one who is sensitive to issues of race and who is politically
savvy).
6. Put Visa capacity in parking garages.
1. How does the City figure that they will save money by outsourcing an independent company to read
water meters? They are transferring the present meter readers to other jobs. Where is the savings?
Is there any chance to re-visit the pay scales of the City manager, City attorney, and other
administrative positions? We need more workers and fewer administrators. I remember when San
Luis was such a wonderful place to live that we came here and worked for less than we could make
in other cities just for the privilege of living here. It seems that we now feel that we have to offer
extremely high salaries to "entice" people to live and work here. $206,000 to $313,000 per year
seems exorbitant. The benchmark cities seem to be chosen because they pay high salaries also.
Perhaps we could get people to work here because of the community rather than money. Will we
limit obtaining new bonds? It seems that we are already spending almost $1million per month on
the present bonds. Aren't we placing this burden on future generations? How do we plan to pay for
our CALPERS debt?
1. Recognize that the previous good family and homeowner character of San Luis Obispo is
disappearing rapidly, and that we are turning into a sprawled Isla Vista. Take any and all actions to
turn this around, despite the resistance of downtown business interests who just want to sell to a
growing hoard of students.
1. Use City funds and funds from Measure Y to enhance our open space.
1. We urge use of Measure Y funds to help buy out billboards. We also urge City-County collaboration
in these efforts, as consistent with the General Plans of both jurisdictions.
1. Please do NOT put together a Rental Property Inspection Ordinance. Current regulations are in
place, if they were only enforced, the issues would be taken care of.
2. Most of the properties that are unsafe are not managed professionally, and most are not licensed!
Those un-licensed properties would not be inspected, and the property owners that follow the rules
would have to pay the penalty!
1. Seek grants when feasible, use Measure G for ambiance and quality of life
1. Keep pushing ahead on the multi-service homeless center.
2. Make affordable housing a priority.
3. Make on-campus living more attractive to Cal Poly students.
1. If the retirement age is delayed by one year, the City can receive more revenue that way.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Simply leave everything alone.
2. Keep the quality, not the quantity.
3. Remember why we live here.
1. Ensure you are part of the anti-human-trafficking task force.
2. Invite DSS or Mountainbrook Abolitionists or Dan Dow's office to teach awareness of human
trafficking or attend the 2015 Justice Summit 1/16-1/18/15 www.mbabolitionists.org
1. More aggressive laws regarding transients and panhandling.
2. Work on providing more alternatives to driving including more bike paths.
1. The bill system needs to create 1 invoice.
1. It's time for our City Council and Police Department to put their heads together and establish some
controls before our City is overwhelmed with out-of-town problem people.
1. Combine bills into a summary. 5 bills, 5 stuffed envelopes & 5 stuff we throw out.
1. Ensure that new development demand paying for road expansion, efforts to deal with more traffic.
Example of it not working correctly is LOVR overpass on 101 and traffic from overpass to Madonna
Road.
1. Combine bills.
1. Hire more code enforcement personnel for field inspections. Do it daily.
1. Reduce salaries and pension of all employees.
1. Enough has been spent on bike paths!
2. Enough has been spent on downtown.
3. Sell the golf course; it's a drain.
4. Spend less on consultants and studies.
1. Use general fund money, and Parkland development fees from allowing development to fund lights
at Tennis Courts.
2. Allow development within Area Specific plans to help lower housing costs and encourage owner
occupied housing with young families (workforce)
1. Fix potholes; better neighborhood zoning enforcement, rental inspections, construct safer bike
lanes, more professional management of Sinsheimer Pool,
1. Reduce priorities on building NEW facilities and make sports programs be self-sustaining.
1. By charging all users equally for use of facilities.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. over the past few decades the city has built several soccer and softball facilities.
2. Sinshiemer park is the only legal sized baseball filed with public access in slo.
3. this facility is being shared by blues, babe ruth, Larry lee, Cal Ripken, youth club baseball, Cal poly
club baseball, adult baseball, and ironically slo high school who has their own private field. This
facility is over used and will need renovation soon and there will be no alternative but to just shut it
down. with no other options the established organizations. will be left out in the cold. i know my
organization. men’s baseball could easily be turning away dozens of teams due to lack of available
times at the current facility. and since we are adult league we pay full price for the facility gladly.
this is a major financial boost to the city. from what i can tell the city dozens of soccer and facilities
several softball options. but Americas pastime has been left out. the high school does not permit, or
lets say prices teams out of using the baseball facility. as well as cal poly and cuesta. this adds to the
over use of sinshiemer. strange that the same taxpayers that pay for these facilities are the ones
not allowed to enjoy them. we are very pleased with our relationship with the city and hope that
someday we can help work towards getting new facility to ease the burden on a great field we
have.
1. Give up rental housing inspections.
2. Sell the silly hook and ladder fire truck.
3. Quit giving money for conserving land not in town.
1. A more bikeable city would lower traffic congestion, reduce parking demand, allow for healthier air
quality and for better health for individuals. Providing safe ways for kids to get to school other than
by car not only gives them exercise but creates habits that will follow them into adulthood.
1. Isn't that why we voted "yes" on the tax continuing?
2. Oh yes, I have one complaint. Downtown where there are no bike lanes. Bicycles should be walked
on the sidewalks. To go 6 or 8 mph I have to keep my foot on the brake pedal.
1. Discourage non-resident homeless and find housing for resident homeless. Separate programs for
substance abusers and mentally ill. Make some areas of City for homeowners only - not rentals.
Gated, senior-only areas. Require all streets to have sidewalks - fixed and/or installed.
1. A skate park is a BAD idea. All adults and children are not physically able. A skate park is inviting
expensive lawsuits when injuries occur - and they will!
2. Older tax-paying adults need services so they (we) will not be moving away!
1. No more consultant fees or City raises. No more money to downtown street parking, sidewalks or
any other "City beautification" projects or tourist advertising until Laguna Lake viable again.
1. Don't allow soliciting / begging downtown, do more of the giving meters. Educate tourists /
students about how they can help without handing out cash / change.
2. Keep retirement system competitive with other agencies, so new talent will come.
3. We love SLO! Thanks for asking! :)
1. Parking districts - permit before 10 a.m. - people come to the house to go riding, work on project,
get tickets work our neighbors 15 minutes before - and when you have your pass in the window,
still get a ticket and have to appeal.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Listen to the people who write in enforcement code in bills you enact.
2. Re-address the medical marijuana issue. You goofed big time. You DID NOT PROTECT the majority of
your tax-paying base.
1. Take more donations for homeless, bike paths, skate park.
2. Use volunteer crews for neighborhood wellness and trash (litter) pick-up.
1. Reduce money to "downtown" infrastructure improvement.
2. Reduce money to bicycle-related costs.
3. Do not award money to outside interests that do not directly relate to the City - Land Conservancy -
Pismo Beach Reserve.
4. Don't spend excessive money for a sign at Highway 1 and Highland.
5. Don't spend $25,000 extra to help our water department to do PR about the "drought."
1. Prioritize goals that are achievable in the short term especially those relating to the health, fitness
and well-being of residents. Improve public transportation (more buses/vans) so that people don't
have to drive to work.
1. Dedicate one lane of traffic to bicycles on Higuera & Marsh through downtown area.
2. Give pedestrian-only designation at downtown signals.
3. Institute campaign to deter vagrancy - public service education to deter, law enforcement vigilance.
4. Institute campaign to deter excessive alcohol consumption in downtown. Stop providing "port-a-
potties" on City streets for St. Patrick's Day, graduation and other ceremonies.
1. Stop programs that encourage transients to settle here. Discourage Cuesta students without local
ties from moving here and filling rentals.
1. SLO needs to look closely at being prudent with dollars and cutting expenses on unnecessary
services.
1. Thank you for your commitment to the safety and health of every citizen.
1. By utilizing the existing road to water tanks off Patricia Avenue, to flat below the existing water tank
beneath Bishop Peak. Once was a water pond for County to drink out of.
1. Combine billing for more than 1 account. You waste so much sending out multiple bills.
1. Increase building permit costs.
1. When the new billing compiler was purchased, we were promised we could have Bill summary for
multiple accounts. This has never happened. We get 6 bills, 6 envelopes stuffed full and 6 piles we
have to shred.
1. Be fiscally proactive to achieve the above. If not, the City will eventually lose what it has that makes
it such a wonderful place to live.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Be more proactive with CAL POLY president, Jeffrey Armstrong.
2. Set stronger guidelines when issuing permits to drinking establishments.
3. Make it a prerequisite to obtaining a bus. license.
1. Create a list of priorities and plan and take action accordingly with fairness.
2. Publish those priorities.
1. Adopt a firm rental inspection program for rented homes, paid for by owners who rent. Adopt
substantial penalties for rental lords who don't abide by rules.
1. Focus on neighborhood wellness rather than the downtown. Instead of focusing on "Stakeholders"
focus on voting residents.
1. New ordinances.
1. Are you kidding - I tried that when I joined up with the Commission on Aging and learned that
anybody's input was always over-ridden by the supervisors holding office. Good luck in a lost cause.
1. Reduce staff and focus the remaining stuff on essential items.
1. Cut waste and inefficiency in government.
1. Focus less on commerce / development / tourism. It is NOT true that the City will "die" without
these things; it will revert to a family-friendly place to raise children and grow old in. Do not reduce
"essential services" to an amalgamation of single-interest special projects, e.g. "skate park."
1. Streamline government and reduce waste.
1. Programs and services mean nothing when there is nothing left!
1. Have Town Hall meetings, so public can get involved - public has good ideas.
1. Hiring freeze and renegotiate retirement packages.
1. Stop supporting services that attract vagrants and increase taxes on bars.
1. I blame adults, money is the bottom line, they will serve even if the customer is drunk.
2. Women should not walk alone after dark, or walk in groups.
3. We should have police on the beat not just in squad cars.
4. Watering should be done before sun-up and after sundown.
5. Too many. The grocery stores and drug stores have aisle after aisle selling wine. Disgraceful. Thank
CVS on the tobacco.
1. Why build 500 homes by post office if streets can't hold traffic now. Work on projected traffic flow
first then see if building plans can be met safely.
1. Less permits and higher permit fees to offset the infrastructure impact.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Postpone green/open space procurement.
2. Postpone Laguna Lake dredging.
3. Exert pressure on Cal Poly to provide more on-campus student housing.
4. As a condition of approval for "N" housing developments with over 100 units, 30% should be long-
term deed-restricted low-cost housing.
1. Police need to be ticketing speeders on a regular basis.
1. Provide shelter or transport out of town.
2. Stop asking taxpayers for more money. We don't have it. We have not "recovered." I haven't had a
raise in 8 years.
3. Stop being greedy.
4. Use common sense!
1. Provide shelter or transport out of town.
2. Stop asking taxpayers for more money. We don't have it. We have not "recovered." I haven't had a
raise in 8 years.
1. Reduce 2013-2015 social programs.
1. Divert an appropriate level of car-related infrastructure funding towards bicycle/pedestrian paths
and protected routes. I'm not sure how homeless services are funded, unfortunately, so I cannot
comment on how to better fund them.
1. Reduce any future homelessness and Bike Path goals until plans now approved are completed. The
Skate Park seems terribly expensive.
1. Reduce other programs funded by the City to focus more on water allocation and usage needs.
Review and evaluate which programs can be subsidized by the residents at a slightly higher level.
1. We should act like the students should have some control over their excessive alcohol consumption
and lack of self-control. They could be treated like adults and we could expect that behavior instead
of throwing all this time and money trying to work around their boorish behavior. The schools could
help with this.
1. Coalitions with local biking groups. Coalitions with local "green belt" property owners to deed land
to City for preservation (what you're doing). Recruitment of a more professional Police force (over
time). Media campaign to increase bus use, raising (?) revenues to allow more hours. No new staff
for media campaign. NO outside consultant $$$ for media campaign.
1. Hold Cal poly accountable for on campus housing and influx of new students
1. With the passage of Measure G sales tax extension the City needs to ensure that the funds are used
to improve the City and not fund employee pensions
1. Reduce Katie Lichtig's salary to a reasonable amount.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Fewer commercial buildings that stay vacant. More downtown police. Better enforcement of car
laws, cell phone use, moving violations.
1. Find a better way to do the water rates other than monitoring 3 months a year. Next time make this
so you can fold it with the writing INSIDE - not showing in the mail.
1. Next time make this so you can fold it with the writing INSIDE - not showing in the mail.
1. Enough bike paths - pay attention to traffic problems. Adding lanes that have to merge (Laguna
Lake near Post Office) is dangerous and ill-conceived. Need a better traffic engineer for SLO City!!
1. Retirement, insurance and salary costs must be contained within a balanced budget for now and in
the future. The public sector must follow the private sector with benefit reductions and
eliminations.
1. Dredge Laguna Lake
1. I have no idea.
2. More student housing on campus / cap on how many students. Due to housing and water issues in
SLO.
3. Seniors are not able to pay high costs to live in SLO, why can't Charter give seniors / disabled
discounts?
1. Pay Manager, Mayor and other City employees less. They are out of line for a town this size. Don't
have the Fire Department roll on every nursing home problem. Nursing home should foot bill.
Control growth for growth's sake. We don't need more business building and strip malls. We have
plenty of empty ones.
1. There are many experts and other municipalities that have accomplished an array of alternative
energy goals. Learn from them, don't reinvent the wheel. Same with Air B'n'B issue.
1. Support the Bob Jones Trail extension. Grant funds for water quality projects at Laguna Lake? Creek
patrols. Extend the Bob Jones from the barn through SLO City to the Mission Plaza area.
1. Re-prioritize projects. Stop wasting money on re-lettering street signs. Terminate non-productive
employees and managers. Re-assess benefits and adjust.
1. Quit spending money on artsie-fartsie stuff, new sidewalks where not needed. Hire more people
that are willing to work not just come to get pay check. Don't listen to big money like Copelands. No
Chinese design on new Chinatown property.
1. Turn the benches to face each other like Santa Barbara. Foot patrol police and security guards. No
panhandling ordinance and enforce it, unlike the unenforced smoking ordinance.
1. Apply comprehensive land use planning when approving/disapproving new development
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. At this time, don't feel I have sufficient knowledge/insight to contribute. New to this beautiful
community, my vote is to maintain what is special and unique. I hope Measure G funds will be used
to protect and invest in our town. Thank you for this forum; I look forward to getting involved.
1. This is a most opportune time to do this. We need to use this window to make repairs so we have a
lake for future use.
1. Take seriously the projects citizens care about.
2. Avoid getting sucked into limiting debate and support for items outside of what this survey finds.
3. Stop sending money to other cities (like Pismo Beach), before supporting your town.
4. Reduce spending for tourism promotion, raise fees for tourists, out of town landlords.
1. improve efficiency of some staff
1. To address traffic congestion/safety on Broad and Higuera work with Caltrans to add additional
capacity to Highway 101 south of LOVR and to Broad Street.
1. Add more City staff who can help coordinate funding, grants, and planning
1. Some form of rental assistance. Affordable housing / units on unoccupied land. Volunteer
coordination. Clean sidewalks.
1. Reduction of City fees and fines by controlling number and salary of City employees.
1. Good luck.
1. Uncertain what these priorities mean - not enough info provided.
1. Give tax relief or cheaper rent if new companies use old existing buildings. Need bikes that police
collect and resale available for homeless to get around with and find a job with transportation.
Safer bike lanes.
1. Need more bike spaces. Enforce rules on bike riders. Expand homeless shelter and include
counselor. We need another skateboard ramp on the other end of town. Elderly and vets need
more lower rentals available for them.
1. Lots of financial / housing / rehab help for drug addiction but not for those with alcohol addiction.
1. I don't know what your overall programs and budgets look like.
1. Implement higher-paying math/science and trade skill teaching positions at public K-12 schools.
Offer subsidies and/or tax benefits for local farmers who produce and sell locally. Provide incentives
for local business lending firms to come to and stay in SLO.
1. Use G funds for citizen-oriented projects, not silly stuff like garbage cops, upper Monterey "adobe"
sidewalks.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Stop making driving so easy (raise parking fees and fines, raise speeding and red light citations,
etc.). Make more bike-only avenues (e.g. Morro Street is fantastic!). Residents would love this too.
1. Eliminate excessive Police and Fire supervisory positions. Re-negotiate the incredibly generous
pension and medial retirements from Police and Fire personnel. These were from a time when we
were swimming in money and those days are gone. I am not anti-Police or anti-Fire.
1. Lower salaries on par with average income of SLO residents, not what someone in Marin County
makes. Reduce (promises of) benefits and pension amounts. No one in the private sector in this
community receives such extraordinary "perks." Public servants should not have union or
bargaining rights.
1. stop unnecessary growth i.e. Tank Farm Rd
1. As new development occurs, rather than adopting existing infrastructure that is overloaded with
vehicular traffic and trying to make it work, look at creating new or rerouting existing corridors,
dedicating any closed portion to safe (shorter) routes for multimodal transportation. i.e. Reroute
LOVR to the planned connection to Buckley, creating a limited circulation element between the Los
Verdes Parks where students can ride and park bikes to catch the school buses serving the southern
areas of the City. As development agreements are negotiated ensure that daily trips (schools,
commercial services, shopping) via multimodal transport are included. New development affords us
a unique opportunity to correct past road alignments that may not work for the City today.
1. Otherwise SLO is great and I trust the City to keep it that way.
1. In general, the City does a great job, but once in a while they do something stupid like trying to keep
Costco out or prohibiting drive-throughs like In-N-Out.
1. Reign in City employee salaries and retirement costs.
1. Cut City expenses by 5% across the board. No exceptions. Free up short-term rental regulation.
Press Cal Poly on enrollment vs. housing units on campus. Allow multi-unit student housing / "low
income" in "the least impactful" areas. Along Foothill, California, on campus, along railroad.
1. Government and commercial water conservation. I think the public sector does a fine job of
conservation.
1. Make sure Staff and City agencies work to protect property values and neighborhoods. They can act
as cheerleaders for developers instead of working for the safety of permanent residents.
1. Monitor and control employee hiring and benefits. Concentrate bike path in the City rather than
Bob Jones Trail development. Delay green space purchase and development.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Contract to CAL Fire! Lots of money wasted - no bid on problem brand of firetrucks - fancy SUVs -
firemen going home during working hours using firetrucks - (not SUVs-firetruck) and pension costs.
Bus = you now go 4 extra blocks to avoid one block where one person complains - the buses have to
go over center line to make the turns and they are damaging the roads - they have had expensive
repairs made once and are again failing.
1. Make new Measure G hires not permanent. Make sure Staff and Advisory Bodies are not just
cheerleaders for developers but look at the needs of permanent residents first. Work with Cal Poly
to insure that there will be enough on campus housing for any increased enrollment. Try to talk
sense into CP about 5,000 more students. Even with more dorms the roads in San Luis can't handle
the additional traffic.
1. Downtown is beautiful - I wouldn't touch it. No shops for seniors, though.
1. Before the City donates $75,000 to other city open space funds, take a look at deficiencies in City
parks and trails. Plan and build parking structure at south end of downtown before all parking lots
are developed on Marsh, Nipomo and Monterey.
1. Stop asking for MORE $. Stop asking us to tell you what additional services we want. Reduce
compensation (salaries, pensions and benefits) until qualified people are no longer applying. When
many qualified people apply for a vacancy, it means your compensation package is too generous.
1. Actually allow housing to be built. Impact fee requirements for residential are too high. Infill.
Upzone. Rental inspection ordinance. Neighborhood patrols. Move land. Move trails (included
current areas. Lots of loops.). Broad Street at end of day from Tank Farm to Orcutt is awful.
1. I'd like to see garbage containers off the streets the morning following pick-up. Where are the two
people hired to take care of the situation? They've never been in my neighborhood since they've
been hired!
1. Please do not use water as a control for growth as proper planning would suffice.
1. Cut down on lighting downtown.
1. The City might have to cut spending on other programs.
1. Everything else is minor and a distraction to the above problem. Yes - it is a problem.
1. Reduce overhead, reduce staff, reduce programs and regulations, downsize organization, cut
Administration salaries / positions, reduce benefits and auto allowances, reduce fleet inventory -
keep vehicles longer than a few years!!?
1. Motel, gas and luxury taxes.
1. Don't allow panhandlers. Enforce rules on parking, limit number of people renting a house. More
education on conservation - assemblies in schools.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. More police presence all around downtown.
1. Government jobs are cushy, despite workers' complaints otherwise - reclassify and manage down
job criteria and wages, and particularly pension contributions.
1. We need to protect our neighborhoods. We appreciate CalPoly but we should be assertive in
protecting our neighborhoods. CalPoly is brutal in their determination to build more dormitories
near Pacheco School!
1. Reduce budget for other programs and administration except public safety.
1. Reform the police and City staff to align with the goals.
1. I don't know but I hope somebody does.
1. Outrageous charges for water and sewer. Need some relief for people on fixed income that are not
on welfare.
1. More outreach to mentally impaired to get them off the streets & productive in community.
1. More community outreach and communication. More community input aside from public
comments at meetings (most can't make these - we work!)
1. New & better planning department-not the elitist/left wing progressive version that has so screwed
up both housing & transportation - and currently is trying to damage our retail environment by
cluelessly adding more retail space but no real new parking - revenue per parking space is
up/revenue per square foot is down.
1. The quality of life here in SLO has deteriorated over the years since I came here in 196 Crowding,
congestion, runaway growth of CalPoly and Cuesta College, and the advent of hordes advocating for
GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH have ruined what was once a true paradise.
1. Stop supporting downtown and tourism associations. As a homeowner resident, I sometimes feel
like the tourists; businesses that cater to tourists downtown get taxpayer money they don't need.
1. Well, other than Dan Carpenter, you might elect me as no one seems to have know-how or
(intelligence) presently to even think of any of the above.
1. Retirement pensions for city workers is ridiculous!
2. Upper end of senior staff are paid too much.
3. Larger city buses? Double deckers? Why? How often are buses empty? Review & assess.
4. More city advertising=more income.
1. Less raises for people making over $100,000 in government non-essential things (tourism, events,
promotions, etc)
1. City Council doing just fine. A counter-poise to 3-2 pro-growth board of supervisors.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Stop catering to the homeless!
1. Remove or reduce inhibitors that hinder the development or redevelopment of city center business
activities.
2. Work to promote vs. fight city development.
1. Put everything in priority order. Fund from the top. When all the available money is allocated, put
the remaining projects into the next budget cycle.
1. Lower pay of police & fire dept employees that is on par with other CA counties.
2. Support new homeless shelter.
1. Turn the #1 route into a restricted riders for people who are either over 60 or have a note from
doctor saying need calmer, less anxiety-provoking ride. I have had horrible experiences on #3 and
#1!
1. Reduce costs of pension plans.
2. Reduce costs of employee wages & benefits.
3. Increase visibility of how $$ are spent.
1. Set up an active list of suggested small projects that community groups, including college, could do
to defray maintenance costs.
1. Establish solid mental health programs and awareness. The panhandlers are less concerning than
the legitimately mentally ill people who harass everyone who walks by.
2. Education and outreach re: drought and water shortages in CA.
3. Schedule bus stops further apart so that when buses are ALWAYS late they are actually on time.
1. Keep large developers from ruining our precious downtown and building huge housing
developments ever taking more of our beautiful landscape. Thank you.
1. Please keep up the great work. We have a very beautiful and wondrous city which we live in.
1. keep our city safe and small
1. Needs more informed discussion.
1. Work with PG&E, The Gas Company, and our own City Utility (Water) for higher Annual Income
Caps. With rent, housing prices, and everything else on the rise, it would make sense to help with
discounted rates on utilities.
1. Provide and pay for comprehensive preventive maintenance and replacement plans for existing and
new facilities. See that they are carried out.
2. Give drunks and panhandlers the option of either jail or community service rather than a
meaningless ticket / fine they won't pay.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. The city needs to correct the imbalance that exists between what we pay for and what we get from
the public safety sector. Police and fire have handicapped the city financially for years and will
continue to do so until inflated salaries and overtime abuse are controlled. I understand the need
for public safety employees, but their contribution should not come at the cost of every other
service the city offers. A single public safety employee costs the city nearly twice what a non public
safety employee would cost over a 30 year career. I will take 2 water treatment employees or two
street maintenance employees over 1 firefighter any day. Controlling the money pit that is police
and fire would free up significant amounts of funding for other departments to perform services
that benefit the community on a daily basis. I do not consider police or fire essential services, they
are not essential the my quality of life nor are they essential to my survival. I am a supporter of the
city of san luis obispo and their staff but I am not a supporter of the economic suicide pact that they
have made with the public safety unions.
1. Use multi-millions from Measure Y and Measure G. You promised!
1. Use funds tied to Open Space maintenance to hire more park rangers and equipment
1. Lower city fees for Affordable Housing options, such as granny units, micro-housing, etc - policies
and fees that encourage affordable green micro-housing. Dredge Laguna Lake.
1. Improve the competitive bid process for infrastructure management.
2. Require public, web-available disclosure of conflicts of interest by all elected officials, appointees,
and hired contractors.
3. Publish a line-item budget on the Web for public inspection and approval.
1. Be flexible. Listen to what constituents say and act accordingly.
1. Use the savings from upgrading to more energy and water efficiency, to pay for upgrades.
1. I think our police and firefighters are grossly overpaid for the job they are required to do in SLO.
Reduce their budget and pay. I am pretty sure the police do not need brand new sports cars every
couple years to give out noise violations.
1. Reduce redundant city positions
2. Increase rental tax and enforcement
3. Support building conference center and hotel near the airport
1. Don't allow "anywhere America" growth via large chain stores. Keep it quaint and small business
friendly.
2. Get younger business owners and leaders involved. Ask for their input.
3. Pay homeless people to help keep downtown clean. Give them opportunities.
4. I've heard so many business owners complain that slo is not friendly to business and that we make
it incredibly hard of business owners. Part of that are the strict requirements of parking. If we just
allowed street parking more dynamic businesses could move to central slo.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Though prevention efforts require an initial upfront cost, they will reduce long-term service costs
for the city and county. Setting aside seed money from the general fund could free monies in the
future to be used elsewhere.
1. Thank you for this forum. - I would have to look at the other programs' budgets more closely. But
for one, back off on all the bicycle and hiking trail stuff until we get our main infrastructure
updated. Goods and services have to get here and they're not coming in on bikes. Moving the
homeless along lawfully will make the downtown more appealing. And safer. And this will
eventually be less of a drain on the police department services.
1. A challenge. Try a parks and open space initiative (bond, etc.) to also include Laguna Lake dredging
& management. Use Measure G funds to give bike/pedestrian infrastructure their fair share.
1. Develop mandatory community service (labor) program for panhandlers. They have plenty of time
to work.
1. City Council should work with Cal Poly and also restrict students in strictly residential areas. A six-
unit dorm in a residential street is not acceptable!!!
1. Support more weekend activities in Mission Plaza. Support development of Broad Street area.
1. Small meetings for areas to undergo changes. Neighborhood input is important.
1. Increase public transportation services by adding more buses (to increase # of times bus
pickup/drop off from City Center to outer areas (Tank Farm, Johnson, Orcutt, Foothill, Laguna
Shopping and Froom Ranch Costco area)). Increase RTA routes to 2 an hour vs.
1. Everyone makes mistakes- even SLO gov't. When a mistake is made or a program ineffective, gov't
should stop it and return that money to the citizens. Gov't should not be a self perpetuating
bureaucracy or job. Gov't should only serve when and where it can and admit when it cannot.
1. SLO Transit - bus to the airport - the gaping flaw in SLO Transit / especially needed early and late
when there's no route 3 to Marigold (a 20-minute walk to the terminal, but at least it's possible) / a
daytime shuttle from Marigold would be a great improvement, if not the best solution / take the
money from bike paths and "pedestrian paths" - those are frills.
1. We voted for a tax - don't get greedy on T.O.T.s!
1. Use meters to pay for parking cars, not residents of Dana Street SLO. Who is in charge? City would
not fix our street.
1. Make it easier for businesses to flourish in SLO. Be more supportive of first-year business ventures -
provide support in how to get through government maze of City regulations, etc.
1. Pass an ordinance banning pot grows NOT prescribed by a physician with local hospital rights.
1. Limit expenditures for homeless.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Overall, I believe the City is doing a good job and think there is good management in place. I trust
that both our appointed and elected City officials will listen to the citizens.
1. Spend Proposition G wisely.
1. Salary cuts to staff, pension reform
1. Eliminate subsidies to the Chamber, Downtown Association
2. Fire Katie Lichtig and hire someone better for less
3. Do something about the ridiculous pay you provide "public safety" employees -- it's totally out of
proportion for what they do and what they deserve. $200K fire fighters is obscene!
4. Honor your Measure G promises; downtown improvements were never a Measure Y/G promise,
and that money could go for actual G promises.
1. Keep development away, or at least mitigated, from homes. I am referring to hotels along the
creeks where neighborhoods are on the other side.
1. SPENT MORE MONEY ON POLICE.
1. Stop spending ridiculous amounts of money on skate parks including concrete trees at the
renovation project.
1. Bike and pedestrian lanes that allow cyclists a safer way to travel the city would improve traffic, and
air quality. As it is now, cyclists do not feel safe.
2. Laguna Lake is such a beautiful addition to SLO, and to allow it's degradation is to risk that entire
neighborhood's degradation. Invest in that neighborhood and the lake.
3. A change in traffic patterns along Johnson would make travel much safer along that road, and traffic
on that street between Bishop and Laurel is never backed up.
4. A bike/pedestrian trail and/or a road that links Johnson and Higuera parallel to Tank Farm is
needed.
1. Get a large number of people out of their cars and the roads won't wear out as fast.
1. The city legal staff could research and make public tax benefits to land owners who refuse to renew
their contracts with advertising companies.
1. Alternate sites for advertising, such as inside parking garages, might entice advertisers.
1. Adjust funding, including trimming where necessary
2. Look at the city as a whole and not just focus on downtown with the visitors but put residents/
citizen's needs as a priority
1. Hear and act on the concerns of residents, neighborhoods and property owners in the City of SLO.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Pass an ordinance to restrict medical cultivation for patients with a prescription from a local doctor
with hospital privileges. Or, like other California towns, ban it in residential areas. It should be taxed
and grown on ag land just like other consumables. At least restrict growing in houses with kids. Do
not allow social services unless people are clean or in a treatment program.
1. Post eye-catching signage and flyer handouts in local businesses discouraging individuals from
giving handouts to homeless which only serves to encourage more homeless to flock to San Luis
Obispo.
1. Establish rental inspection program
2. Establish Planning Commission project approval evaluations and post project feedback
3. Proactively collaborate with Cuesta college and Cal Poly for more on campus housing away from
neighborhood areas
1. Demonstrate fiscal backbone when dealing with unions.
2. Cut the ridiculous red tape when it comes to building permits. We need to be encouraging
commerce, not chasing it away to neighboring communities. Learn from the state when they lost
the Tesla battery plant to Nevada. Those tax dollars are critical to paying for our community needs.
1. lower pension benefits for new city employees
2. Cut back on tourism marketing- people already know this is a great place to visit!
3. Utilize electronic methods for things like this & save paper & postage. My water newsletter could
be an email instead of a flier.
1. I don't know enough about the budget for other programs and services to comment.
1. Every government expense means money taken from people, including the poorest among us. This
makes SLO less affordable and increases the problems of hunger and homelessness. For every city
expense, the city government should ask "is this really more important than a citizen being able to
feed her children or pay her rent?"
1. Ask local organizations to poll their members, including all age group members such as PTAs,
cultural groups, Scouts, library visitors, athletic groups, religious groups, environmental groups,
business groups like Kiwanis etc, art groups, and any others who have a vested interest in SLO. Then
total ALL their responses even though there may be duplicates. All entries should be considered
because all of them represent a local citizen at work and recreation. it would be interesting to do
those calculations individually and then in total to compare what a basic study reveals as opposed
to the numbers of active residents in a wide ranging gathering of interests and involvement. I also
think you should come up with a more even way of distribution of monies because some projects
like street repair can cost more per resident than adjusting the application protocols for City
Departments to make them easier to work with, including Building.
1. That is a tricky one! No suggestions here unfortunately.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. City is not transparent with processes with the administrative fines, specifically mistakes in
notification are common. Needs serious review. Also reportability and public updates on the list of
properties with offenses should be available for public viewing like the weekly police reports.
2. HOUSING allowing more development, more apartments or more track homes. Currently the city of
San Luis Obispo cannot meet the demand for housing. Look into the rules and regulations for homes
being able to get a permit to host more than 5 tenants. Specifically parking and enforcement of
those rules with education to landlords about the requirements.
3. Reaching education and involvement of the students in our community. They continue to be a
concern among our community members, but they always address to me that they have no way of
being a part of the solution. And I don't like seeing those graphic posters and door thingies put out
by the city, they don't look good in our community.
1. adjust budget to reflect these priorities.
1. City cannot put all their eggs in one basket (HSOC). Too many unhoused people fall into the gap in
homeless services here. We have excellent programs (TMHA, CAPSLO, etc.) but they can only serve
a portion of the population for a variety of reasons. Far too many veterans and women living on the
streets and in the bushes needlessly; unable or ineligible to use Prado/MLM. They have NO ACCESS
to food (except at the holidays when everyone remembers that lots of people are hungry), shelter
from the weather, safety, showers, laundry facilities, phone service, etc. We are failing them. When
they try to sleep at night, we ticket them for 'illegal lodging.' When they are caught relieving
themselves outdoors because our bathrooms are closed, we ticket them. Sometimes they are then
labeled sex offenders. We have criminalized homelessness and made it a business. A giant circus
wheel at best.
2. We can do better. So many groups and nonprofits out there working to clothe, get mental health
help to our indigent, get them on the public dole, help those who can to find work, etc....we do not
have enough folks working to help the very very low income people find housing. And even if they
can get a Section 8 voucher, there isn't enough section 8 housing available. And you can't blame the
landlords for not wanting to open their properties up to scrutiny, or take in people who may not be
able to pay the rent on time each month, or keep their places up.
3. Help Hope's Village get going. You've endorsed us, now help us find a small plot of land on which to
build our village. It'll take everyone's help to get this going. But when we open, it will be very
successful, and will make SLO proud. Thanks for reading!
1. Taxes have been collected for 50 years for property owners near Laguna Lake, NO money has been
spent to support infrastructure to keep Lake viable. Determine what monies have been collected
over the years and spend it on the project it was intended for.
1. Need to see the budget to give a proper answer
1. Back off of aggressive homeless shelter plans
2. Back off neighborhood wellness efforts
1. Laguna Lake has been grossly neglected over the past 40 years...it’s too precious to lose. The City is
now paying attention, please continue and budget and carry through with responsible
maintenance. Thank you!
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Balance your increased revenues to do the above rather than increasing employees’ wages and
benefits. Other issues should have budget priority.
1. Put everything in priority order, and fund from the top. When the money runs out, put what's left
into a future year.
1. Less money spent on "studies" and consultants for everything! Involve the Seabees or other military
or prison work groups to begin restoration of Laguna Lake
1. Find money from grants and reduce personnel spending to a level closer to private sector
1. Additional revenues from enhanced TOT applied to VROB rentals; negotiate modest expansion in
employee contributions for pension fund.
1. By creating a healthier lake you open the park to more people by providing a more inviting
environment. More recreational activities will take place and more people will take pride in one of
SLO's greatest landmarks and utilize its beauty.
1. There should be a cost benefit analysis preformed for each project the city undertakes that assigns
a value to the improvement based on the product of the projected value of the benefit per person,
and the number of people affected. Any increase in revenue based on improved taxes, tourism, or
business should also be factored in. We should then determine the projects with the greatest net
present value based on the cost, time frames, and resource intensiveness.
1. The people of this city need to recognize that this town is small and its future growth is a forgone
conclusion. People want to live and work here. That means some view and noise sheds will change
and it's time more people accept that. It's the city's role to carefully plan for and "coach" that
growth/development in a thoughtful and proactive way, but by micro managing and obstructing it,
we will end up with a haphazard result.
1. Hold the line on compensation in Union negotiations.
1. Spend less money on cosmetic improvements; Keep our money in the City and not give money
away to any cause outside of our City
1. Difficult question for which I wish I had a helpful answer
1. Continue showing restraint with bargaining units. Encourage City employees to take ownership of
their budgets to keep costs inline.
1. Consider use of solar roads, parking lots and bike trails as a way to offset cost of electricity.
1. Consider Solar Roadways/parking lots to harvest electricity
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways
1. Spend less money on decorative downtown signs. Stop handing out extra cash to out of town
groups like the Pismo preserve.
COMMUNITY BUDGET BULLETIN SURVEY RESPONSES: PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
1. Perhaps not give money to other cities when we have priorities in our own city. I thought this was a
pro conservation, open spaces council.
1. If you dig it out while it is dry it will cost less money.
1. Scale back the City Entrance Signs. They are financially way out of line.
2. Fix our lake before you fund anymore out of city purchases by the Land Conservancy!
3. No more downtown upgrades until Laguna Lake work is done.
1. Take money from the homeless and city pension contributions and work diligently on the
infrastructure.
1. Think outside the box. For example, declare an emergency to get lake dug while dry. Save millions.
1. Take action on items 1,2,
2. Perhaps use smaller vehicles for bus and public transportation.
3. Ad campaign promoting SLO as Green friendly+
1. Renovation of Sinsheimer Park Stadium.
1. The rules for parking throughout the city varies a lot and gets a little confusing. So it would be good
to maybe have a general rule for all public parking.
2. Maybe allow more name brand shopping to come into SLO
3. The transportation is slow, maybe ha
Section 4
Recommended City Goals
COMMUNITY GROUPS/OTHERS
Key Dates
Written Suggestions
Please send comments by Friday, December 19.
Comments can be submitted online at:
www.slocity.org/opencityhall
Or via mail to:
Joe Lamers, Budget Manager
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Fax: 781-7401
Email: jlamers@slocity.org
2015-17 Financial Plan Meetings
Budget Foundation Meeting
Tuesday, December 16, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Community Forum
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Ludwick Community Center
Goal-Setting Workshop
Saturday, January 24, 2015
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
City-County Library
Mid-Year Budget Review
Tuesday, February 17, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Strategic Budget Direction & Major
City Goal Programs Workshop
Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Budget Workshops
June 9 & 11, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
June 16, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
2015-17 Budget Adoption
Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Contact Information
Please submit your comments by Friday,
December 19, 2015.
Comments can be submitted online at the
City’s Open Government portal:
www.slocity.org/opencityhall. If you are
submitting comments on behalf of a community
group, business or organization, please include
your organization’s name within your response.
To submit comments by mail, please them to
to Joe Lamers, Budget Manager, at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401; by fax at
781-7401; or by email at jlamers@slocity.org.
For more information on the goal-setting and
budget process, contact Joe at 781-7132.
For additional information on the City’s
Financial Plan and Goal-Setting process, visit
www.slocity.org.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed
to including disabled persons in all of our
services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications device for the deaf: (805) 781-
7410.
2015-17 Financial Plan
What are the most
important priorities
facing the City of San
Luis Obispo?
The City Council wants
to hear from you about
what is truly important
for the community.
Of all the things that can
be done to make the City
an even better place to
live, work and play, which
are the most important?
Attachment 2
What Are the Most Important Needs of the City Over the Next Two Years?
The City Wants Your Input
Every two years, the City establishes the top
priorities to make San Luis Obispo an even
better place to live, work and play. Then the
City Council matches the resources to achieve
these priorities through adopting the budget in
June. This sets the City’s course of action for
the next two years and helps the City to
continue to provide the exceptional services
and programs the community cherishes.
As the upcoming 2015-17 financial plan
process unfolds, it is clear that the City is in an
improved economic condition compared to the
same stage of the 2013-15 plan. Revenues have
continued to rebound. Development review
activity is at a high level. The City has also
made progress in our work to contain operating
costs which in turn helps improve our overall
fiscal health. Despite these positive signs, there
are significant uncertainties and challenges
looming. This is particularly true in relation to
the on-going cost of retirement and insurance
programs, and the need to fund the deferred
maintenance of infrastructure. All of these
factors are likely to lead to complex and
competing budget decisions.
Regardless of the specific fiscal circumstances,
it is critical that we have an effective process
for setting the most important, highest priority
things for the City to do in the next two years.
That’s where you can help!
Share Your Thoughts on the City’s
Priorities!
You have the opportunity to tell the City:
What issues are important to the community?
What priorities should the City focus on during
the next two years?
How might the City adjust other service needs
to accomplish these priorities?
Major City Goals
The City Council needs to know your thoughts
on what the community’s priorities should be so
that available resources can be best allocated to
achieve them. Now it’s time for you to share
your ideas for 2015-17 priorities.
Major City Goals are identified as the most
important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over the next two years.
Current Major City Goals
Homelessness
Neighborhood Wellness
Essential Services, Infrastructure & Fiscal Health
Bike & Pedestrian Paths
Economic Development
Assess & Renew the Downtown
Skate Park
Your Important Role in this Process
The City needs the help of the
community in two important ways:
Provide feedback.
Community input will be presented to all
Council members. It will be especially helpful
if your written comments address: what needs
you believe are the highest priority goals for the
community; why they are important; and any
creative ideas you have about how to achieve
them, such as alternative approaches or
opportunities for partnering with others.
Attend the Community Forum on
January 13, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m. at the Ludwick Community
Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street.
This forum is an opportunity to present your
ideas to the Council and discuss them with
other community members.
City staff will compile the community feedback
for the Council to review in advance of its goal-
setting workshop on Saturday, January 24,
2015. During this public workshop, the Council
will deliberate to set the Major City Goals and
Other Important Council Objectives for the next
two years.
Attachment 2
Project managed by the Economic Vitality Corporation
http://www.sloevc.org/bdc-cluster
ECONOMIC STRATEGY PROJECT
Building Design & Construction
December 18, 2014
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Re: Community Priorities Survey
Workforce Housing
Dear City Council members,
On behalf of the Building, Design and Construction (BD&C) Cluster of the Economic Strategy
Project managed by the Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC), a group committed to the support of a
thriving and healthy community of San Luis Obispo County, we wish to respond to your request for
input in establishing community priorities for City of San Luis Obispo.
We applaud the City’s efforts to gain community consensus in directing future resources and
policy decisions. The mission statement of the BD&C is to create head of household jobs and
housing designed for personal enjoyment, to create a sense of place and to demonstrate the
efficient use of resources. We strive to establish a process that will lead to a stable and sustainable
balance of employment and economic growth.
Thriving business are a necessity for a sustainable economy, which requires a skilled
workforce. Our businesses are experiencing challenges in recruiting and retaining the skilled
workforce they require as a result of the disparity between median household incomes and our
increasing housing costs.
This inability to fulfill workforce requirements is a significant obstacle to business growth
and retention. Further, the loss of existing workers results in lost productivity, as well as lost
institutional memory and expertise. That being said, the provision of adequate housing, in a range of
housing types and affordability, is critical to our economic prosperity.
There are variety of factors impacting our housing costs, many of which can be influenced
by short- and long-term planning decisions related to land use, infrastructure, and budgeting
processes.
December 18, 2014
Page 2
In conclusion, the BD&C requests that the City prioritize workforce housing, for the full continuum of
household income levels, and maximizes its ability to facilitate housing through efforts to
streamline permit processes, evaluate methodology and/or reduce permit costs, provide adequate
land zoned for single and multi-family housing, and ensure adequate infrastructure in areas
designated for future growth.
The BD&C appreciates the opportunity to participate in this discussion, and is open to future
dialogue with City staff, for the purpose of exploring practical solutions with industry stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Leonard Grant, Architect, Brad Brechwald, PE, PLS,
Co-Chair Co-Chair
Building Design & Construction Cluster Building Design & Construction Cluster
LJGrant@rrmdesign.com BradB@wallacegroup.us
ATTENTION:
EVC Board of Directors
Dan Carpenter, City Council Member
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager
Kim Murry, Deputy Director Long Range Planning
San Luis Obispo Senior Center | 1445 Santa Rosa Street | San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 19, 2014
The Executive Board of the San Luis Obispo Senior Center strongly urges the San Luis Obispo City
Council to make Senior Services, and in particular the SLO Senior Center, a top priority in
establishing its financial plan for 2015-2017.
“According to the California Department of Aging, San Luis Obispo is undergoing a 100-149%
increase in elderly population aged 60 and over, and a 200-299% increase in elderly population
85 and over. It is a significantly greater growth rate than that of urban centers like Los Angeles,
San Diego and the Bay Area. By the year 2025, many of these demographic changes will have
impacted San Luis Obispo County.” (Executive Summary of the SLO 2025 Senior Symposium,
October 21, 2011)
The SLO Senior Center has been a valuable community asset for over 35 years, providing social,
recreational, and educational programs for the senior population of San Luis Obispo. Measure Y
funds were used to remodel the kitchen and a parking lot was added behind the Senior Center
building in 2008; however, the space constraints that prevented us from expanding our ongoing
programs and activities at that time still exist. We appeal to the City Council to make a long-
range commitment to improve the Senior Center facility so that it can more effectively address
the needs of seniors in our community.
Respectfully,
Executive Board,
San Luis Obispo Senior Center
(Community Group Responses – Submitted via email)
Representing the Alta Vista Neighborhood, we suggest continuing with Neighborhood Wellness!
Although improvements have been made in the last 2 years, we still have a long way to go. SLOPD
patrol of neighborhoods surrounding the Cal Poly Campus is primarily important on Thurs., Fri. & Sat.
evenings. The noise level can become extremely loud from off-campus parties so DAC’s & Citations
need to be given in order to curb the problem. The priorities of neighborhoods within a 2 mile radius of
campus are noise reduction & compatability of living with students as neighbors. The City needs to do
as much as possible to encourage families to live in the City & so as not to become a town of primarily
renters. Permanent residency should be encouraged & that is one of the reasons we request that
Neighborhood Wellness be the top goal!
Karen Adler - Chairperson of AVNA
On behalf of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, request that Neighborhood Wellness be a
Major City Goal for 2015-17. Although various actions and initiatives have occurred during
the past few years, it is still not possible to say that the problems our neighborhoods
currently face, and have been facing, have been rectified.
The additional code enforcement provided has been helpful, but the culture of it being ok to
ignore city codes still exists. The establishment of a Community Civility Group that includes
residents and Cal Poly personnel as well as city personnel is a great step forward, but the
group is still in its infancy. It is our belief that if attention is diverted from neighborhoods
now, the momentum will be lost, neighborhoods will suffer and so will the people who live in
them.
Thank you,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
Section 5
Recommended City Goals
RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY FORUM
To be distributed on January 19, 2015
Section 6
Recommended City Goals
COUNCIL MEMBER GOALS
Consolidated Council Member Goals to be distributed
on January 22, 2015
Council Member Candidate Major City Goals
Please prepare up to 7 candidates for Major City Goals below and submit them to Finance by
9:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 20, 2015. Since the Council will identify connections between the
use of Measure G revenues and Major City Goals, please note which suggestions address
Measure G priorities. Finance will then compile a verbatim, composite list by topic without
identifying who submitted the particular statements. Please refrain from releasing your
personal list so that each Council member has flexibility to review all of the submissions and
discuss them at the Council Goal-Setting Workshop before staking a position.
Measure G? Yes/No
Measure G? Yes/No
Measure G? Yes/No
Measure G? Yes/No
Measure G? Yes/No
Measure G? Yes/No
Measure G? Yes/No
Suggestions for Changes in Other Programs and Services
Please provide ideas about possible changes in other programs and services to fund desired
goals. Please submit them to Finance by 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 20, 2015. Finance will
then compile a verbatim, composite list by topic without identifying who submitted the
particular statements. Please refrain from releasing your personal list so that each Council
member has flexibility to review all of the submissions and discuss them at the Council Goal-
Setting Workshop before staking a position.
Section 7
Background Materials
GOAL-SETTING PROCESS FOR 2015-17
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Wayne Padilla, Finance and IT Director
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Joe Lamers, Budget Manager
SUBJECT: 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN PROCESS; AND CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY’S BUDGET POLICIES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and approve the 2015-17 Financial Plan Goal Setting Process and revision to the
date of the Council’s Strategic Budget Direction meeting to April 21, 2015.
2. Receive and file the Local Revenue Measure (Measure Y) Integration Report.
3. Review and approve proposed changes or direction regarding the City’s budget policies,
including:
A. Direction to develop a new policy to support the creation of an Infrastructure
Investment Capital Fund and return to the City Council for review in Spring 2015.
B. Changes to existing reserve policies for the Fleet and Information Technology
replacement funds.
C. Direction to develop a new budget policy relating to reporting the City’s unfunded
pension liabilities and to return to the City Council in Winter 2015 with further
analysis of whether additional funding should be allocated to unfunded pension
liabilities during the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
D. Direction to update the City’s purchasing and procurement policies to improve
operating efficiencies for City Council review in Winter 2015.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City of San Luis Obispo utilizes a two-year financial planning process to create its budgets.
This process includes extensive public outreach to assist the City Council in establishing Major
City Goals. The benefits of this process are two-fold, it ensures that resources are provided in the
budget to accomplish the community’s highest priority, most important objectives, and it is a
method to help create a mutual understanding among residents, decision makers, and City staff
about what can be achieved by working together.
The process includes the Community Priorities Survey, the Community Forum, the Council
Goal-Setting Workshop, and several other steps to prepare the City Council for selecting goals,
and provide City staff with direction on work programs to support those goals. One of these steps
is the City Council’s Strategic Budget Direction meeting. Staff is recommending that the date of
this meeting be revised to April 21, 2015, to better accommodate the Mayor’s schedule.
12/16/2014
B2
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 2
The 2013-14 Measure Y Integration Report is included in this report as Attachment 8. The report
is a requirement of the Measure Y ordinance. Staff is recommending that the City Council
receive and file this report. This report, along with the 2014-15 Measure Y audit, will be
presented to the Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission during their first meeting on
January 26, 2015.
Four areas of discussion are included in this report regarding City budget policies. Staff is
recommending the creation of an Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund, which would give the
City the ability to facilitate important new infrastructure projects in support of new housing and
the creation of head of household jobs. The fund would work in a similar fashion as the City’s
Open Space Acquisition Fund.
Second, revisions are proposed to the reserve policies for the Fleet and Information Technology
Replacement Funds to accomplish the intent of maintaining a reserve while also ensuring that the
City is not setting aside too much, which would limit its ability to accomplish fund objectives.
Third, staff is recommending a new policy that will require the City to show its costs for paying
unfunded pension liabilities in its Five-Year Fiscal Forecast. This new policy will improve
transparency and create a better understanding of how the City is proactively addressing this
component of its total PERS costs. While not yet perfected, PERS’ new methodology for
creating and reporting rates will make fulfilling this policy possible. Staff is also seeking
direction to return to the City Council in Winter 2015 with a completed analysis and
recommendation whether additional funding should be allocated to unfunded pension liabilities
during the 2015-17 Financial Plan period. Attachment 10 includes the analysis to date of this
issue.
Finally, staff continues to identify financial management efficiencies that enable its operations to
be responsive and nimble, where appropriate. Recent work in this area has highlighted the
potential for updates to the City’s purchasing policies and procedures. This report includes a
brief discussion of these issues and recommends that the Council provide staff with direction to
return with an updated policy in Winter 2015.
DISCUSSION
Two-Year Financial Plan Process
The following four features describe the City’s Financial Plan process: goal-oriented, policy-
driven, multi-year and technically rigorous. For over thirty years, the City has used a two-year
financial planning process to create its budgets. The benefits of budgeting based on a two-year
plan include:
1. Reinforcing the importance of long-range planning in managing the City's fiscal
affairs.
2. Concentrating on developing and budgeting for the accomplishment of significant
objectives.
3. Establishing realistic timeframes for achieving objectives.
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 3
4. Creating a pro-active budget that provides for stable operations and assures the
City's long-term fiscal health.
5. Promoting more orderly spending patterns.
6. Reducing the amount of time and resources allocated to preparing annual budgets.
The fundamental purpose of the City’s Financial Plan is to link what the City wants to
accomplish over a two-year period with the resources required to do so. Central to the effort is
providing support for the City’s core functions, including the day-to-day responsibilities carried
out by City employees to support residents’ quality of life. In addition, the process allows the
City Council to engage the community to identify Major City Goals to be accomplished.
2015-17 Goal-Setting Process
There are a variety of inputs to the City Council to enable them to establish Major City Goals.
These inputs are highlighted on the following chart:
*** Tentative revised date subject to Council approval (revised from April 14)
Many of these efforts have already started. For example, City Advisory Bodies have developed
goals, the Community Priorities Survey (Attachment 1) has been mailed out and posted on-line,
and the Council has participated in the November 13 “Setting the Stage” workshop. Notice has
also been sent to over 200 community groups and individuals inviting their input (Attachment 2).
The two principal elements of the City’s goal setting process still to come are the Community
Forum, to be held at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, January 13, 2015, at the Ludwick Community
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 4
Center, and the Council Goal-Setting Workshop to be held all day on Saturday, January 24,
2015 at the City/County Library Community Room.
Staff and facilitator Don Maruska plan to build on past successes in integrating Council goal-
setting into the budget process following an approach similar to the one used for many years,
including integration of proposed uses for the City’s local half-percent sales tax. The specifics
are outlined below.
1. Community Forum
The January 13 Community Forum is intended to solicit suggestions from Council, residents,
community groups, other groups of stakeholders and interested individuals on proposed City goals.
It is also intended to meet the requirements of the City’s half-percent local sales tax, by providing
an opportunity for the community to “review and discuss the use of the revenue generated by this
measure.” To ensure that adequate space is available for the forum, it will be held at the Ludwick
Community Center. The proposed agenda and procedures for the Community Forum are attached
(Attachment 3).
2. Council Homework Assignment (Due to Finance by January 22, 2013)
The Council’s “homework assignment” for the January 26
workshop is attached (Attachment 4). Based on all input
received, it is requested that Council members prepare and
submit up to seven candidate goals as Major City Goals by
9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 20, 2015. Council members
are also asked to indicate which of these goals should also be
Measure G priorities, and to prepare and submit suggestions
for changes in other programs and services that might help
fund their desired goals. Staff will then compile verbatim,
composite lists organized by common topics, without
identifying who submitted the particular statements for review
and consideration before the workshop. This list will be
distributed to all Council members and the community at the close of business on Wednesday,
January 21, 2015. While staff will retain individual submissions in the working files, it is
recommended that Council members refrain from releasing their personal lists so that each
Council member can review all of the submissions and discuss them at the Goal-Setting
Workshop before taking a position.
3. Council Goal-Setting Workshop
At the all-day January 24 workshop, the Council will review the consolidated goals presented by
Council members to ensure clarity, completeness and understanding; and then narrow the list to
finalist goals that are supported by at least three Council members. The discussion will note
which goals address local sales tax priorities.
While the Council proceeds with the discussion outlined above, the staff will prepare a final
listing that the Council can use in prioritizing goals. In years past, the Council has used a
ranking system of 5 through 0 for each candidate goal. Staff recommends continuing to use this
ranking system for 2013-15, summarized as follows:
Major City Goals
represent the most
important, highest priority
goals for the City to
accomplish over the next
two years, and as such,
resources should be
included in the 2015-17
Financial Plan.
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 5
5 Most important, highest priority for City to achieve over the next two years.
4 Very important goal to achieve.
3 Important goal to achieve.
2 Address if resources are available.
1 Defer to 2017-19 for consideration.
0 Not a priority goal.
Depending on the number of candidate goals, total points available to individual Council
members have ranged in the past from 50 to 75 based on 3 points per candidate goal. The exact
number of points used for ranking is typically figured out on the day of the workshop. Following
the ranking exercise, staff will summarize the results. Based on past experience, it is likely that
two priority “tiers” will emerge from this process:
1. Major City Goals. These represent the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over the next two years, and as such, resources to accomplish them should be
included in the 2013-15 Financial Plan. The initial list of Major City Goals following the
ranking will include only those goals where a majority of Council Members rank the goal as
a 4 or 5. Subsequent discussion will allow the Council to refine the goal list, however, the list
should remain consistent with the “Criteria for Major City Goals” (Attachment 7).
2. Other Important Objectives. Goals in this category are important for the City to
accomplish, and resources should be made available in the 2013-15 Financial Plan if at all
possible.
The outline for the goal setting workshop is provided in Attachment 5; and suggested guidelines
for Council members during the goal-setting process are provided in Attachment 6. Included as
Attachment 7 are the suggested “Criteria for Major City Goals” which have been used by the
Council for many years. These criteria capture the relevant considerations to determine a Major
City Goal , but the Council could refine the criteria at this time if desired.
No follow-up meeting has been needed in the last several goal-setting sessions as the Council
concluded all necessary actions at the Saturday Goal-Setting Workshop. Continued consideration
of goals for 2015-17 will be scheduled for the next regular Council meeting following the
workshop only if needed.
The City Council is being presented with the elements of the financial planning process still to be
executed to affirm. As such staff’s recommendation is to approve the remaining elements of the
process and the revised schedule.
Essential Services Measure - Integration Report
Measure Y was approved by City voters in November 2006 to preserve essential services for the
community. Measure Y established a one-half percent local sales tax with an eight-year sunset
clause. The original measure would have expired on March 31, 2015, however voters approved
its extension for an additional eight years during the 2014 General Election when they passed
Measure G. The Measure Y Integration Report (Attachment 8) details how Measure Y revenue
was integrated into the budget during the most recently completed fiscal year, 2013-14, and
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 6
2013-15 Measure Y Priorities
• Preservation of Essential
Services (Public Safety,
Maintenance Services)
• Infrastructure Maintenance
• Neighborhood Wellness
• Open Space Preservation
• Transportation (Traffic
Congestion Relief)
illustrates how Measure Y expenditures supported Council goals. In the future, this report will be
adjusted to report on Measure G priorities, including the additional fiscal accountability
provisions contained in the new measure.
Measure Y includes provisions to ensure that consideration of this important revenue source is
integrated into the financial planning process. The City’s goal-setting process is designed to meet
two of these requirements, as follows.
1. Integration into the City's budget and goal-
setting process. The estimated revenue and
proposed use of funds generated by this measure
shall be an integral part of the City's budget and
goal-setting process, and significant
opportunities will be provided for meaningful
participation by citizens in determining priority
uses of these funds.
2. Annual citizen meeting. An invitation will be
extended each year to the entire community
asking Community members to participate in a
forum to review and discuss the use of
the revenue generated by this measure. City
staff will also be available to meet with any
group that requests a specific briefing with their
members to discuss and answer questions about
the revenues generated by the measure and their
uses.
It is important to know that Measure Y is a general purpose measure, and the proceeds are not
restricted to specific purposes. However, the language on the ballot measure approved by voters
in 2006 provides examples of the types of uses that would be funded. The language on the ballot
was:
“To protect and maintain essential services - such as neighborhood street paving and pothole
repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol, Fire
Marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection; senior citizen
services/facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation and other vital
general purpose services - shall the sales tax be increased by one-half cent for eight years only,
with citizen oversight and independent annual financial audits?”
In short, while the ballot language provided examples of the types of uses that could be funded -
based on community input received before placing the measure on the ballot - Measure Y is a
general purpose tax providing Council with flexibility to respond to new circumstances and
challenges. For 2013-14, total expenditures were $5,305,999 and an additional $4,364,265 in
funding was encumbered or assigned for future projects (many of which are now under
construction). These amounts and the specific operating and projects funded by Measure Y are
detailed in Attachment 8. These are still the unaudited results. The final information will be
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 7
included in the Certified Annual Financial Report, which will be published before the end of the
calendar year.
This year, the Community Forum will again give the community an opportunity to provide input
to the Council as to their views on future Essential Services Measure spending priorities. For
2015-17, the budget and goal-setting process will shift to a discussion of Measure G priorities.
This will help the Council connect Major City Goals and Measure G priorities. In addition, the
Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission will be reviewing this and future reports
as part of their responsibilities for reviewing and reporting on local revenue measure
expenditures.
2013-15 FINANCIAL PLAN POLICIES
As noted in the discussion above, Council goal-setting is an important “first step” in the City’s
Financial Plan process. The second major feature in the City’s Financial Plan Process is reliance
upon clear polices. In looking at cities across the nation that have reputations for being
financially well-managed, and have maintained their fiscal health through good times and bad,
one finds that they have in common clearly articulated fiscal policies used in financial decision-
making. This best practice, as implemented by the City of San Luis Obispo, has been
acknowledged repeatedly by the bond rating agencies as an important factor in sustaining the
city’s excellent credit rating.
Formal statements of key budget and fiscal policies provide the foundation for assuring long-
term fiscal health by establishing a clear framework for effective and prudent financial decision-
making. The City’s Budget and Fiscal Policies are traditionally set forth in the Reference
section of the Financial Plan. The policies cover a broad range of fiscal issues, including:
• Financial Plan organization
• General Revenue Management
• User Fee Cost Recovery Goals
• Enterprise Fund Fees and Rates
• Revenue Distribution
• Investments
• Appropriations Limitation
• Fund Balances and Reserves
• Capital Improvement Management
• Capital Financing and Debt Management
• Human Resource Management
• Productivity
• Contracting for Services
At the outset of each financial planning cycle, the City reviews the policies in place to see if any
updating is necessary. At this point, a few policy changes are proposed. Changes are generally
intended to create consistency amongst City fiscal policies and create a system that is efficient
and effective to administer. In addition for 2015-17, a new policy is proposed to implement a
current Major City Goal and strategy in the Economic Development Strategic Plan. Also,
consideration of how to report and address unfunded pension liabilities is made.
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 8
As staff begins preparing the 2015-17 Financial Plan, other additions or revisions to the City’s
budget and fiscal policies may arise; if so, these will be presented for Council consideration at
that time.
Proposed Policy Changes
1. Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund Policy (New)
In early 2014, the City Council concluded a series of study sessions regarding infrastructure
financing alternatives. These study sessions were part of the implementation of the Economic
Development Strategic Plan, which identified the lack of infrastructure in certain areas of the
City as a barrier to the creation of new head-of-household jobs. Following the study sessions,
Council directed staff to develop a prioritized list of infrastructure projects, as follows.
Develop a prioritized list of infrastructure projects for the City to invest in from an
Economic Development and Quality of Life perspective: The Economic Development
Strategic Plan calls on the City to consider revisiting fair-share percentages in its fee
programs, specifically for projects that include community-wide benefits. Based on input
from City staff and the public, outside consultants would assist City staff in preparing a
prioritized list of infrastructure projects that would provide the most benefit to the City
from an economic development and quality of life perspective. This effort is included in
the Economic Development Major City Goal work program and is funded in the second
year of the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Staff carried out a portion of this work effort internally, and one of the outcomes was an
awareness that many factors complicate the usefulness and effectiveness of a single list of
priority projects. These factors include timing, the state of the larger economy, overall City
budget goals, and project benefits (e.g. job vs. housing vs. traffic congestion relief, etc.). As a
result, staff is proposing a different method for identifying the infrastructure projects in which
the City could or should invest.
Staff is recommending the creation of a budget and financial policy to support the establishment
of an Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund (IICF) as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan. This
framework would allow the Council to evaluate the proposed investment in relation to current
Major City Goals, the economic environment, and various other factors at the time of the
decision, rather than having a static list of projects from which to choose. This concept is similar
to the current Open Space Acquisition Fund, which has always sought to expand the greenbelt by
being prepared when opportunities to acquire new open space arise. By setting up the IICF,
Council would have the ability to set aside funding for future infrastructure projects that
contribute to improved economic development and enhanced quality of life in the City of San
Luis Obispo. The use of these funds would be at the discretion of Council based on funding
guidelines approved by the City Council after an extensive public process.
Consistent with the Economic Development Strategic Plan, these funds would not be used as a
direct incentive to any developer, nor be used to subsidize a developer’s fair share payment
towards infrastructure. To ensure that this is the case, any infrastructure project that is to be
considered for possible support by the Council would have to meet certain minimum
requirements as specified in any approved funding guidelines. The funding guidelines would be
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 9
brought to the City Council for approval, and examples of these requirements may include the
following:
• The use of City funds shall not offset any cost that would be expected to be paid to meet
the fair share obligation of any developer.
• The use of City funds shall not offset a project specific cost identified through the
environmental review process or under existing regulations or policies.
• The use of City funds shall support a project that would not otherwise be feasible due to
economic, timing or other issues outside the control of the project proponents or the City.
• The project shall provide significant public benefit by contributing to economic
development and quality of life within the City.
Staff is recommending that the City Council provide direction to initiate the process to create a
new budget policy and a public process to establish the fund. New language for the City’s budget
policies would be proposed as part of the Strategic Budget Direction in April 2015, if not sooner.
If the new policy is adopted by the City Council, then staff would begin the process of
developing the criteria to be used in administering the fund. This policy and criteria will be
developed with the benefit of public outreach, including presentations to residents, businesses,
and the development community.
2. Fleet and Information Technology Replacement Fund Reserve Policies (Revision)
Attachment 9 includes the City’s Budget and Fiscal Policies for consideration. Staff is proposing
changes to the reserve policies for the Fleet and Information Technology Replacement Funds, as
follows.
B. Fleet Replacement. For the General Fund fleet, the City will establish and maintain a Fleet
Replacement Fund to provide for the timely replacement of vehicles and related equipment
with an individual replacement cost of $15,000 or more. The City will maintain a minimum
fund balance in the Fleet Replacement Fund of at least 20% of the original purchase cost of
the items accounted for in this fund. During the 2015-17 Financial Plan period, the City will
establish and maintain a minimum fund balance in the Fleet Replacement Fund equal to
$500,000 for the emergency replacement of vehicles that are damaged beyond repair, and are
either not covered under the City’s property insurance program or the vehicle has a high
replacement cost and insurance proceeds will be inadequate to provide for the vehicle’s
replacement (fire engine). Above this contingency level, the amount retained in this fund,
coupled with the annual contributions received by it from any source, shall be adequate to
fully fund the equipment replacements approved in the Financial Plan.
The annual contribution to this fund will generally be based on the annual use allowance,
which is determined based on the estimated life of the vehicle or equipment and its original
purchase cost. Interest earnings and the proceeds from the sales of surplus equipment as well
as any related damage and insurance recoveries will be credited to the Fleet Replacement
Fund.
C. Information Technology (IT) Replacement Fund. The City will establish an IT Replacement
Fund for the General Fund to provide for the timely replacement of information technology,
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 10
both hardware and software, with an individual replacement cost of $25,000 or more. The
City will begin building the fund balance with the long term objective of maintaining a
minimum fund balance in the IT Replacement Fund of at least 20% of the original purchase
costs of the items accounted for in this fund. During the 2015-17 Financial Plan period, the
City will establish and maintain a minimum fund balance in this fund equal to $400,000 for
the emergency replacement of equipment that is damaged beyond repair and not covered
under the City’s property insurance program.
Interest earnings and the proceeds from the sale of surplus equipment as well as any related
damage and insurance recoveries will be credited to the fund.
These proposed changes to the reserve level of the Fleet and I.T. Replacement funds provide for
a reasonable contingency reserve level that can be drawn down in the event of an unforeseen loss
without requiring a further draw from the General Fund or its reserves. These amounts are
reasonable in light of potential losses and are sized to allow the funding level to be achieved
during the Financial Plan period without creating a shortfall of resources needed for other
important tasks.
3. Unfunded Pension Liabilities
Included in the 2013-15 Major City Goal for Fiscal Health was the direction to staff to prepare a
cost/benefit analysis regarding the City’s ability to prepay its unfunded pension liabilities.
Attachment 10 is a white paper discussing what those liabilities are and includes a discussion
about the City’s unfunded liability for its post-retirement insurance program. This information
is presented in concept so that initial policy direction can be provided before Strategic Budget
direction in April.
This initial policy direction would be provided via a new policy that will require the City to show
its costs for paying unfunded pension liabilities in its Five-Year Fiscal Forecast. This new policy
will improve transparency and create a better understanding of how the City is proactively
addressing this component of its total PERS costs. The city’s ability is dependent on this
information being provided by PERS. While not yet perfected, PERS’ new methodology for
creating and reporting rates will make fulfilling this policy possible. If the City Council supports
the concept, the new policy will be developed and presented to the Council during Winter 2015.
4. Efficient Purchasing Policies and Procedures (New)
One of the City’s adopted Financial Plan objectives states that the City will link resources with
results by “proposing objectives for improving the delivery of program services” (2013-15
Financial Plan, Objective A5, Pg. H-4). Based on organization-wide feedback, it appears that
some of the existing policies and procedures that govern purchasing activities are hindering
staff’s ability to deliver services in an efficient and timely manner. With each required level of
purchasing authority comes additional time, resources and review before a purchase can be made
and related service delivered. In some circumstances, the additional levels of scrutiny do not
appear to create additional value in terms of ensuring proper conduct, compliance with
regulations, or other quality control benefits.
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 11
While checks and balances are important for prudent fiscal management, there are opportunities
to reevaluate purchasing authority levels or bidding procedures to keep pace with the current
market and streamline the delivery of program services. This systematic review of operations is
consistent with adopted Financial Plan budget policies governing productivity, and specifically
responds to guidance for “Analyzing system and procedures to identify and remove unnecessary
review requirements” (2013-15 Financial Plan, #A, Pg. H-26). Staff is recommending that the
City Council adopt an additional budget and fiscal policy in the Productivity section (Pg. H-26)
that specifically focuses on purchasing systems:
H. Maintaining City purchasing policies and procedures that are as efficient and effective as
possible.
If adopted, staff will bring forward an analysis of existing purchasing practices, including
comparison with other benchmark cities, and return to the Council in Winter 2015 with
recommendations for improvement.
CONCURRENCES
The City’s internal Budget Review Team and the Department Head Team concurs with the
recommendations included in this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the conduct of the City’s two-year financial planning
process. The City budgets for all of the planned activities. Preparing budgets are one of the core
government functions that the City is responsible for carrying out.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the proposed Goal Setting activities. The Council could direct staff to pursue a
different process for goal-setting this year. Staff does not recommend this alternative
because there is value in conducting a similar process that residents are familiar with. If
the Council is interested in making changes, staff recommends that they be incremental
adjustments to the activities planned. If major changes are desired, they should be
discussed and planned during the first year of the next financial plan.
2. Do not approve proposed budget policy changes. The City Council could decide not to
approve one or more of the proposed budget policy changes. In this case, direction should
be given to staff regarding the related issues and any other changes desired to the budget
policies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Community Priorities Survey
2. Invitation to Community to Participate in Goal Setting
3. Outline for Community Forum
4. Homework for Council Goal-Setting
5. Outline for Goal-Setting Workshop
2015-17 Budget Process and Policies Page 12
6. Guidelines for Council Members During Goal-Setting Process
7. Criteria for Major City Goals
8. Measure Y Integration Report
9. Budget and Fiscal Policies for 2015-17
10. Pension Unfunded Liabilities White Paper
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-12-16\15-17 financial plan process (codron-padilla-lamers)\car (process-policies).docx
2013-15 Major City Goals
Homelessness
Neighborhood Wellness
Essential Services, Infrastructure,
and Fiscal Health
Bike & Pedestrian Paths
Economic Development
Assess & Renew the Downtown
Skate Park
The City Council wants to hear
from you about what is truly
important for the community.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES SURVEY
What are the most important priorities facing the City of San Luis
Obispo? The City wants your input!
Every two years, the City establishes the top priorities to make San Luis Obispo an even better place to live, work and play.
The City Council then matches the resources necessary to achieve these priorities through adopting the budget in June. The
adopted budget sets the City’s course of action for the next two years and helps the City to continue to provide the
exceptional services and programs the community cherishes.
As the upcoming 2015-17 financial plan process unfolds, it is clear that the City
is in an improved economic condition compared to the same stage of the 2013-
15 plan. Revenues have continued to rebound. Development review activity is
at a high level. The City has also made progress in our work to contain
operating costs which in turn helps improve our overall fiscal health. Despite
these positive signs, there are significant uncertainties and challenges looming.
This is particularly true in relation to the on-going cost of retirement and
insurance programs, and the need to fund the deferred maintenance of
infrastructure. All of these factors are likely to lead to complex and competing
budget decisions. Regardless of the specific fiscal circumstances, it is critical
that we have an effective process for setting the most important, highest priority
things for the City to do in the next two years. That’s where you can help!
Share Your Thoughts on the City’s Priorities!
The City Council needs to know your thoughts on what the community’s priorities should be so that available resources can
be best allocated to achieve them. Now it’s time for you to share your ideas for 2015-17 priorities.
The City needs the help of the community in two important ways:
Complete the survey by visiting www.slocity.org/opencityhall or fill out the survey on the reverse side of this
bulletin and mail it to City Hall at 990 Palm Street, 93401 or drop it by any City office.
Attend the Community Forum on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Ludwick
Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street. This forum is an opportunity to present your ideas to the Council and discuss
them with other community members.
If you have any questions about the City’s goal-setting and budget process,
please contact Joe Lamers, Budget Manager, at 781-7132 or jlamers@slocity.org.
City staff will compile the community feedback for the Council to review in advance of its goal-setting workshop on
Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. During this public workshop, the Council will deliberate to set the Major City
Goals and Other Important Objectives for the next two years.
This survey is your opportunity to tell the City:
What issues are important to the community?
What priorities should the City focus on during the next two years?
How might the City adjust other service needs to accomplish these
priorities?
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 13
Community Priorities for 2015-17
What should be the City’s most important, highest priority goals during 2015-17?
Email address (optional): ___________________ __
Providing your email will enable you to view your statement online and see statements from others. Your email address will
not be included with your statement and the City will not share it.
How might the City adjust other programs & services to accomplish these priorities?
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM ST
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-9938
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATESBUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 369 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fold and tape for mailing
14
Open City Hall Survey
15
Key Dates
Written Suggestions
Please send comments by Friday, December 19.
Comments can be submitted online at:
www.slocity.org/opencityhall
Or via mail to:
Joe Lamers, Budget Manager
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Fax: 781-7401
Email: jlamers@slocity.org
2015-17 Financial Plan Meetings
Budget Foundation Meeting
Tuesday, December 16, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Community Forum
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Ludwick Community Center
Goal-Setting Workshop
Saturday, January 24, 2015
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
City-County Library
Mid-Year Budget Review
Tuesday, February 17, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Strategic Budget Direction & Major
City Goal Programs Workshop
Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Budget Workshops
June 9 & 11, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
June 16, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
2015-17 Budget Adoption
Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Contact Information
Please submit your comments by Friday,
December 19, 2015.
Comments can be submitted online at the
City’s Open Government portal:
www.slocity.org/opencityhall. If you are
submitting comments on behalf of a community
group, business or organization, please include
your organization’s name within your response.
To submit comments by mail, please them to
to Joe Lamers, Budget Manager, at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401; by fax at
781-7401; or by email at jlamers@slocity.org.
For more information on the goal-setting and
budget process, contact Joe at 781-7132.
For additional information on the City’s
Financial Plan and Goal-Setting process, visit
www.slocity.org.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed
to including disabled persons in all of our
services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications device for the deaf: (805) 781-
7410.
2015-17 Financial Plan
What are the most
important priorities
facing the City of San
Luis Obispo?
The City Council wants
to hear from you about
what is truly important
for the community.
Of all the things that can
be done to make the City
an even better place to
live, work and play, which
are the most important?
16
What Are the Most Important Needs of the City Over the Next Two Years?
The City Wants Your Input
Every two years, the City establishes the top
priorities to make San Luis Obispo an even
better place to live, work and play. Then the
City Council matches the resources to achieve
these priorities through adopting the budget in
June. This sets the City’s course of action for
the next two years and helps the City to
continue to provide the exceptional services
and programs the community cherishes.
As the upcoming 2015-17 financial plan
process unfolds, it is clear that the City is in an
improved economic condition compared to the
same stage of the 2013-15 plan. Revenues have
continued to rebound. Development review
activity is at a high level. The City has also
made progress in our work to contain operating
costs which in turn helps improve our overall
fiscal health. Despite these positive signs, there
are significant uncertainties and challenges
looming. This is particularly true in relation to
the on-going cost of retirement and insurance
programs, and the need to fund the deferred
maintenance of infrastructure. All of these
factors are likely to lead to complex and
competing budget decisions.
Regardless of the specific fiscal circumstances,
it is critical that we have an effective process
for setting the most important, highest priority
things for the City to do in the next two years.
That’s where you can help!
Share Your Thoughts on the City’s
Priorities!
You have the opportunity to tell the City:
What issues are important to the community?
What priorities should the City focus on during
the next two years?
How might the City adjust other service needs
to accomplish these priorities?
Major City Goals
The City Council needs to know your thoughts
on what the community’s priorities should be so
that available resources can be best allocated to
achieve them. Now it’s time for you to share
your ideas for 2015-17 priorities.
Major City Goals are identified as the most
important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over the next two years.
Current Major City Goals
Homelessness
Neighborhood Wellness
Essential Services, Infrastructure & Fiscal Health
Bike & Pedestrian Paths
Economic Development
Assess & Renew the Downtown
Skate Park
Your Important Role in this Process
The City needs the help of the
community in two important ways:
Provide feedback.
Community input will be presented to all
Council members. It will be especially helpful
if your written comments address: what needs
you believe are the highest priority goals for the
community; why they are important; and any
creative ideas you have about how to achieve
them, such as alternative approaches or
opportunities for partnering with others.
Attend the Community Forum on
January 13, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m. at the Ludwick Community
Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street.
This forum is an opportunity to present your
ideas to the Council and discuss them with
other community members.
City staff will compile the community feedback
for the Council to review in advance of its goal-
setting workshop on Saturday, January 24,
2015. During this public workshop, the Council
will deliberate to set the Major City Goals and
Other Important Council Objectives for the next
two years.
17
Measure Y Integration – 2013-14 Fiscal Year
MEASURE Y INTEGRATION REPORT - OVERVIEW
The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with information about the reporting, uses,
accountability, and priorities of Measure Y funds during the most recently completed fiscal year,
2013-14.
Background
Measure Y was approved by City voters in November 2006 to preserve essential services for the
community. Measure Y established a one-half percent local sales tax with an eight-year sunset
clause. The original measure would have expired on March 31, 2015, however voters approved
its extension for an additional eight years during the 2014 General Election when they passed
Measure G. This Measure Y Integration Report details how Measure Y revenue was integrated
into the budget during the most recently completed fiscal year, 2013-14, and illustrates how
Measure Y expenditures supported Council goals. In the future, this report will be adjusted to
report on Measure G priorities, including the additional fiscal accountability provisions
contained in the new measure.
Measure Y includes provisions to ensure that consideration of this important revenue source is
integrated into the financial planning process. The City’s goal-setting process is designed to meet
two of these requirements, as follows.
1. Integration into the City's budget and goal-setting process. The estimated revenue and
proposed use of funds generated by this measure shall be an integral part of the City's budget
and goal-setting process, and significant opportunities will be provided for meaningful
participation by citizens in determining priority uses of these funds.
2. Annual citizen meeting. An invitation will be extended each year to the entire community
asking Community members to participate in a forum to review and discuss the use of
the revenue generated by this measure. City staff will also be available to meet with any
group that requests a specific briefing with their members to discuss and answer questions
about the revenues generated by the measure and their uses.
It is important to know that Measure Y is a general purpose measure, and the proceeds are not
restricted to specific purposes. However, the language on the ballot measure approved by voters
in 2006 provides examples of the types of uses that would be funded. The language on the ballot
was:
“To protect and maintain essential services - such as neighborhood street paving and pothole
repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol, Fire
Marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection; senior citizen
services/facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation and other vital
general purpose services - shall the sales tax be increased by one-half cent for eight years only,
with citizen oversight and independent annual financial audits?”
18
Measure Y Integration – 2013-14 Fiscal Year
2013-15 Measure Y Priorities
• Preservation of Essential
Services (Public Safety,
Maintenance Services)
• Infrastructure Maintenance
• Neighborhood Wellness
• Open Space Preservation
• Transportation (Traffic
Congestion Relief)
In short, while the ballot language provided examples of the types of uses that could be funded -
based on community input received before placing the measure on the ballot - Measure Y is a
general purpose tax providing Council with flexibility to respond to new circumstances and
challenges.
DISCUSSION
How are Measure Y priorities determined?
Measure Y is a general purpose revenue source and the
City Council maintains discretion over decisions
regarding how these funds are allocated. Initially the City
did surveying and public education/outreach so staff
would know where to start, but priorities can change over
time, depending upon circumstances. The Measure Y
ballot language is always an important source of
information when determining Measure Y priorities. The
public goal setting process also plays an important role,
which is why the public has an opportunity to weigh in
on Measure Y priorities during the Community Forum.
Ultimately, the Council provided priority guidance on the
use of Measure Y funds when they adopted the 2013-15
Financial Plan, and again when the Supplement and
2014-15 Budget was adopted. The Council has made
great efforts in the past to connect Council goals with
Measure Y priorities, and it is anticipated that this will continue to be the case as Measure G
priorities are reviewed as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan goal-setting process.
How are Measure Y Funds Used?
Measure Y funds have been used for both ongoing operations and capital projects to address the
priorities identified. The following table identifies that approximately $2.44 million of Measure
Y funds were incorporated into day-to-day operations during the 2013-14 fiscal year.
19
Measure Y Integration – 2013-14 Fiscal Year
Operating Program Operating Program
Public Safety Sweeper Operator 54,264$
Traffic sergeant 163,547$ Stormwater management plan:81,344
Police patrol officer 175,883 Parks Maintenance Worker 73,102
Police Sergeant 200,199 CIP Project Management
Downtown Patrol 310,400 Field Engineering Inspector II/III 102,617
Fire Marshall 140,289 Transportation (Mobility and Safety)
Fire Training Officer 176,687 Building Code Enforcement Officer 91,940
Fire Administrative Assistant 81,000 Permit Technician (0.25)18,906
Streets & Sidewalks Student Neighborhood Assistance Pro 53,079
Street Maintenance worker 71,368 Neighborhood Code Enforcement Sp 137,905
Signal & Streetlight Tech 92,120 Traffic Engineer 92,520
Creek & Flood Protection Open Space Preservation
Storm Water Code Enforcement Officer 91,945 Ranger Services 47,534
Collection Operator 184,580 Open Space Wildfire reduction 3,433
Total Measure Y funding allocated to operating programs 2,444,662$
Measure Y funding allocated to ongoing day-to-day operations in 2013-14
To the degree that these operating programs remain priorities, the amount of Measure Y funding
available for capital projects, or additional operating programs, is the difference between this
amount and the total amount of Measure Y funding available. If Measure Y is expected to
generate $7 million during the 2015-16 fiscal year, and $2.5 million is devoted to these ongoing
operating programs, $4.5 million would be available to accomplish other Measure Y priorities.
During the upcoming goal-setting process, Council will be asked to affirm if the ongoing
operating programs remain a priority use of local sales tax revenues, and to prioritize the use of
these funds.
Provided at the end of this report is a list of the Measure Y uses during 2013-14. This list is
included in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and is currently being
audited by the City’s independent auditors. It provides information on the operating and capital
expenditures during 2013-14 as well as a reconciliation of all Measure Y revenues and uses since
2006-07.
SUMMARY
The City’s local sales tax measure is now expected to provide over $7 million in funding each
year to enable the City to provide important and valued services to the community; for both day-
to-day operating programs and one-time capital improvements. It is the Council’s obligation to
prioritize the use of this resource, just as it is their job to prioritize the use of all City resources.
For this reason it is important that as the Council sets goals for the 2015-17 Financial Plan, it
also considers the prioritized use of local sales tax revenue.
20
Measure Y Integration – 2013-14 Fiscal Year
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014
Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Encumbered
/ Assigned
Preservation of Essential Services
Public Safety
Police Services
869,583
850,029
-
-
-
Police Vehicles
-
-
172,800
31,421
141,379
Public Safety Mobile Data Computers
-
-
184,500
-
184,500
Fire Prevention & Training
399,656
397,976
-
-
-
Extrication Equipment
-
-
60,400
60,115
-
Fire Engine/Truck Replacement: Debt
Service
-
-
128,920
128,920
-
Fire Station #2 Remodel
-
-
2,700
630
2,070
Quickest Route Software
-
-
20,600
18,630
1,970
Maintenance Services
Streets, Sidewalks and Traffic Signal
Operations
180,836
163,488
-
-
-
Creek & Flood Protection
529,059
412,133
316,400
285,379
31,021
Parks
76,581
73,102
620,000
50,375
569,625
Project Management & Inspection
108,030
102,617
-
-
-
Neighborhood Wellness
Enhanced Building & Zoning Code
Enforcement
113,441
110,846
-
-
-
"SNAP" Enhancement
53,079
53,079
-
-
-
Neighborhood Code Enforcement
Specialists
139,183
137,905
-
-
-
Traffic Congestion Relief
Traffic Safety Report Implementation
-
-
25,000
-
25,000
Traffic Operations Report Implementation
-
-
30,000
-
30,000
Traffic Engineer
92,520
92,520
-
-
-
Traffic Sign Maintenance
-
-
-
-
-
Bicycle Facility Improvements
-
-
100,000
18,936
81,064
Neighborhood Traffic Improvements
-
-
20,000
4,846
15,154
21
Measure Y Integration – 2013-14 Fiscal Year
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014
Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Encumbered
/ Assigned
Open Space Preservation
Open Space Acquisition
-
-
200,000
-
200,000
Ranger Services Staffing
59,300
47,534
-
-
-
Open Space Wildfire Reduction
5,000
3,433
-
-
-
Infrastructure Maintenance &
Improvements
Santa Rosa Skatepark
-
-
1,226,300
16,313
1,209,987
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing
-
-
1,400,700
939,572
461,128
Central Irrigation Controller
Replacement
-
-
163,323
163,323
-
Facility Maintenance
-
-
54,000
26,029
27,971
Jack House Exterior Painting
-
-
25,000
-
25,000
Johnson Avenue Underpass Pump
-
-
190,000
-
190,000
Library Restroom Remodel
-
-
39,000
39,000
-
Marsh Street Bridge Replacement
-
-
19,300
19,300
-
Mission Plaza Railing Upgrade
-
-
30,000
-
30,000
Olympic Pool Replastering
-
-
25,000
5,525
19,475
Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway
Maintenance
-
-
60,000
60,000
-
Sidewalk Repairs
-
-
25,000
25,000
-
Tree Maintenance Equipment
-
-
100,400
-
100,400
Sinsheimer Parking Lot Paving
-
-
80,000
166
79,834
Mission Plaza Master Plan
-
-
100,000
-
100,000
I.T. Replacement Fund
-
-
500,000
116,066
383,934
Facility Maintenance Reserve
-
-
500,000
293,479
206,521
Totals Current Projects
2,626,268
2,444,662
6,419,343
2,303,025
4,116,032
22
Measure Y Integration – 2013-14 Fiscal Year
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014
Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Encumbered
/ Assigned
Prior Year Encumbered/Assigned
Amounts
Transportation (Mobility and Safety)
Traffic Safety Report Implementation
-
- 12,611
12,608
-
Traffic Sign Maintenance
-
- 44,600
44,600
-
Open Space Preservation
Froom Ranch Improvement
-
- 10,934
8,247
2,687
Infrastructure Maintenance and
Improvements
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing
-
- 114,516
114,516
-
Broad Street Creek Bank Reinforcement
-
- 18,318
2,689
15,629
Olympic Pool Heater Replacement
-
- 176,721
166,345
-
Playground Equipment Replacement
-
- 373,083
169,942
203,141
Maintenance Services
Streets, Sidewalks and Traffic Signal
Repairs
-
- 31,612
31,584
-
Creek & Flood Protection
-
- 35,000 -
-
Sinsheimer Stadium Bldg. Assessment
-
- 34,556
7,780
26,776
SUB-TOTAL PRIOR YEAR AMOUNTS
$851,951 $558,312 $248,233
Totals
2,626,268
2,444,662
7,271,294
2,861,337
4,364,265
23
Measure Y Integration – 2013-14 Fiscal Year
Measure Y Revenues & Uses Summary
Revenues:
Carryover from 2006-07
1,000,000
Revenues for 2007-08
5,996,600
Revenues for 2008-09
5,641,400
Revenues for 2009-10
5,252,500
Revenues for 2010-11
5,616,300
Revenues for 2011-12
6,237,500
Revenues for 2012-13
6,493,800
Revenues for 2013-14
6,774,365
Total Revenues
43,012,465
Uses:
Operating programs 2007-08
(1,463,700)
Capital improvement plan 2007-08
(2,434,100)
Operating programs 2008-09
(2,418,300)
Capital improvement plan 2008-09
(3,684,400)
Operating programs 2009-10
(2,267,100)
Capital improvement plan 2009-10
(2,161,200)
Operating programs 2010-11
(2,430,200)
Capital improvement plan 2010-11
(3,443,000)
Operating programs 2011-12
(2,203,900)
Capital improvement plan 2011-12
(3,967,500)
Operating programs 2012-13
(2,225,125)
Capital improvement plan 2012-13
(2,320,712)
Operating programs 2013-14
(2,444,662)
Capital improvement plan 2013-14
(2,861,337)
Total Uses
(36,325,235)
Contingency Reserve 2014
(1,700,000)
Encumbered or assigned for carryover for future year expenditures (4,364,265)
Net available for future year appropriations
622,964
24
Suggested Guidelines for Council Members
During the Goal-Setting Process
1. Encourage advisory boards, community groups and citizens to submit
written comments about desired goals.
2. Invite citizens to participate in Community Forum and to listen and learn
from their neighbors.
3. Receive comments from community and acknowledge their input without
prematurely expressing your point of view.
4. Assure the community that you are willing to listen openly to all
perspectives.
5. Focus your submission of suggested goals on a short list of key priorities to
target City resources (not to exceed seven candidate goals for
consideration).
6. Avoid publicizing your submission of suggested goals. Let staff compile
your submissions verbatim into a composite list of goals by category without
identification of who made each suggestion. This enables you to see the
whole picture.
7. Give yourself flexibility by not publicly staking positions in advance of the
January 24, 2015 Council Goal-Setting Workshop.
8. Use this process as a way to learn from citizens and Council colleagues
about what’s important.
9. Explore areas where the Council can come together for positive action.
10. Recognize that this is an important step, but only the first step, in the
planning and budgeting for the next two years.
25
Criteria for Major City Goals
1. Be legitimate to our genuine beliefs (real, supported).
2. Agreed upon by a Council majority.
3. Limited in number for comprehension, communication and focus.
4. Set forth in one document—the Financial Plan.
5. Be clear and understandable.
6. Established as a high priority and a real commitment.
7. Reflect major goals that cannot be achieved without Council support.
8. Can be translated into the performance goals and objectives of employees at
all levels of the organization.
9. Created within a supportive atmosphere where participants are not afraid to
state their suggestions for improving goals or objectives.
10. Reflect genuine consensus: while unanimous agreement is not required, they
should be accepted to the point where resistance to them is reduced or
eliminated.
26
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
FINANCIAL PLAN PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
A. Financial Plan Objectives. Through its Financial Plan, the City will link resources with results by:
1. Identifying community needs for essential services.
2. Organizing the programs required to provide these essential services.
3. Establishing program policies and goals, which define the nature and level of program services required.
4. Identifying activities performed in delivering program services.
5. Proposing objectives for improving the delivery of program services.
6. Identifying and appropriating the resources required to perform program activities and accomplish
program objectives.
7. Setting standards to measure and evaluate the:
a. Output of program activities.
b. Accomplishment of program objectives.
c. Expenditure of program appropriations.
B. Two-Year Budget. Following the City's favorable experience, the City will continue using a two-year
financial plan, emphasizing long-range planning and effective program management. The benefits identified
when the City's first two-year plan was prepared for 1983-85 continue to be realized:
1. Reinforcing the importance of long-range planning in managing the City's fiscal affairs.
2. Concentrating on developing and budgeting for the accomplishment of significant objectives.
3. Establishing realistic timeframes for achieving objectives.
4. Creating a pro-active budget that provides for stable operations and assures the City's long-term fiscal
health.
5. Promoting more orderly spending patterns.
6. Reducing the amount of time and resources allocated to preparing annual budgets.
C. Measurable Objectives. The two-year financial plan will establish measurable program objectives and
allow reasonable time to accomplish those objectives.
D. Second Year Budget. Before the beginning of the second year of the two-year cycle, the Council will
review progress during the first year and approve appropriations for the second fiscal year.
E. Operating Carryover. Operating program appropriations not spent during the first fiscal year may be
carried over for specific purposes into the second fiscal year with the approval of the City Manager.
F. Goal Status Reports. The status of major program objectives will be formally reported to the Council on an
ongoing, periodic basis.
27
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Mid-Year Budget Reviews. The Council will formally review the City’s fiscal condition, and amend
appropriations if necessary, six months after the beginning of each fiscal year.
H. Balanced Budget. The City will maintain a balanced budget over the two-year period of the Financial Plan.
This means that:
1. Operating revenues must fully cover operating expenditures, including debt service.
2. Ending fund balance (or working capital in the enterprise funds) must meet minimum policy levels. For
the general and enterprise funds, this level has been established at 20% of operating expenditures.
Under this policy, it is allowable for total expenditures to exceed revenues in a given year; however, in
this situation, beginning fund balance can only be used to fund capital improvement plan projects, or
other “one-time,” non-recurring expenditures.
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND BUDGET ADMINISTRATION
A. Annual Reporting. The City will prepare annual financial statements as follows:
1. In accordance with Charter requirements, the City will contract for an annual audit by a qualified
independent certified public accountant. The City will strive for an unqualified auditors’ opinion.
2. The City will use generally accepted accounting principles in preparing its annual financial statements,
and will strive to meet the requirements of the GFOA’s Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting
program.
3. The City will issue audited financial statements within 180 days after year-end.
B. Interim Reporting. The City will prepare and issue timely interim reports on the City’s fiscal status to the
Council and staff. This includes: on-line access to the City’s financial management system by City staff;
monthly reports to program managers; more formal quarterly reports to the Council and Department Heads;
mid-year budget reviews; and interim annual reports.
C. Budget Administration. As set forth in the City Charter, the Council may amend or supplement the budget
at any time after its adoption by majority vote of the Council members. The City Manager has the authority
to make administrative adjustments to the budget as long as those changes will not have a significant policy
impact nor affect budgeted year-end fund balances.
GENERAL REVENUE MANAGEMENT
A. Diversified and Stable Base. The City will seek to maintain a diversified and stable revenue base to protect
it from short-term fluctuations in any one revenue source.
B. Long-Range Focus. To emphasize and facilitate long-range financial planning, the City will maintain
current projections of revenues for the succeeding five years.
28
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
C. Current Revenues for Current Uses. The City will make all current expenditures with current revenues,
avoiding procedures that balance current budgets by postponing needed expenditures, accruing future
revenues, or rolling over short-term debt.
D. Interfund Transfers and Loans. In order to achieve important public policy goals, the City has established
various special revenue, capital project, debt service and enterprise funds to account for revenues whose use
should be restricted to certain activities. Accordingly, each fund exists as a separate financing entity from
other funds, with its own revenue sources, expenditures and fund equity.
Any transfers between funds for operating purposes are clearly set forth in the Financial Plan, and can only
be made by the Director of Finance & Information Technology in accordance with the adopted budget.
These operating transfers, under which financial resources are transferred from one fund to another, are
distinctly different from interfund borrowings, which are usually made for temporary cash flow reasons, and
are not intended to result in a transfer of financial resources by the end of the fiscal year.
In summary, interfund transfers result in a change in fund equity; interfund borrowings do not, as the intent is
to repay the loan in the near term.
From time-to-time, interfund borrowings may be appropriate; however, these are subject to the following
criteria in ensuring that the fiduciary purpose of the fund is met:
1. The Director of Finance & Information Technology is authorized to approve temporary interfund
borrowings for cash flow purposes whenever the cash shortfall is expected to be resolved within 45 days.
The most common use of interfund borrowing under this circumstance is for grant programs like the
Community Development Block Grant, where costs are incurred before drawdowns are initiated and
received. However, receipt of funds is typically received shortly after the request for funds has been
made.
2. Any other interfund borrowings for cash flow or other purposes require case-by-case approval by the
Council.
3. Any transfers between funds where reimbursement is not expected within one fiscal year shall not be
recorded as interfund borrowings; they shall be recorded as interfund operating transfers that affect
equity by moving financial resources from one fund to another.
USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS
A. Ongoing Review
Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the
cost-of-living as well as changes in methods or levels of service delivery.
In implementing this goal, a comprehensive analysis of City costs and fees should be made at least every five
years. In the interim, fees will be adjusted by annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. Fees may be
adjusted during this interim period based on supplemental analysis whenever there have been significant
changes in the method, level or cost of service delivery.
B. User Fee Cost Recovery Levels
In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the following factors will be considered:
29
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
1. Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit. The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the
community-wide versus special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general-purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services that are
of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups.
2. Service Recipient Versus Service Driver. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of
the service, the concept of service recipient versus service driver should also be considered. For
example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review
efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development
review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate.
3. Effect of Pricing on the Demand for Services. The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services
can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this
has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a
market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices.
Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact the delivery of services to lower income
groups. This negative feature is especially pronounced, and works against public policy, if the services
are specifically targeted to low income groups.
4. Feasibility of Collection and Recovery. Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery
may be appropriate for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to
identify and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of assessing and collecting charges should also
be considered in developing user fees, especially if significant program costs are intended to be financed
from that source.
C. Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels
Very low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the following circumstances:
1. There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received. Almost all "social
service" programs fall into this category as it is expected that one group will subsidize another.
2. Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient delivery of the service.
3. There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most "social service"
programs fit into this category as well as many public safety (police and fire) emergency response
services. Historically, access to neighborhood and community parks would also fit into this category.
4. The service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand" or emergency basis, cannot
reasonably be planned for on an individual basis, and is not readily available from a private sector source.
Many public safety services also fall into this category.
5. Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements and adherence is primarily
self-identified, and as such, failure to comply would not be readily detected by the City. Many small-
scale licenses and permits might fall into this category.
30
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
D. Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels
The use of service charges as a major source of funding service levels is especially appropriate under the
following circumstances:
1. The service is similar to services provided through the private sector.
2. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service.
3. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the
amount paid and the level and cost of the service received.
4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or false alarms might
fall into this category.
5. The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of
detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit, plan checks, and subdivision review
fees for large projects would fall into this category.
E. General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges
The following general concepts will be used in developing and implementing service charges:
1. Revenues should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service, including direct costs,
departmental administration costs and organization-wide support costs such as accounting, personnel,
information technology, legal services, fleet maintenance and insurance.
3. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the
administrative cost of collection.
4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to smaller, infrequen t
users of the service.
5. A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various programs based on the
factors discussed above.
F. Low Cost-Recovery Services
Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should have very low cost recovery
goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the broad scope of services provided
that should have user charges associated with them. However, the primary source of funding for the
operation as a whole should be general-purpose revenues, not user fees.
1. Delivering public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression.
2. Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community-wide basis such
as streets, parks and general-purpose buildings.
3. Providing social service programs and economic development activities.
31
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1. Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2. Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status.
3. Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a. Adult athletics
b. Banner permit applications
c. Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d. Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e. Triathlon
f. Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
g. Classes
h. Holiday in the Plaza
i. Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j. Aquatics
k. Batting cages
l. Community gardens
m. Junior Ranger camp
n. Minor commercial film permit applications
o. Skate park
p. Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza)
q. Youth sports
r. Youth STAR
s. Teen services
t. Senior/boomer services
4. For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
32
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a. The fee is reducing attendance.
b. And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6. A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7. Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8. The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
H. Development Review Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the development review programs:
1. Services provided under this category include:
a. Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, rezonings, general plan
amendments, variances, use permits).
b. Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections).
c. Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements,
encroachments).
d. Fire plan check.
2. Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high. In most instances, the City's cost
recovery goal should be 100%.
3. However, in charging high cost recovery levels, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate
standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is “value for cost.”
I. Comparability With Other Communities
In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other agencies in accordance with the following
criteria:
1. Surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communities provides useful background
information in setting fees for several reasons:
33
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the reasonableness of San Luis
Obispo’s fees.
b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo
provides its services.
2. However, fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as there are many
factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example:
a. What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our cost recovery
objectives?
b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees?
c. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated?
d. What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance standards?
e. Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to achieve?
3. These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different communities.
As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one factor among many that is
considered in setting City fees.
ENTERPRISE FUND FEES AND RATES
A. Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the total direct and
indirect costs—including operations, capital outlay, and debt service—of the following enterprise programs:
water, sewer and parking.
B. Transit. Based on targets set under the Transportation Development Act, the City will strive to cover at least
twenty percent of transit operating costs with fare revenues.
C. Ongoing Rate Review. The City will review and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as required to
ensure that they remain appropriate and equitable.
D. Franchise Fees. In accordance with long-standing practices, the City will treat the water and sewer funds in
the same manner as if they were privately owned and operated. This means assessing reasonable franchise
fees in fully recovering service costs.
At 3.5%, water and sewer franchise fees are based on the mid-point of the statewide standard for public
utilities like electricity and gas (2% of gross revenues from operations) and cable television (5% of gross
revenues).
As with other utilities, the purpose of the franchise fee is reasonable cost recovery for the use of the City’s
street right-of-way. The appropriateness of charging the water and sewer funds a reasonable franchise fee for
the use of City streets is further supported by the results of studies in Arizona, California, Ohio and Vermont
which concluded that the leading cause for street resurfacing and reconstruction is street cuts and trenching
for utilities.
34
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
REVENUE DISTRIBUTION
The Council recognizes that generally accepted accounting principles for state and local governments discourage
the “earmarking” of General Fund revenues, and accordingly, the practice of designating General Fund revenues
for specific programs should be minimized in the City's management of its fiscal affairs. Approval of the
following revenue distribution policies does not prevent the Council from directing General Fund resources to
other functions and programs as necessary.
A. Property Taxes. With the passage of Proposition 13 on June 6, 1978, California cities no longer can set
their own property tax rates. In addition to limiting annual increases in market value, placing a ceiling on
voter-approved indebtedness, and redefining assessed valuations, Proposition 13 established a maximum
county-wide levy for general revenue purposes of 1% of market value. Under subsequent state legislation,
which adopted formulas for the distribution of this countywide levy, the City now receives a percentage of
total property tax revenues collected countywide as determined by the State and administered by the County
Auditor-Controller. The City receives 14.9% of each dollar collected in property tax after allocations to
school districts.
Accordingly, while property revenues are often thought of local revenue sources, in essence they are State
revenue sources, since the State controls their use and allocation.
With the adoption of a Charter revision in November 1996, which removed provisions that were in conflict
with Proposition 13 relating to the setting of property tax revenues between various funds, all property tax
revenues are now accounted for in the General Fund.
B. Gasoline Tax Subventions. All gasoline tax revenues (which are restricted by the State for street-related
purposes) will be used for maintenance activities. Since the City's total expenditures for gas tax eligible
programs and projects are much greater than this revenue source, operating transfers will be made from the
gas tax fund to the General Fund for this purpose. This approach significantly reduces the accounting efforts
required to meet State reporting requirements.
C. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Revenues. All TDA revenues will be allocated to alternative
transportation programs, including regional and municipal transit systems, bikeway improvements, and other
programs or projects designed to reduce automobile usage. Because TDA revenues will not be allocated for
street purposes, it is expected that alternative transportation programs (in conjunction with other state or
federal grants for this purpose) will be self-supporting from TDA revenues.
D. Parking Fines. All parking fine revenues will be allocated to the parking fund, except for those collected by
Police staff (who are funded by the General Fund) in implementing neighborhood wellness programs.
INVESTMENTS
A. Responsibility. Investments and cash management are the responsibility of the City Treasurer or designee. It
is the City’s policy to appoint the Director of Finance and Information Technology as the City’s Treasurer.
35
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
B. Investment Objective. The City's primary investment objective is to achieve a reasonable rate of return
while minimizing the potential for capital losses arising from market changes or issuer default. Accordingly,
the following factors will be considered in priority order in determining individual investment placements:
1. Safety 2. Liquidity 3. Yield
C. Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes: Not for Investment Purposes. There is an appropriate role for tax
and revenue anticipation notes (TRANS) in meeting legitimate short-term cash needs within the fiscal year.
However, many agencies issue TRANS as a routine business practice, not solely for cash flow purposes, but
to capitalize on the favorable difference between the interest cost of issuing TRANS as a tax-preferred
security and the interest yields on them if re-invested at full market rates.
As part of its cash flow management and investment strategy, the City will only issue TRANS or other forms
of short-term debt if necessary to meet demonstrated cash flow needs; TRANS or any other form of short-
term debt financing will not be issued for investment purposes.
As long as the City maintains its current policy of maintaining fund/working capital balances that are 20% of
operating expenditures, it is unlikely that the City would need to issue TRANS for cash flow purposes except
in very unusual circumstances.
D. Selecting Maturity Dates. The City will strive to keep all idle cash balances fully invested through daily
projections of cash flow requirements. To avoid forced liquidations and losses of investment earnings, cash
flow and future requirements will be the primary consideration when selecting maturities.
E. Diversification. As the market and the City's investment portfolio change, care will be taken to maintain a
healthy balance of investment types and maturities.
F. Authorized Investments. The City will invest only in those instruments authorized by the California
Government Code Section 53601.
The City will not invest in stock, will not speculate and will not deal in futures or options. The investment
market is highly volatile and continually offers new and creative opportunities for enhancing interest
earnings. Accordingly, the City will thoroughly investigate any new investment vehicles before committing
City funds to them.
G. Authorized Institutions. Current financial statements will be maintained for each institution in which cash
is invested. Investments will be limited to 20 percent of the total net worth of any institution and may be
reduced further or refused altogether if an institution's financial situation becomes unhealthy.
H. Consolidated Portfolio. In order to maximize yields from its overall portfolio, the City will consolidate cash
balances from all funds for investment purposes, and will allocate investment earnings to each fund in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
I. Safekeeping. Ownership of the City's investment securities will be protected through third-party custodial
safekeeping.
J. Investment Management Plan. The City Treasurer will develop and maintain an Investment Management
Plan that addresses the City's administration of its portfolio, including investment strategies, practices and
procedures.
36
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
K. Investment Oversight Committee. As set forth in the Investment Management Plan, this committee is
responsible for reviewing the City’s portfolio on an ongoing basis to determine compliance with the City’s
investment policies and for making recommendations to the City Treasurer (Director of Finance and
Information Technology) regarding investment management practices.
Members include the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Director of Finance & Information
Technology/City Treasurer, Finance Operations Manager, the City’s independent auditor, one City Council
member, and one member of the public.
The member of the public shall be appointed by the City Council in accordance with the City’s process for
appointing advisory body members.
L. Reporting. The City Treasurer will develop and maintain a comprehensive, well-documented investment
reporting system, which will comply with Government Code Section 53607. This reporting system will
provide the Council and the Investment Oversight Committee with appropriate investment performance
information.
APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION
A. The Council will annually adopt a resolution establishing the City's appropriations limit calculated in
accordance with Article XIII-B of the Constitution of the State of California, Section 7900 of the State of
California Government Code, and any other voter approved amendments or state legislation that affect the
City's appropriations limit.
B. The supporting documentation used in calculating the City's appropriations limit and projected appropriations
subject to the limit will be available for public and Council review at least 10 days before Council
consideration of a resolution to adopt an appropriations limit. The Council will generally consider this
resolution in connection with final approval of the budget.
C. The City will strive to develop revenue sources, both new and existing, which are considered non-tax
proceeds in calculating its appropriations subject to limitation.
D. The City will annually review user fees and charges and report to the Council the amount of program
subsidy, if any, that is being provided by the General or Enterprise Funds.
E. The City will actively support legislation or initiatives sponsored or approved by League of California Cities
which would modify Article XIII-B of the Constitution in a manner which would allow the City to retain
projected tax revenues resulting from growth in the local economy for use as determined by the Council.
F. The City will seek voter approval to amend its appropriation limit at such time that tax proceeds are in excess
of allowable limits.
FUND BALANCE AND RESERVES
A. Minimum Fund and Working Capital Balances. The City will maintain a minimum fund balance of at
least 20% of operating expenditures in the General Fund and a minimum working capital balance of 20% of
37
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
operating expenditures in the water, sewer and parking enterprise funds. This is considered the minimum
level necessary to maintain the City's credit worthiness and to adequately provide for:
1. Economic uncertainties, local disasters, and other financial hardships or downturns in the local or
national economy.
2. Contingencies for unseen operating or capital needs.
3. Cash flow requirements.
B. Fleet Replacement. For the General Fund fleet, the City will establish and maintain a Fleet Replacement
Fund to provide for the timely replacement of vehicles and related equipment with an individual replacement
cost of $15,000 or more. The City will maintain a minimum fund balance in the Fleet Replacement Fund of
at least 20% of the original purchase cost of the items accounted for in this fund. During the 2015-17
Financial Plan period, the City will establish and maintain a minimum fund balance in the Fleet Replacement
Fund equal to $500,000 for the emergency replacement of vehicles that are damaged beyond repair, and are
either not covered under the City’s property insurance program or the vehicle has a high replacement cost and
insurance proceeds will be inadequate to provide for the vehicle’s replacement (fire engine). Above this
contingency level, the amount retained in this fund, coupled with the annual contributions received by it from
any source, shall be adequate to fully fund the equipment replacements approved in the Financial Plan.
The annual contribution to this fund will generally be based on the annual use allowance, which is
determined based on the estimated life of the vehicle or equipment and its original purchase cost. Interest
earnings and the proceeds from the sales of surplus equipment as well as any related damage and insurance
recoveries will be credited to the Fleet Replacement Fund.
C. Information Technology (IT) Replacement Fund. The City will establish an IT Replacement Fund for the
General Fund to provide for the timely replacement of information technology, both hardware and software,
with an individual replacement cost of $25,000 or more. The City will begin building the fund balance with
the long term objective of maintaining a minimum fund balance in the IT Replacement Fund of at least 20%
of the original purchase costs of the items accounted for in this fund. During the 2015-17 Financial Plan
period, the City will establish and maintain a minimum fund balance in this fund equal to $400,000 for the
emergency replacement of equipment that is damaged beyond repair and not covered under the City’s
property insurance program.
Interest earnings and the proceeds from the sale of surplus equipment as well as any related damage and
insurance recoveries will be credited to the fund.
D. Major Facility Replacement Fund. The City will maintain a reserve within this fund for the purpose of
financing the cost of improvements having a cost of $25,000 or more to city-owned, general government
building and structures. The amount retained in this fund, coupled with annual contributions received by it
from any source, shall be adequate to fully fund the improvements included in the five-year Capital
Improvement Plan.
E. Water and Sewer Rate Stabilization Reserves. The City will maintain a reserve for the purposes of
offsetting unanticipated fluctuations in Water Fund or Sewer Fund revenues to provide financial stability,
including the stability of revenues and the rates and charges related to each Enterprise. The funding target
for the Rate Stabilization Reserve will be 10% of sales revenue in the Water Fund and 5% of sales revenue in
the Sewer Fund.
38
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
Conditions for utilization and plan for replenishment of the reserve will be brought to Council for its
consideration during the preparation and approval of the Financial Plan or as may become necessary during
any fiscal year.
F. Future Capital Project Designations. The Council may designate specific fund balance levels for future
development of capital projects that it has determined to be in the best long-term interests of the City. For
example, replacement of critical information technology infrastructure or other projects.
G. Other Designations and Reserves. In addition to the designations noted above, fund balance levels will be
sufficient to meet funding requirements for projects approved in prior years which are carried forward into
the new year; debt service reserve requirements; reserves for encumbrances; and other reserves or
designations required by contractual obligations, state law, or generally accepted accounting principles.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT MANAGEMENT
A. CIP Projects: $25,000 or More. Construction projects and equipment purchases which cost $25,000 or
more will be included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); minor capital outlays of less than $25,000 will
be included with the operating program budgets. Such projects are accounted for in the Capital Outlay Fund.
B. CIP Purpose. The purpose of the CIP is to systematically plan, schedule, and finance capital projects to
ensure cost-effectiveness as well as conformance with established policies. The CIP is a five-year plan
organized into the same functional groupings used for the operating programs. The CIP will reflect a balance
between capital replacement projects that repair, replace or enhance existing facilities, equipment or
infrastructure; and capital facility projects that significantly expand or add to the City's existing fixed assets.
C. Project Manager. Every CIP project will have a project manager who will prepare the project proposal,
ensure that required phases are completed on schedule, authorize all project expenditures, ensure that all
regulations and laws are observed, and periodically report project status.
D. CIP Review Committee. Headed by the City Manager or designee, this Committee will review project
proposals, determine project phasing, recommend project managers, review and evaluate the draft CIP budget
document, and report CIP project progress on an ongoing basis.
E. CIP Phases. The CIP will emphasize project planning, with projects progressing through at least two and up
to ten of the following phases:
1. Designate. Appropriates funds based on projects designated for funding by the Council through adoption
of the Financial Plan.
2. Study. Concept design, site selection, feasibility analysis, schematic design, environmental
determination, property appraisals, scheduling, grant application, grant approval, specification
preparation for equipment purchases.
3. Environmental Review. EIR preparation, other environmental studies.
4. Real Property Acquisitions. Property acquisition for projects, if necessary.
5. Site Preparation. Demolition, hazardous materials abatements, other pre-construction work.
39
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
6. Design. Final design, plan and specification preparation and construction cost estimation.
7. Construction. Construction contracts.
8. Construction Management. Contract project management and inspection, soils and material tests, other
support services during construction.
9. Equipment Acquisitions. Vehicles, heavy machinery, computers, office furnishings, other equipment
items acquired and installed independently from construction contracts.
10. Debt Service. Installment payments of principal and interest for completed projects funded through debt
financings. Expenditures for this project phase are included in the Debt Service section of the Financial
Plan.
Generally, it will become more difficult for a project to move from one phase to the next. As such, more
projects will be studied than will be designed, and more projects will be designed than will be constructed or
purchased during the term of the CIP.
F. CIP Appropriation. The City’s annual CIP appropriation for study, design, acquisition and/or construction
is based on the projects designated by the Council through adoption of the Financial Plan. Adoption of the
Financial Plan CIP appropriation does not automatically authorize funding for specific project phases. This
authorization generally occurs only after the preceding project phase has been completed and approved by
the Council and costs for the succeeding phases have been fully developed.
Accordingly, project appropriations are generally made when contracts are awarded. If project costs at the
time of bid award are less than the budgeted amount, the balance will be unappropriated and returned to fund
balance or allocated to another project. If project costs at the time of bid award are greater than budget
amounts, five basic options are available:
1. Eliminate the project.
2. Defer the project for consideration to the next Financial Plan period.
3. Rescope or change the phasing of the project to meet the existing budget.
4. Transfer funding from another specified, lower priority project.
5. Appropriate additional resources as necessary from fund balance.
G. CIP Budget Carryover. Appropriations for CIP projects lapse three years after budget adoption. Projects
which lapse from lack of project account appropriations may be resubmitted for inclusion in a subsequent
CIP. Project accounts, which have been appropriated, will not lapse until completion of the project phase.
H. Program Objectives. Project phases will be listed as objectives in the program narratives of the programs,
which manage the projects.
I. Public Art. CIP projects will be evaluated during the budget process and prior to each phase for
conformance with the City's public art policy, which generally requires that 1% of eligible project
construction costs be set aside for public art. Excluded from this requirement are underground projects,
utility infrastructure projects, funding from outside agencies, and costs other than construction such as study,
environmental review, design, site preparation, land acquisition and equipment purchases.
40
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
It is generally preferred that public art be incorporated directly into the project, but this is not practical or
desirable for all projects; in this case, an in-lieu contribution to public art will be made. To ensure that funds
are adequately budgeted for this purpose regardless of whether public art will be directly incorporated into
the project, funds for public art will be identified separately in the CIP.
In 2013-15,the City will continue to fund public at the same level required by the private sector: 0.5%.
J. General Plan Consistency Review. The Planning Commission will review the Preliminary CIP for
consistency with the General Plan and provide is findings to the Council prior to adoption.
CAPITAL FINANCING AND DEBT MANAGEMENT
A. Capital Financing
1. The City will consider the use of debt financing only for one-time capital improvement projects and only
under the following circumstances:
a. When the project’s useful life will exceed the term of the financing.
b. When project revenues or specific resources will be sufficient to service the long-term debt.
2. Debt financing will not be considered appropriate for any recurring purpose such as current operating
and maintenance expenditures. The issuance of short-term instruments such as revenue, tax or bond
anticipation notes is excluded from this limitation. (See Investment Policy)
3. Capital improvements will be financed primarily through user fees, service charges, assessments, special
taxes or developer agreements when benefits can be specifically attributed to users of the facility.
Accordingly, development impact fees should be created and implemented at levels sufficient to ensure
that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing necessary community facilities.
4. Transportation impact fees are a major funding source in financing transportation system improvements.
However, revenues from these fees are subject to significant fluctuation based on the rate of new
development. Accordingly, the following guidelines will be followed in designing and building projects
funded with transportation impact fees:
a. The availability of transportation impact fees in funding a specific project will be analyzed on a case-
by-case basis as plans and specification or contract awards are submitted for City Manager or
Council approval.
b. If adequate funds are not available at that time, the Council will make one of two determinations:
Defer the project until funds are available.
Based on the high-priority of the project, advance funds from the General Fund, which will be
reimbursed as soon as funds become available. Repayment of General Fund advances will be the
first use of transportation impact fee funds when they become available.
41
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
5. The City will use the following criteria to evaluate pay-as-you-go versus long-term financing in funding
capital improvements:
a. Factors Favoring
Pay-As-You-Go Financing
1. Current revenues and adequate fund balances are available or project phasing can be accomplished.
2. Existing debt levels adversely affect the City's credit rating.
3. Market conditions are unstable or present difficulties in marketing.
b. Factors Favoring Long Term Financing
1. Revenues available for debt service are deemed sufficient and reliable so that long-term financings
can be marketed with investment grade credit ratings.
2. The project securing the financing is of the type, which will support an investment grade credit
rating.
3. Market conditions present favorable interest rates and demand for City financings.
4. A project is mandated by state or federal requirements, and resources are insufficient or unavailable.
5. The project is immediately required to meet or relieve capacity needs and current resources are
insufficient or unavailable.
6. The life of the project or asset to be financed is 10 years or longer.
7. Vehicle leasing when market conditions and operational circumstances present favorable
opportunities.
B. Debt Management
1. The City will not obligate the General Fund to secure long-term financings except when marketability
can be significantly enhanced.
2. An internal feasibility analysis will be prepared for each long-term financing which analyzes the impact
on current and future budgets for debt service and operations. This analysis will also address the
reliability of revenues to support debt service.
3. The City will generally conduct financings on a competitive basis. However, negotiated financings may
be used due to market volatility or the use of an unusual or complex financing or security structure.
4. The City will seek an investment grade rating (Baa/BBB or greater) on any direct debt and will seek
credit enhancements such as letters of credit or insurance when necessary for marketing purposes,
availability and cost-effectiveness.
42
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
5. The City will monitor all forms of debt annually coincident with the City's Financial Plan preparation and
review process and report concerns and remedies, if needed, to the Council.
6. The City will diligently monitor its compliance with bond covenants and ensure its adherence to federal
arbitrage regulations.
7. The City will maintain good, ongoing communications with bond rating agencies about its financial
condition. The City will follow a policy of full disclosure on every financial report and bond prospectus
(Official Statement).
C. Debt Capacity
1. General Purpose Debt Capacity. The City will carefully monitor its levels of general-purpose debt.
Because our general purpose debt capacity is limited, it is important that we only use general purpose
debt financing for high-priority projects where we cannot reasonably use other financing methods for two
key reasons:
a. Funds borrowed for a project today are not available to fund other projects tomorrow.
b. Funds committed for debt repayment today are not available to fund operations in the future.
In evaluating debt capacity, general-purpose annual debt service payments should generally not exceed
10% of General Fund revenues; and in no case should they exceed 15%. Further, direct debt will not
exceed 2% of assessed valuation; and no more than 60% of capital improvement outlays will be funded
from long-term financings.
2. Enterprise Fund Debt Capacity. The City will set enterprise fund rates at levels needed to fully cover
debt service requirements as well as operations, maintenance, administration and capital improvement
costs. The ability to afford new debt for enterprise operations will be evaluated as an integral part of the
City’s rate review and setting process.
D. Independent Disclosure Counsel
The following criteria will be used on a case-by-case basis in determining whether the City should retain the
services of an independent disclosure counsel in conjunction with specific project financings:
1. The City will generally not retain the services of an independent disclosure counsel when all of the
following circumstances are present:
a. The revenue source for repayment is under the management or control of the City, such as general
obligation bonds, revenue bonds, lease-revenue bonds or certificates of participation.
b. The bonds will be rated or insured.
2. The City will consider retaining the services of an independent disclosure counsel when one or more of
following circumstances are present:
a. The financing will be negotiated, and the underwriter has not separately engaged an underwriter’s
counsel for disclosure purposes.
43
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
b. The revenue source for repayment is not under the management or control of the City, such as land-
based assessment districts, tax allocation bonds or conduit financings.
c. The bonds will not be rated or insured.
d. The City’s financial advisor, bond counsel or underwriter recommends that the City retain an
independent disclosure counsel based on the circumstances of the financing.
E. Land-Based Financings
1. Public Purpose. There will be a clearly articulated public purpose in forming an assessment or special
tax district in financing public infrastructure improvements. This should include a finding by the Council
as to why this form of financing is preferred over other funding options such as impact fees,
reimbursement agreements or direct developer responsibility for the improvements.
2. Eligible Improvements. Except as otherwise determined by the Council when proceedings for district
formation are commenced, preference in financing public improvements through a special tax district
shall be given for those public improvements that help achieve clearly identified community facility and
infrastructure goals in accordance with adopted facility and infrastructure plans as set forth in key policy
documents such as the General Plan, Specific Plan, Facility or Infrastructure Master Plans, or Capital
Improvement Plan.
Such improvements include study, design, construction and/or acquisition of:
a. Public safety facilities.
b. Water supply, distribution and treatment systems.
c. Waste collection and treatment systems.
d. Major transportation system improvements, such as freeway interchanges; bridges; intersection
improvements; construction of new or widened arterial or collector streets (including related
landscaping and lighting); sidewalks and other pedestrian paths; transit facilities; and bike paths.
e. Storm drainage, creek protection and flood protection improvements.
f. Parks, trails, community centers and other recreational facilities.
g. Open space.
h. Cultural and social service facilities.
i. Other governmental facilities and improvements such as offices, information technology systems and
telecommunication systems.
School facilities will not be financed except under appropriate joint community facilities agreements or
joint exercise of powers agreements between the City and school districts.
3. Active Role. Even though land-based financings may be a limited obligation of the City, we will play an
active role in managing the district. This means that the City will select and retain the financing team,
including the financial advisor, bond counsel, trustee, appraiser, disclosure counsel, assessment engineer
and underwriter. Any costs incurred by the City in retaining these services will generally be the
responsibility of the property owners or developer, and will be advanced via a deposit when an
application is filed; or will be paid on a contingency fee basis from the proceeds from the bonds.
44
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
4. Credit Quality. When a developer requests a district, the City will carefully evaluate the applicant’s
financial plan and ability to carry the project, including the payment of assessments and special taxes
during build-out. This may include detailed background, credit and lender checks, and the preparation of
independent appraisal reports and market absorption studies. For districts where one property owner
accounts for more than 25% of the annual debt service obligation, a letter of credit further securing the
financing may be required.
5. Reserve Fund. A reserve fund should be established in the lesser amount of: the maximum annual debt
service; 125% of the annual average debt service; or 10% of the bond proceeds.
6. Value-to-Debt Ratios. The minimum value-to-debt ratio should generally be 4:1. This means the value
of the property in the district, with the public improvements, should be at least four times the amount of
the assessment or special tax debt. In special circumstances, after conferring and receiving the
concurrence of the City’s financial advisor and bond counsel that a lower value-to-debt ratio is
financially prudent under the circumstances, the City may consider allowing a value-to-debt ratio of 3:1.
The Council should make special findings in this case.
7. Appraisal Methodology. Determination of value of property in the district shall be based upon the full
cash value as shown on the ad valorem assessment roll or upon an appraisal by an independent Member
Appraisal Institute (MAI). The definitions, standards and assumptions to be used for appraisals shall be
determined by the City on a case-by-case basis, with input from City consultants and district applicants,
and by reference to relevant materials and information promulgated by the State of California, including
the Appraisal Standards for Land-Secured Financings prepared by the California Debt and Investment
Advisory Commission.
8. Capitalized Interest During Construction. Decisions to capitalize interest will be made on case-by-case
basis, with the intent that if allowed, it should improve the credit quality of the bonds and reduce
borrowing costs, benefiting both current and future property owners.
9. Maximum Burden. Annual assessments (or special taxes in the case of Mello-Roos or similar districts)
should generally not exceed 1% of the sales price of the property; and total property taxes, special
assessments and special taxes payments collected on the tax roll should generally not exceed 2%.
10. Benefit Apportionment. Assessments and special taxes will be apportioned according to a formula that
is clear, understandable, equitable and reasonably related to the benefit received by—or burden attributed
to—each parcel with respect to its financed improvement. Any annual escalation factor should generally
not exceed 2%.
11. Special Tax District Administration. In the case of Mello-Roos or similar special tax districts, the total
maximum annual tax should not exceed 110% of annual debt service. The rate and method of
apportionment should include a back-up tax in the event of significant changes from the initial
development plan, and should include procedures for prepayments.
12. Foreclosure Covenants. In managing administrative costs, the City will establish minimum delinquency
amounts per owner, and for the district as a whole, on a case-by-case basis before initiating foreclosure
proceedings.
45
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
13. Disclosure to Bondholders. In general, each property owner who accounts for more than 10% of the
annual debt service or bonded indebtedness must provide ongoing disclosure information annually as
described under SEC Rule 15(c)-12.
14. Disclosure to Prospective Purchasers. Full disclosure about outstanding balances and annual payments
should be made by the seller to prospective buyers at the time that the buyer bids on the property. It
should not be deferred to after the buyer has made the decision to purchase. When appropriate,
applicants or property owners may be required to provide the City with a disclosure plan.
F. Conduit Financings
1. The City will consider requests for conduit financing on a case-by-case basis using the following criteria:
a. The City’s bond counsel will review the terms of the financing, and render an opinion that there will
be no liability to the City in issuing the bonds on behalf of the applicant.
b. There is a clearly articulated public purpose in providing the conduit financing.
c. The applicant is capable of achieving this public purpose.
2. This means that the review of requests for conduit financing will generally be a two-step process:
a. First asking the Council if they are interested in considering the request, and establishing the ground
rules for evaluating it.
b. And then returning with the results of this evaluation, and recommending approval of appropriate
financing documents if warranted.
This two-step approach ensures that the issues are clear for both the City and applicant, and that key
policy questions are answered.
3. The workscope necessary to address these issues will vary from request to request, and will have to be
determined on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the City should generally be fully reimbursed for our
costs in evaluating the request; however, this should also be determined on a case-by-case basis.
B. Refinancings
1. General Guidelines. Periodic reviews of all outstanding debt will be undertaken to determine
refinancing opportunities. Refinancings will be considered (within federal tax law constraints) under the
following conditions:
a. There is a net economic benefit.
b. It is needed to modernize covenants that are adversely affecting the City’s financial position or
operations.
c. The City wants to reduce the principal outstanding in order to achieve future debt service savings,
and it has available working capital to do so from other sources.
2. Standards for Economic Savings. In general, refinancings for economic savings will be undertaken
whenever net present value savings of at least five percent (5%) of the refunded debt can be achieved.
46
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a. Refinancings that produce net present value savings of less than five percent will be considered on a
case-by-case basis, provided that the present value savings are at least three percent (3%) of the
refunded debt.
b. Refinancings with savings of less than three percent (3%), or with negative savings, will not be
considered unless there is a compelling public policy objective.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
A. Regular Staffing
1. The budget will fully appropriate the resources needed for authorized regular staffing and will limit
programs to the regular staffing authorized.
2. Regular employees will be the core work force and the preferred means of staffing ongoing, year-round
program activities that should be performed by full-time City employees rather than independent
contractors. The City will strive to provide competitive compensation and benefit schedules for its
authorized regular work force. Each regular employee will:
a. Fill an authorized regular position.
b. Be assigned to an appropriate bargaining unit.
c. Receive salary and benefits consistent with labor agreements or other compensation plans.
3. To manage the growth of the regular work force and overall staffing costs, the City will follow these
procedures:
a. The Council will authorize all regular positions.
b. The Human Resources Department will coordinate and approve the hiring of all regular and
temporary employees.
c. All requests for additional regular positions will include evaluations of:
The necessity, term and expected results of the proposed activity.
Staffing and materials costs including salary, benefits, equipment, uniforms, clerical support and
facilities.
The ability of private industry to provide the proposed service.
Additional revenues or cost savings, which may be realized.
4. Periodically, and before any request for additional regular positions, programs will be evaluated to
determine if they can be accomplished with fewer regular employees. (See Productivity Review Policy)
5. Staffing and contract service cost ceilings will limit total expenditures for regular employees, temporary
employees, and independent contractors hired to provide operating and maintenance services.
B. Temporary Staffing
47
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
1. The hiring of temporary employees will not be used as an incremental method for expanding the City's
regular work force.
2. Temporary employees include all employees other than regular employees, elected officials and
volunteers. Temporary employees will generally augment regular City staffing as extra-help employees,
seasonal employees, contract employees, interns and work-study assistants.
3. The City Manager and Department Heads will encourage the use of temporary rather than regular
employees to meet peak workload requirements, fill interim vacancies, and accomplish tasks where less
than full-time, year-round staffing is required.
Under this guideline, temporary employee hours will generally not exceed 50% of a regular, full-time
position (1,000 hours annually). There may be limited circumstances where the use of temporary
employees on an ongoing basis in excess of this target may be appropriate due to unique programming or
staffing requirements. However, any such exceptions must be approved by the City Manager based on
the review and recommendation of the Human Resources Director.
4. Contract employees are defined as temporary employees with written contracts approved by the City
Manager who may receive approved benefits depending on hourly requirements and the length of their
contract. Contract employees will generally be used for medium-term (generally between six months and
two years) projects, programs or activities requiring specialized or augmented levels of staffing for a
specific period.
The services of contract employees will be discontinued upon completion of the assigned project, program or
activity. Accordingly, contract employees will not be used for services that are anticipated to be delivered on
an ongoing basis.
C. Overtime Management
1. Overtime should be used only when necessary and when other alternatives are not feasible or cost
effective.
2. All overtime must be pre-authorized by a department head or delegate unless it is assumed pre-approved
by its nature. For example, overtime that results when an employee is assigned to standby and/or must
respond to an emergency or complete an emergency response.
3. Departmental operating budgets should reflect anticipated annual overtime costs and departments will
regularly monitor overtime use and expenditures.
4. When considering the addition of regular or temporary staffing, the use of overtime as an alternative will
be considered. The department will take into account:
a. The duration that additional staff resources may be needed.
b. The cost of overtime versus the cost of additional staff.
c. The skills and abilities of current staff.
d. Training costs associated with hiring additional staff.
48
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
e. The impact of overtime on existing staff.
D. Independent Contractors
Independent contractors are not City employees. They may be used in two situations:
1. Short-term, peak workload assignments to be accomplished using personnel contracted through an
outside temporary employment agency (OEA). In this situation, it is anticipated that City staff will
closely monitor the work of OEA employees and minimal training will be required. However, they will
always be considered the employees of the OEA and not the City. All placements through an OEA will
be coordinated through the Human Resources Department and subject to the approval of the Human
Resources Director.
2. Construction of public works projects and delivery of operating, maintenance or specialized professional
services not routinely performed by City employees. Such services will be provided without close
supervision by City staff, and the required methods, skills and equipment will generally be determined
and provided by the contractor. Contract awards will be guided by the City's purchasing policies and
procedures. (See Contracting for Services Policy)
PRODUCTIVITY
Ensuring the “delivery of service with value for cost” is one of the key concepts embodied in the City's Mission
Statement (San Luis Obispo Style— Quality With Vision). To this end, the City will constantly monitor and
review our methods of operation to ensure that services continue to be delivered in the most cost-effective
manner possible.
This review process encompasses a wide range of productivity issues, including:
A. Analyzing systems and procedures to identify and remove unnecessary review requirements.
B. Evaluating the ability of new technologies and related capital investments to improve productivity.
C. Developing the skills and abilities of all City employees.
D. Developing and implementing appropriate methods of recognizing and rewarding exceptional employee
performance.
E. Evaluating the ability of the private sector to perform the same level of service at a lower cost.
F. Periodic formal reviews of operations on a systematic, ongoing basis.
G. Maintaining a decentralized approach in managing the City's support service functions. Although some level
of centralization is necessary for review and control purposes, decentralization supports productivity by:
1. Encouraging accountability by delegating responsibility to the lowest possible level.
2. Stimulating creativity, innovation and individual initiative.
3. Reducing the administrative costs of operation by eliminating unnecessary review procedures.
49
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
4. Improving the organization's ability to respond to changing needs, and identify and implement cost-
saving programs.
5. Assigning responsibility for effective operations and citizen responsiveness to the department.
H. Maintaining City purchasing policies and procedures that are as efficient and effective as possible.
CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES
A. General Policy Guidelines
1. Contracting with the private sector for the delivery of services provides the City with a significant
opportunity for cost containment and productivity enhancements. As such, the City is committed to
using private sector resources in delivering municipal services as a key element in our continuing efforts
to provide cost-effective programs.
2. Private sector contracting approaches under this policy include construction projects, professional
services, outside employment agencies and ongoing operating and maintenance services.
3. In evaluating the costs of private sector contracts compared with in-house performance of the service,
indirect, direct, and contract administration costs of the City will be identified and considered.
4. Whenever private sector providers are available and can meet established service levels, they will be
seriously considered as viable service delivery alternatives using the evaluation criteria outlined below.
5. For programs and activities currently provided by City employees, conversions to contract services will
generally be made through attrition, reassignment or absorption by the contractor.
B. Evaluation Criteria
Within the general policy guidelines stated above, the cost-effectiveness of contract services in meeting
established service levels will be determined on a case-by-case basis using the following criteria:
1. Is a sufficient private sector market available to competitively deliver this service and assure a reasonable
range of alternative service providers?
2. Can the contract be effectively and efficiently administered?
3. What are the consequences if the contractor fails to perform, and can the contract reasonably be written
to compensate the City for any such damages?
4. Can a private sector contractor better respond to expansions, contractions or special requirements of the
service?
5. Can the work scope be sufficiently defined to ensure that competing proposals can be fairly and fully
evaluated, as well as the contractor's performance after bid award?
6. Does the use of contract services provide us with an opportunity to redefine service level s?
7. Will the contract limit our ability to deliver emergency or other high priority services?
50
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
8. Overall, can the City successfully delegate the performance of the service but still retain accountability
and responsibility for its delivery?
51
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Wayne Padilla, Director of Finance & Information Technology
SUBJECT: WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION O F THE ELEMENTS OF A POLICY TO
PREPAY THE CITY’S UNFUNDED OBLIGATIONS
DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2014
REPORT IN BRIEF
Included in the 2013-15 Major City Goal for Fiscal Health was the direction to staff to prepare a
cost/benefit analysis regarding the City’s ability to prepay its unfunded pension liabilities. This
report discusses what those liabilities are and includes a discussion about the City’s unfunded
liability for its post-retirement insurance program. After review of other agencies’ plans to
prepay their retirement obligation and discussion with the City’s actuary at the California Public
Employees Retirement System, staff is recommending further analysis of whether additional
resources beyond those which are already built into the City’s PERS rates should be applied as
prepayments against these liabilities. If the council concurs, this analysis will be presented to the
City Council in sufficient time so whatever the policy determination, it can be incorporated into
the Strategic Budget Direction presented to the City Council in April 2015.
DISCUSSION
Background
A component of the work program supporting Council’s Major City Goal of Fiscal Health in the
2013-15 Financial Plan directed staff to prepare a cost/benefit analysis regarding the City’s
ability to make payments on the CalPERS Tier 1 safety side fund, other pension obligations, or
to offset ongoing CalPERS employer rate increases, and to present the analysis with
recommendations to the City Council. A report providing this analysis was presented to the City
Council on April 15, 2014. At that time the Council approved staff’s recommendation to utilize
excess General Fund reserve amounts to prepay the retrospective deposit obligation in the
amount of $2.065 million that was owed to the CJPIA for the liability insurance program because
the immediate savings were larger than that which would have been obtained if the amount had
been used to prepay a portion of the Safety Side Fund liability. Council also authorized a
prepayment in the amount of $935,000 to be applied against the Safety Side Fund liability owed
to CalPERS.
At that time a commitment was made to return to the City Council with a recommendation for
how the City’s unfunded liabilities can be paid down over time. This report provides
information regarding the steps taken by other public agencies as they addressed their own
unfunded retirement liabilities and discusses the advantages of making prepayments against the
City’s unfunded liabilities. Also discussed is a strategy for a sustainable method of making
future prepayments that can be developed into a formal policy for future adoption by the City
Council.
The Retirement Benefit Program
The City provides retirement benefits for full-time employees through the California Public
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Employees who serve as sworn public safety
52
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
officers (police officers and fire fighters) are members of the Safety Plan which has three benefit
tiers:
1.The first provides a 3% at age 50 benefit
2.The second tier for police provides a 2% at age 50 benefit, while the second tier for fire
personnel provides a 3% at age 55 benefit
3.The third tier program for both police and fire personnel provides a 2.7% at age 57 benefit
Employees who work in other capacities such as planners and clerical staff are members of the
Miscellaneous Plan, which also has three benefit tiers.
1.The first tier provides a 2.7% at age 55 benefit
2.The second tier provides a 2% at age 60 benefit
3.The third tier provides a 2% at age 62 benefit
CalPERS establishes the annual employer contribution rate that is charged against the City’s
payroll costs for eligible employees. The safety pool contribution rate is comprised of these
components:
1.Normal Cost, which is the amount needed to fund benefits earned by active employees in the
upcoming year
2.Unfunded Rate which is the amount charged to pay down the pool’s unfunded liability
3.Amortization of Side Fund which is the amount required to amortize the safety side fund
liability over 22 years
In addition to the employer contribution rate, CalPERS sets the member contribution rate which
is paid by each employee through a payroll deduction. The amounts of each rate applicable to
2014-15 are shown below:
Police Fire
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Normal Cost 20.128% 15.973% 12.25% 20.128% 17.128% 12.25%
Unfunded Rated 9.428% 5.49% 9.428% 5.937%
Amortization of Side Fund 15.645% 15.645%
Employee Contribution 9.0% 9% 12.25% 9% 9% 12.25%
Miscellaneous Plan
Normal Cost 10.615%
Unfunded Rate 15.640%
Employee Contribution 8.000%
53
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
Starting in 2015-16, CalPERS has changed the funding requirements for the Safety Pool Plan so
that all pool members will pay a fixed amount towards the unfunded liability instead of an
employer rate multiplied by the actual safety payroll processed by the City. The effective rates
and fixed amount to be paid for 2015-16 are shown in the table below.
Police Fire
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Normal Cost 20.23% 15.373% 12.250% 20.23% 17.293% 12.250%
Amortization of
Unfunded*
Employee Contribution 9.00% 9.000% 12.250% 9.00% 9.000% 12.250%
*The unfunded component of the annual employer charge for the Tier 1 program has been
replaced by a fixed dollar amount payment. This amount is $2,948,165; Tier 2 and 3 programs
do not have an unfunded rate component.
Miscellaneous Plan
Normal Cost 10.656%
Unfunded Rate 17.644%
Employee Contribution 7.930%
Each October, CalPERS provides an actuarial valuation report for each benefit plan that updates
certain values to reflect changes in plan activity since the previous valuation. These changes
include but are not limited to:
The difference between the expected 7.5% rate of return and the actual amount
realized
Changes in the number of plan members who retire each year
Changes in the number of new plan members
Changes in the annual payroll provided to existing members of the plan
The actuarial valuations also provide new information on the variables associated with
maintaining the plan, such as the amount of the unfunded liability and the annual Employer
Contribution rate described above, which represents the amount for every dollar of safety payroll
that the City is required to pay from the start of the following fiscal year. The information used
for this report is taken from the latest valuation report that was issued for the year ending June
30, 2013.
Interest Yields and Discount Factors
The City places its idle cash in several different investments. For short term cash needs, the City
uses the state Local Agency Investment Fund which pays an annual return of approximately
.25%. For monies invested for longer terms, the interest rate varies from approximately .50% to
1.9%. For the quarter ending September 30, 2014 the yield on the City’s portfolio was .82% As
54
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
discussed in the next section of this report, CalPERS assumes that all investments and liabilities
will return 7.5% each year. When this does not occur and other changes in variables do not
mitigate the shortfall, the unfunded liability amounts increase.
The currently adopted CalPERS actuarial assumptions rely on an investment return of at least
7.5% on all of the amounts it invests as well as on all of the amounts that are owed to it (i.e.
unfunded liabilities such as the safety side fund amount). This is known as the discount factor. If
the actual rate of return is less than this amount and all other factors remain the same (i.e.
number of annual retirements, mortality, compensation adjustments, etc.), later annual valuations
will reflect a greater unfunded liability. This means that while the city may prepay all or a
portion of the safety side fund liability, at any time that CalPERS does not earn the required rate
of return on the monies that the city has paid, an additional liability may be created in the safety
pool benefit program that would not reappear as a separate safety side fund obligation. This
generally results in increases to contribution rates for the safety pool and the City’s safety pool
liability would be increased based on its proportional share of all pool liabilities. As discussed
later, the City benefits from the effects of pooling when market losses are realized by CalPERS.
What are the City’s Unfunded Liabilities?
Retirement Programs
As previously discussed, the City maintains its retirement benefit program with the California
Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). These programs provide retirement benefits
for both sworn public safety and non-sworn staff members. These retirement benefit programs
are known as the safety and miscellaneous plans, respectively.
Prior to July 2007, the City maintained a standalone public safety retirement plan through
CalPERS. Beginning with the June 30, 2003 actuarial valuation CalPERS created risk pools in
order to combine individual plans having less than 100 members with the benefits of risk sharing
resulting from the pooling of resources. When the City joined the safety pool in 2007, CalPERS
created the safety side fund to account for the difference between the funded status of the City’s
standalone safety plan and that of the safety pool. At the time that the City joined the safety
pool, its standalone safety plan had an unfunded liability known as the safety side fund liability
which totals $24.6 million according to the latest CalPERS actuarial report as of June 30, 2013.
The safety plan’s share of the safety pool’s unfunded liability which is an additional amount
owed to CalPERS as of June 30, 2013 is $29.2 million. The total unfunded liability at June 30,
2013 for the safety plan is $53.8 million based on the market value of plan assets. This amount is
comprised of 3 components, each with their own amortization period which is outlined as
follows:
The safety side fund ($24.6 million) which has a 21 year amortization period;
The pre-2013 pool amount ($15.3 million) which has a 22 year amortization period;
The plan’s share of asset gains and losses ($14.1 million) which has a 30 year
amortization period.
The miscellaneous plan, which is not part of a pool, also has an unfunded liability of $61.8
million as of June 30, 2013 based on the market value of plan assets. Employees who participate
in the miscellaneous plan represent programs that are funded from the General and Enterprise
Funds. Accordingly, any changes in funding rates impact all of these programs.
55
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
It is very important to note that overall, the current funding level is set to retire all components of
the liability within a 30 year period.
Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
In addition to the liabilities that exist for the retirement program, the City also maintains a retiree
health benefit program in accordance with the requirements of the CalPERS Health Benefit
Program. This program provides retirees who qualify with a $119.00 monthly benefit toward the
cost of their health insurance premiums. (There is a group of 6 retirees for whom the City
contributes more to the cost of their health insurance premiums until they reach age 65 or pass
away.) The City has been a member of this program since 1993 and entered into an agreement
with the California Employers’ Benefit Trust (CERBT) to pre-fund the City’s OPEB liability
during the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Under the current funding plan, the City is on track to retire the
unfunded liability in 23 years.
An actuarial valuation was completed on April 15, 2014 for the year ending June 30, 2013 which
reported that the unfunded liability as of June 30, 2013 was $4.4 million based on the actuarial
value of assets. The annual contribution toward the cost of this benefit program is currently
$588,000. This amount is made up of the City’s share of cost to prefund the unfunded liability
($297,000) and premium contributions made by retirees who purchase their health insurance
under the City’s health insurance program.
A recent change has been made to the Actuarial Standards of Practice rules that will require the
calculation of an implied subsidy starting in two years. An implied subsidy is an actuarially
determined liability that results from allowing retirees to both purchase their insurance and
obtain the post-retirement benefit at the same rates as active employees. Because the cost of
health care increases with age, and because retirees are older than the population of active
employees, the true cost of providing health care benefits to retirees is generally higher than the
amount reflected in the health insurance premium cost. This reporting change will result in an
increase in the amount of the unfunded liability prepayment portion of the Annual Required
Contribution (ARC) to reflect the cost associated with the higher liability starting in 2016-17.
The estimated increase in cost for that year is $383,000. (the General Fund provides 79% of the
funding for this program based on the distribution of employees among the various programs
operated by the City).
In the latest valuation report that was completed as of June 30, 2013, the actuary calculated the
implied subsidy using the actuarial value of assets to be $5.0 million. As a result, the combined
total of the OPEB unfunded liability is $9.4 million as of June 30, 2013.
56
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
The Effects of GASB Changes on Pension and OPEB Reporting
While the City has been reporting its unfunded liabilities in its Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report each year in accordance with the current requirements of Governmental Accounting
Standards Board pronouncement #27, starting with the financial statements that will be prepared
for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2015 all cities must report their unfunded pension liability on
their Statement of Net Position in accordance with GASB pronouncement #68. This change in
reporting means that for the first time, the unfunded pension liability must be measured using the
fair market value of assets and reported on the agency-wide balance sheet. Additional
documentation regarding the City’s participation in the retirement program will also be provided
in accordance with the pronouncement.
The change in reporting requirement is intended to create a more prominent presentation of the
unfunded liability, but is not intended to change the manner in which the City continues to
operate or fund its operations. After the change in presentation method is made, the City will
continue to reflect a high level of solvency.
The actuary that prepared the City’s most recent OPEB valuation report has indicated that a new
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncement may soon be issued that
will require public agencies to report the value of the unfunded liability (including the implied
subsidy portion) in the same manner that the pension plan unfunded liability will be reported at
the end of the current fiscal year under GASB 68. The starting date for the new reporting on the
OPEB unfunded liability has not been determined.
Further Discussion of the OPEB Unfunded Liabilities
The current funding strategy for the OPEB program reflects the payoff of the unfunded liability
within 23 years based on current assumptions. With the change in reporting and the addition of
the implied subsidy liability, the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) will increase as discussed
above. Staff is researching what the effects of not fully funding the ARC will be on the City’s
credit rating to find out if it makes financial sense to continue paying only the annual amount
needed to prepay the portion of the unfunded liability that does not reflect the implied subsidy.
What Have Other Public Agencies Done to Pay Down Their Pension Liabilities?
A check of other agencies has revealed the following actions that each has taken. It is notable
that most of these agencies have not identified a specific period by which they intend to have
their unfunded liabilities paid down. Most are making at least one prepayment in an effort to
begin paying down their liability with whatever resources they have available at the time. Only
one has completely retired the unfunded liability.
Huntington Beach - $278 million unfunded liability
At the time the city was preparing its 2013-14 budget, the Council adopted staff’s
recommendation to make a prepayment to CalPERS based on a finding that excess revenues
existed at the end of each fiscal year. According to the Finance Director, the City has settled on
paying $1.0 million per year from their excess revenues against their safety plan unfunded
liability with the intent that the City will reduce the amortization period by 5 years. This will
reduce the amortization period from 30 years to 25 years. The city has adopted the theory that it
should pay for promises already made to its employees before entering into new ones.
57
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
Santa Maria - $5.6 million Fire Safety Side Fund liability
The City elected to utilize an inter-fund loan from its solid waste enterprise fund in order to pay
down the unfunded liability in full. The enterprise fund is being repaid from retirement plan cost
savings over 10 years with interest set at 3%.
Newport Beach – $257.9 million unfunded liability
The city is making $250,000 quarterly prepayments this year to prepay the safety program’s
unfunded liability ($163.2 million). This is the limit of what they can afford to spend and there
does not appear to be a specific target set for the reduction of the amortization period. Staff is
considering a proposal that would utilize future savings in PERS costs that are realized at the end
of each year (estimated to be from $250,000 - $500,000) as a source of future prepayments.
Menlo Fire District – $38 million unfunded liability
The District plans to use savings from its unspent payroll budget to make prepayments starting in
March 2015. There is no formal plan to reduce the amortization period by a specified period.
Irvine - $91.1 million unfunded liability
The city adopted a plan that is funded largely from a $61 million reserve that exists in its Asset
Management Plan Fund (AMPF) and also uses $1.0 million annually from other fund excess
reserves. The plan to fund the prepayments includes a one-time upfront prepayment of $3.0
million from excess reserves, followed by annual installments of $5.0 million each from the
AMPF and an additional $1.0 million that will come from other excess reserve monies. Savings
generated from the prepayments will be used to repay the AMPF so that the fund reserve does
not fall below $43.9 million over the 10 year period.
Laguna Beach - $53 million unfunded liability ($24 million miscellaneous; $29 million safety
pool)
The city approved a $1.0 million prepayment against its unfunded liability from 2014-15 excess
reserves. In the future, up to $1.4 million is to be programmed for annual prepayments starting
no later than 2015-16 without impacting current city services.
Costa Mesa - $228 million unfunded liability ($144 million safety; $84 million miscellaneous)
The city approved a $6 million prepayment at the end of 2013-14 toward its fire side fund
liability and the use of the annual savings that result to make further prepayments against that
obligation. In addition, they approved making early payments of the required annual contribution
for the miscellaneous plan to take advantage of the discount available and also approved the
future prepayments of up to $500,000 annually toward the unfunded liability
San Luis Obispo – $115.6 million unfunded liability
The City Council approved a $935,000 prepayment on the Safety Side Fund liability during the
Mid-Year Budget Update session and a second $300,000 prepayment was made as part of the
2014-15 Supplemental Budget plan. Both prepayments came from excess reserves in the
General Fund. The City elected to continue paying the original employer rates rather than take
advantage of the rate savings that the prepayments generated (approximately .5%) in order to
generate additional prepayments during the rest of the fiscal year.
58
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
Summary
To summarize the actions taken by these agencies, with the exception of Santa Maria, all have
chosen to use savings and/or excess reserves to provide the resources necessary to make the
prepayments that have been called for by their prepayment plans. Inter-fund loans are not always
an appropriate means of financing long-term obligations since they restrict the available
enterprise fund resources for the duration of the loan and possibly lower enterprise fund reserve
levels below those needed to support the start of construction on several significant capital
projects.
It was also noted that several cities including Irvine stated that they will review their policy and
the effect of all prepayment assumptions each year to determine whether any changes are needed
to the prepayment plan.
Prepayment Strategy Considerations
It is important to note that with the recent changes in retirement funding that have been put into
place by CalPERS, the City is expected to pay off the unfunded liability within 30 years based on
current actuarial assumptions. In the past, the retirement system used rolling amortization
schedules to determine when the unfunded liabilities would be paid off. This meant that the
payoff dates were continually being moved into the future. One consideration that should be
taken into account when determining whether a policy for the repayment of these liabilities
should be created is whether there is a significant advantage to making additional payments to
retire the debt early. Therefore, one objective of a policy to prepay unfunded liabilities could be
the balancing of resources between those needed to meet current needs with the desire to retire
existing unfunded debt.
As seen with the other cities’ efforts to address their unfunded liabilities, most have not set a firm
funding objective other than to begin making prepayments to reduce their liabilities. Irvine has
targeted a 98% funding objective by the year 2023 and Huntington Beach has sought to reduce
their unfunded liability amortization period from 30 years to 25 years.
According to the City’s CalPERS actuary, Barbara Ware, one of the variables to consider when
establishing a policy for prepaying a retirement liability is the period of time when employees
will begin drawing their benefits because this provides assurance that the benefits are fully
funded. The actuary that prepared the OPEB valuation report also indicated that the timeframe
in which most plan participants will be retired should be considered as part of a prepayment
strategy for the same reason. CalPERS and the OPEB valuation consultant both have the ability
to provide the City with statistics showing when a majority of the members from these plans are
likely to retire.
Both the CalPERS and OPEB actuaries are also able to provide amortization tables that provide
the City with the ability to determine the timing and amount of each prepayment that would be
required to retire the unfunded liability of these plans over a specified period. Further analysis
will be completed using amortization tables as part of the analysis that will return to the City
Council in the coming months.
As stated above, all of the agencies that were contacted about their retirement prepayment plans
intended to use excess reserves, excess revenues or excess savings that were identified at the end
of a fiscal year to make their prepayments. The new policy should also identify where the
resources that will be used for making the prepayments will come from.
59
PERS Unfunded Liabilities (City of San Luis Obispo White Paper)
IN COUNCIL READING FILE
Report to Council from April 15, 2014 outlining retirement repayment options
60
Section 8.1
Background Materials
Status Reports from November 13, 2014 Workshop
STATUS OF 2013-15
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Status of Goals and Objectives
As of November 1, 2014
STATUS OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As of November 1, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Overview .......................................................... 1
Report Card: Major City Goals and Other
Important Council Objectives...........................1
MAJOR CITY GOALS
Homelessness ................................................... 2
Neighborhood Wellness ................................... 8
Sustain Essential Services & Fiscal Health .... 14
Bike & Pedestrian Paths ................................. 20
Economic Development ................................. 23
Assess and Renew the Downtown .................. 25
Skate Park ....................................................... 27
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL
OBJECTIVES
Open Space ..................................................... 28
Infrastructure Maintenance............................. 32
Improve Transportation .................................. 37
CARRYOVER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Update Land Use and Circulation Elements .. 39
Action Plan Changes and Next Report ........... 40
STATUS OF MAJOR CIP PROJECTS
Status of Major Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) Projects...................................41
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
This report details the status of Major City Goals
and Other Important Council Objectives set by the
Council as part of the 2013-15 Financial Plan as of
November 1, 2014. In general, we are off to a good
start in accomplishing these
objectives based on the work
programs adopted by the Council.
Report Card. The following is a
quick “report card” on the status of
Major City Goals and Other
Important Council Objectives based
on the “action plans” approved by
the Council as part of the 2013-15
Financial Plan.
As a benchmark, at November 1st,
2014, we are 66% percent through
the two-year Financial Plan period.
Most of the goals and objectives are well underway
and progress is continuous.
Organization. The “report card” is followed by a
short summary of notable changes from the original
action plan. After this is a more detailed report on
each Major City Goal and Other Important Council
Objectives, which shows the
objective and action plan as
adopted by the Council. Revisions
to the goals are displayed as
follows:
•Additions are shown in italics;
•Date changes are shown in
italics and highlighted in a separate
column; and
•Deletions are shown in
strikeout.
Report Card: 2013-15 Major City Goals & Other Important Objectives – Percent Complete as of 11/1/14
Important Note
Many of these objectives are
multi-year goals that have
activities associated with
them that go beyond the
2013-15 Financial Plan
period. This status report is
focused on approved
“Action Plan” tasks as of
November 1, 2014.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Address Homelessness
Neighborhood Wellness
Preservation of Essential Services & Fiscal Health
Bike/Pedestrian Paths
Economic Development Strategic Plan
Assess/Renew Downtown
Skate Park Construction
Major City Goals
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Infrastructure Maintenance
Open Space Expansion
Improve Transportation
Other Important Council Objectives
E-1
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
Objective: Implement comprehensive strategies to address homelessness in our City in partnership with other
entities. Encourage existing, improved, and expanded services (including advocating to the County and other
organizations for delivery of case management, drug, alcohol, and detoxification services, and mental health
services), support the establishment of a new homeless services center, and pursue good-neighbor, safety, and
quality of life programs (including restrooms), using technology as appropriate.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
Encourage existing, improved, and expanded services
1.Increase coordination and representation of City interests in discussions with the County,
social services providers and non-profit organizations for delivery of existing, improved
and expanded services, including case management, drug, alcohol, detoxification, and
mental health services.
Ongoing
2.Continue the City’s Homeless Issues Working Group, and HSOC and FPDC participation
to support and implement the 10-Year Plan and identify, evaluate, and implement strategies
to reduce the impacts of homelessness on the City.
Ongoing
3.Continue, and increase where feasible, financial support for Maxine Lewis, Prado, Safe
Parking Program, GIA Program, Housing Programs and Warming Station.
Ongoing
4.Utilize the Human Relations Commission to outreach to the community and maintain focus
and strategic support and direction on homeless issues.
Ongoing
5.Continue to implement Housing Element programs.Ongoing
6.Work with developers to include affordable housing units in projects and to complete
housing projects in process.
Ongoing
7.Look for new opportunities to use Affordable Housing Fund and grant monies to leverage
other funds for affordable housing projects.
Ongoing
Support the establishment of a new homeless services center
1.Execute a MOU between the City, County and CAPSLO to formalize the common
objectives and methods for achieving development of a Homeless Services Center.
12/13 4/15
2.Continue, and increase where feasible, financial support for the Homeless Services Center.Ongoing
Pursue good-neighbor, safety and quality of life programs
1.Implement a CAT team concept to address adverse transient/homeless behaviors.Ongoing Complete
2.Work with CAPSLO to enhance and support a comprehensive Good Neighbor Policy.Ongoing Complete
E-2
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
3.Develop all elements needed for donation station implementation, including monitoring,
maintenance, fund collection, deposition of funds, identification of recipients, and
locations.
12/13 Complete
4.Council direction on option for restroom provision.1/14 Complete
5.Collaborate with interested private entities to implement a donation station program.2/14 Ongoing
6.Start restroom implementation with completion date dependent upon solution (see “Assess
and Renew the Downtown” goal for specific recommendations.)
7/14 Complete
Status: 66% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
Encourage Existing, Improved and Expanded Services
On October 1, 2013, Council approved amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code to
permit and provide standards for the operation of safe parking facilities on private properties within the City. The
Ordinance provides a limited exception to allow safe parking facilities on property located outside of the public
right-of-way in certain zoning districts subject to permit requirements; performance standards and use permit
considerations to ensure that safe parking facilities will be compatible with surrounding uses and effective at
facilitating participants’ transition to permanent housing. CAPSLO is currently processing a use permit to comply
with the permit requirements for the existing program at the Prado Day Center.
On April 15,, 2014, Council adopted funding recommendations for the 2014 CDBG Program Year. CDBG funding
for the 2014 Program Year is $498,446. Of this amount, Council allocated $74,767 for the operation of the Maxine
Lewis Memorial Shelter, $31,200 for plumbing rehabilitation of the Women’s Shelter and $139,898 for transitional
housing rehabilitation.
The City has a Homeless Issues Working Group to support and implement the 10-Year Plan and to identify,
evaluate, and implement strategies to reduce the impacts of homelessness on the City. The Working Group meets
bi-monthly and is made up of executive team members that have programmatic responsibility in areas that serve the
homeless population, or serve community members that are impacted by homelessness.
Staff provides leadership in implementing the 10-Year Plan by working with CAPSLO and other housing and
service providers including considering ways to encourage transitional housing and “housing first” options. Staff
implements the General Plan Housing Element, which contains policies and programs that support housing and
service agencies whose mission it is to develop programs for the City’s homeless population. Staff promotes
collaborative efforts and opportunities to address the needs of the homeless population and acts as the City liaison to
HSOC and Friends of Prado Day Center.
Staff was actively involved with the 2013 Homeless Enumeration Report. Every two years, all jurisdictions
receiving federal funding to provide housing and services for the homeless are required by HUD to conduct a point-
in-time count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons at a single time during the last ten days of January. The
data collected through these counts help the federal government and local jurisdictions better understand the nature
and extent of homelessness and plan for needed programs and services. Additionally, local jurisdictions use the
findings of their point-in-time count to apply for federal funding for homeless programs. In 2013, the San Luis
Obispo County Continuum of Care is expected to receive approximately $1 million in federal funds for homeless
services.
Staff developed a new Homeless Solutions webpage. This page is dedicated to keeping the public updated with all
the latest homeless program initiatives. It includes a donations link to the United Way website and information on
local homeless programs, services and documents.
E-3
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
In 2013, the County’s Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) voted to make Housing First its top priority
for 2014, and voted to join the 100,000 Homes Campaign. This program uses the Housing First approach to assist
the most vulnerable, chronically homeless persons who are at risk of dying on the streets. In response to HSOC’s
action, HASLO offered to make available 50 Housing Choice Vouchers to house the most vulnerable homeless
persons. On November 5, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) authorized funding for case management
services. The City submitted a letter and provided testimony in support of this action. On August 26, 2014, the
County BOS awarded a $1.86 million contract over a three year period to Transitions Mental Health Association, in
conjunction with partnership agencies, to implement the 50 Now program.
On September 30, 2014, the County was informed that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded the
Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) grant to two local non-profit organizations. This grant provides
supportive services to very-low income veteran families in or transitioning to permanent housing. Funds are granted
to non-profit organizations who provide a range of services designed to promote housing stability. Community
Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) will receive $4.9 million over the next three years to
provide rapid rehousing, homelessness prevention and supportive services to homeless and at-risk veterans and their
families. The Good Samaritan Shelter in partnership with the 5 Cities Homeless Coalition will receive $1.1 million
over the next three years for rapid rehousing and supportive services.
CAPSLO has changed locations for their proposed Homeless Services Center from 3511 South Higuera Street to 40
Prado Road. In June, CAPSLO acquired a portion of 40 Prado Road for development of the new Center and was
successful in utilizing the $1 million State grant for property acquisition. The new Center will combine services
currently provided at the Prado Day Center and Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter. The City has allocated $250,000
towards project construction and is working on a funding agreement with the County to transfer the funds with
criteria for fund raising goals and an executed construction contract. An executed agreement between the City and
County is expected by the end of 2014. In addition, the City has allocated $125,000 in CDBG funds for site and
building design work. In August, CAPSLO submitted a planning application for design review of the new Center. A
complete planning application is expected in October. Staff anticipates a building permit for project construction by
June 2015.
Affordable Housing
The City facilitates the provision of affordable housing and provides leadership in implementing the 10-Year Plan
by partnering with a variety of social service providers and the Countywide Homeless Services Oversight Council
(HSOC). Providing affordable housing is one of the key objectives in transitioning homeless persons. This effort
includes administration of the City’s CDBG program, Housing Element implementation, awards of the City’s
Affordable Housing Fund to support transitional and low income housing, administration of the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Program, and participation in the planning and execution of a variety of special projects including the
warming station at the Prado Day Center, the safe parking program, and the proposed Homeless Services Center
project.
On August 20, 2013, Council adopted changes to Chapter 17.90 (Affordable Housing Incentives) of the Zoning
Regulations to be consistent with State density bonus law. The City’s Affordable Housing Incentives were last
updated in 1995 and State law related to affordable housing production has substantially changed. Some highlights
of the adopted changes include additional definitions, greater percentage of density bonus allowed for providing
affordable housing and additional options for alternative incentives and concessions.
Both federal and state fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in housing against individuals with disabilities.
These laws require that cities and counties take affirmative action to eliminate regulations and practices that deny
housing opportunities to disabled individuals. On June 10, 2014, Council adopted a reasonable accommodation
ordinance that provides a fair and reasonable procedure for disabled persons to request flexibility in the application
of land use and zoning regulations to ensure equal access to housing.
E-4
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
HASLO has submitted a planning application for a 20-unit 100% affordable housing development located at 860
Humbert Street. The project will be affordable to very-low and low income veterans. For The Future Housing
submitted a planning application to develop a 46-unit 100% affordable housing development located at 3710 Broad
Street. The project will be affordable to very-low and low income households.
Staff has completed a draft update to the Housing Element based on state law, evaluation of goals, policies and
programs and input from residents and stakeholders. The Draft has been completed to reflect the changing needs,
resources, and conditions in the community. Advisory body review of the document is anticipated in the fall once
the City has received initial comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
On November 19, 2013, Council approved an Affordable Housing Fund award for the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) in
the amount of $30,000 to support the HTF’s operating expenses for 2014. The HTF provides three key services that
benefit affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo: 1) financing, 2) technical assistance and 3) advocacy.
The HTF provides funding for affordable housing projects, including property acquisition, construction and
refinancing. HTF staff also serves as a resource to City staff working with developers on affordable housing
projects.
On September 27, 2013, Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County (HFH), City officials and a number of
community partners attended a home dedication ceremony for the families of HFH’s affordable housing
development located at 3212 Rockview Place. The site is approximately 12,000 square feet in area and the project
included the development of three single-family homes. These homes are deed restricted for purchase by very-low
income families under the City’s long-term affordability program. Each home occupies its own lot and includes
approximately 1,000 square feet of living area with three-bedrooms and 1½ baths. The Habitat families that
purchased the homes have performed over 500 hours of sweat equity on their home. They purchased the homes with
a no-interest loan and their monthly mortgage payments will be used to support Habitat’s work throughout the
County. The City contributed a Community Development Block Grant of $241,217 and an Affordable Housing
Fund grant of $38,783 for property acquisition and site clearance and remediation.
On October 15, 2013, Transitions Mental Health Association of San Luis Obispo County (TMHA), City officials
and a number of community partners attended an open house and guided tour of “Hope House”, TMHA’s recently
constructed permanent supportive housing development located at 1306 Nipomo Street. The project included the
renovation of an existing 2,333 square foot home into two studio units and a wellness center and construction of a
new two-story building with six studio units and vehicle parking. All eight units are fully furnished and residential
support services for the tenants are provided on-site in the wellness center. These units are deed-restricted for rent
by very-low income individuals under the City’s long-term affordability program. The City contributed
development review and citywide impact fee waivers to the project.
On August 20, 2014, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), City officials and a number
of community partners attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony for HASLO’s Moylan Terrace housing development
located at 851 Humbert Avenue. The project includes a total of 80 townhomes with 27 deed restricted (34%) for
very-low, low and moderate income families. The first three phases (36 units) of the project are now complete with
construction anticipated to begin on the remaining phases in the fall.
On June 11, 2014, South Street Family Apartments L.P. was awarded 9% tax credits by the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (TCAC) to help finance construction of a 43 unit multi-family rental apartment project. The
project is 100% affordable to extremely-low, very-low and low income households earning 30% to 60% of the Area
Median Income (AMI). The applicant has submitted a building permit application and construction in anticipated in
spring of 2015.
On December 10, 2013, Council held two TEFRA public hearings for the reissuance of tax exempt bonds and
loans by HASLO for the Del Rio Terrace Apartments located at 2005 Johnson Avenue and the Carmel Street
E-5
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
Apartments located at 433 Pacific Street. These projects include 59 affordable housing rental apartments for
seniors. This action financially assisted the projects by allowing HASLO to reduce the interest rates on the bonds
and loans that financed construction.
To increase homeownership opportunities available and affordable to very-low, low and moderate-income
households the City partnered with HASLO and Goldfard and Lipman to prepare documents that implement the
City’s Equity Share purchase program as provided for in Chapter 17.91.150 of the Zoning Regulations. This
program allows buyers of affordable units to enter into an agreement with the City that upon resale of the property,
the City’s equity share in the property is returned to the City for use in other affordable housing developments.
Pursue Good Neighbor, Safety and Quality of Life Programs
CAT Team Concept - staff has assigned two officers who are currently working in the CAT Team capacity
addressing adverse transient/homeless behaviors. As part of the mission of the Community Action Team they have
given directed focus to the top ten chronic offenders within our community. These offenders are those that require
the most repeat police services for their behaviors, usually in the downtown. The CAT Team has met with the
County Sheriff’s Department, the District Attorney’s Office and the court’s to discuss long term solutions for
these repeat offenders. These solutions include both more severe punitive terms for these offenders and the
connection to social services that could assist in transitioning these people out of homelessness and into a sober
living environments. The Cat Team has had at least four of the top ten accept social services and are currently
living in sober living environments.
On May 20, 2014, Council adopted a citywide Good Neighbor Policy (GNP) for homeless services. The intent of
the policy is to clearly communicate community expectations and City commitments as it relates to the City’s
support of homeless services. The GNP provides a framework in which the City will support and regulate
Homeless Service Providers in the Community who are seeking City permits, entitlements or funding.
Donation Stations – The Downtown Association Board of Directors voted to participate and support this program
as a lead partner. The United Way has partnered with the program and is acting as the non-profit 501c(3) which
will receive and distribute donations collected by the City. Specific beneficiaries have yet to be determined. The
project is in its early phases which currently include a marketing campaign. It is expected this will take place in
the next sixty days. Other phases will include identifying donation meter locations for installment and collection
of donations. It is anticipated that donation stations will be installed in the spring after careful coordination with
local merchants and the Downtown Association. Staff is currently preparing a memorandum of agreement to
formalize the operations once the program.
The Project Team reviewed current directed giving efforts and has developed a link through the City’s website
titled “Homeless Solutions”. This link provides public information related to homelessness in our community and
directs people to homeless service opportunities for those in need. It also provides information on the Directed
Giving campaign as well as plans for the development of the Meter Donation Station Project. Citizens can utilize
links on this page to go directly to the United Way website to provide donations.
The Project Team discussed in detail Donation Meters and the logistics with the implementation and installation of
meter heads. Currently the City uses IPS Group Inc. for our digital parking meters. This company will donate
meter heads which will be used specifically as donation locations. The meters will be placed at seven identified
locations in heavily pedestrian traveled areas. They will be marked in such a way that they will be distinguished as
donation sites only and will not be confused with normal parking meters.
Project Complete - Seven meters have been installed in the Downtown core. Meters are currently functioning and
receiving donations; as of the end of September a total of $8,500 has been donated to Friends of Prado through the
Directed Giving Campaign which includes meter donations and sponsorships. The committee continues to meet
monthly and is working on a potential public art process to enhance the meter’s presence.
E-6
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
Restrooms - Increasing restroom availability beyond their previous closure time is underway. Mission Plaza
Restroom hours were extended to midnight in July. Re-commissioning of the Broad Street restrooms is complete
and the restroom is open for late night use. Public Works alerted both the Police Department and the Downtown
Association to share the news with potential “customers.” Council reviewed the program at their May 6, 2014
meeting and provided direction to staff.
E-7
MAJOR CITY GOALS –NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS
CONTINUE AND ENHANCE NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS INITIATIVES
Objective: Continue and Enhance Neighborhood Wellness Initiatives. Continue to support proactive code
enforcement, pursue a residential rental inspection program, improve street cleanliness, increase public safety
enforcement, and support neighborhood led initiatives.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
Proactive Code Enforcement
1.Develop a code enforcement hearing officer program and associated training protocols Ongoing
2.Produce and distribute quarterly Neighborhood Wellness newsletter Ongoing
3.Noise abatement and residential parking district enforcement by SNAP Ongoing Ongoing
4.Improved education/outreach plan for neighborhood noise abatement.8/13 Ongoing
5.Implement a lien process for uncollected fines and incurred costs.8/13 Completed
5/14
6.Establish an Abatement Fund 9/13 6/15
7.Conduct comprehensive municipal code review to identify possible amendments to code
to facilitate code enforcement efforts.11/13 06/15
Rental Inspection
1.Identify best practices and complete a draft outline of the program 8/13 11/13
2.Conduct outreach with stakeholders to obtain input on the draft program outline 9/13 to
3/14
9/13-11/14
3.Review stakeholder input with Council and receive policy direction 4/14 12/14
4.Revise program outline and draft an ordinance 5/14 1/15
5.Conduct outreach with stakeholders on the revised program outline and ordinance 6/14 2-15
6.Agendize the Ordinance for public hearing and Council adoption 7/14 4/15
7.Begin rental inspection program if adopted by the City Council 3/15 9/15
E-8
MAJOR CITY GOALS –NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS
Task Current Revised
Street Cleanliness
1.Identify problematic areas 10/13 Complete
2.Develop informational materials and delivery methodology to educate residents on their
sweeping day and the benefits of keeping cars off the streets for the sweeping 12/13 2/14
3.Evaluate informational campaign effectiveness 3/14 10/14
4.If needed, develop and implement enforcement activities 10/14 12/14
Public Safety Enforcement
1.Implementation and coordination of CAT team to address neighborhood concerns 7/13 Completed
2.Continue the development of park and neighborhood officers within identified
geographical boundaries for residential connectivity and collaboration Ongoing Completed
Neighborhood Initiatives
1.Obtain Council direction for guidelines and process for “Neighborhood Match” grants for
neighborhood improvement projects 1/14
2.Develop database of neighborhood boundary areas and contact information 1/15
3.Complete neighborhood tree plantings – as requested Ongoing
4.Participate in Neighborhood Civility Project Ongoing
Status: 40% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
Proactive Code Enforcement
2.Quarterly Newsletter – staff has produced three newsletters, (spring 2013, summer 2013 and fall 2013). The
newsletter email distribution list is comprised of approximately 70 residents, several of which in turn forward the
newsletter to their neighbors. The Newsletter is also shared with Cal Poly and Cuesta administration. Content is
comprised of updates on existing neighborhood related projects as well as information on upcoming meetings,
events and programs. The newsletter is also posted on the Police Department page of the City website and the link is
posted to the Neighborhood Services Facebook page. The Winter edition of the newsletter will be distributed in
February.
Update: newsletters continue to be created and published quarterly. Content is created by the Neighborhood
Services Team represented by members of Code Enforcement, Fire, Parking, Traffic, Planning, Recreation, Natural
Resources, Utilities and Police.
3.Noise abatement and parking enforcement by SNAP – The SNAP schedule and responsibilities have been fine
tuned. SNAP is now reporting for shifts earlier as to better enforce residential parking districts. SNAP is also
responding to noise complaints during all six weekly shifts. Two SNAP teams are scheduled for traditionally busy
E-9
MAJOR CITY GOALS –NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS
times (start of school, Halloween, etc.) to allow for quicker response time to noise complaints. Additionally, they
are assisting with graffiti abatement, tagging abandon vehicles for tow and abandoned bicycle tagging and retrieval.
This task has been successfully implemented and SNAP will continue to enforce parking and noise standards in the
neighborhoods.
4.Outreach – with the amendments to Safety Enhancement, an extensive outreach strategy was put into place in
August and September. All property owners with business tax licenses were mailed a postcard explaining the safety
enhancement changes. Door hangers were distributed to over 3,000 residences in the neighborhoods which had a
high percentage of student age residents. The door hanger shared safety enhancement and “Avoid Party Regret”
information as well as “how to be a good neighbor” reminders. Two ads were run in the Mustang Daily, a full page
in the WOW edition and a quarter page in the Back to School edition and continued the safety enhancement and
“Avoid Party Regret” messaging. The Office of Neighborhood Services Facebook page was updated daily with
rotating safety enhancement, “Avoid Party Regret” and be a good neighbor message. Staff attended a variety of in-
person events to share noise abatement information: Cuesta new student orientation in August, WOW leader
training prior to the start of WOW, two-day WOW resource fair for new students, Inter-fraternal Council,
PanHellenic Council, four fraternity chapter meetings and one sorority chapter meeting. Staff presented to the
Neighbors North of Foothill annual meeting in mid-November and shared information on the Neighborhood Officer
program and answered a variety of questions posed by the resident attendees. Outreach for Halloween included print
ads in the Mustang Daily, New Times and posters distributed by the Downtown Association for food and beverage
outlets. Cal Poly and Cuesta administration assisted with electronic distribution of the Halloween enforcement
information. Neighborhood Wellness meetings continue to be held bi-monthly at the Ludwick Community Center.
Recent topics of discussion have included the CAT team, open space and creek winterization, Neighborhood Officer
Program and the Civility Working Group. Upcoming topics will include residential drought and city water
conservation, the Cal Poly Off Campus Coordinator’s student education program, street sweeping and the proposed
rental inspection program.
Update for 2014: Neighborhood Wellness meetings continue to be held bi-monthly at the Ludwick Center. Recent
topics include zone amendments, Mission Orchard Parking District establishment, school district property
development, Cal Poly’s off-campus program through Student Affairs, and the rental housing inspection program
development.
Clean Up Week was moved this year to coincide with the high number of rental turnover at the end of June. Two
types of door hangers were used to share information with residents; the first was bright, colorful and offered both
information about large item removal through SLO Garbage as well as info about burning furniture being a felony.
It was hung on 2,500 doors one week prior to Clean Up Week. The second was strictly related to furniture burning
and was used by Fire and Code Enforcement and placed directly on the doors of residences with furniture in the
yard or in front on the curb. The outreach was extremely effective as only two furniture items were burned during
Clean Up Week/move out.
New this summer was the opportunity to be part of the Soar Resource Panel at Cal Poly. Soar is the summer
orientation program for all incoming students and parents. The Resource Panel gave the Police and Fire
Departments the chance to talk directly to parents about what services are provided, enforcement practices, the
Directed Giving campaign and expectations of residents of the City. Approximately 1800 parents attended the
sessions with Police and Fire.
Print ads for WOW and the first week of school went into the Mustang Daily with “Avoid Party Regret” and Safety
Enhancement messaging as well as the ad for the Back to School edition of the New Times. A scrolling slide show
with “Avoid Party Regret” and Safety Enhancement messaging was submitted to Cal Poly Housing to play on
CPTV which plays in the residence halls.
E-10
MAJOR CITY GOALS –NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS
Presentations on Safety Enhancement and “how to be a good neighbor” were conducted to 700 WOW leaders as
well as all Greek presidents and “Avoid Party Regret” information given out to over 1000 new students during the
WOW Resource Fair. The Neighborhood Services Facebook page was used to get out information on Safety
Enhancement as well as reminders about being a good neighbor.
With over two years of proactive enforcement, the City of San Luis Obispo has data which shows areas where there
is a higher propensity of code and property maintenance standard violations. Enforcement resources are now
focused in these areas. Over 2,000 property maintenance and code enforcement cases have initiated. The majority
of cases are from complaints, but staff does take proactively enforce violations that can be viewed from the public
right of way with priority given to cases that have a clear health and safety nexus.
Work has not begun on developing Neighborhood Match grant guidelines for neighborhood improvement projects.
This effort will be picked up in the spring and will be presented to Council in Fall 2014.
6.Staff has been collaborating on multiple fronts to improve the overall citation appeals process, developing a lien
process that is outlined in state law and the City’s municipal code. Additionally, staff is doing research on the
establishment of an abatement fund to assist with abatement efforts when exigent health and safety conditions exist
that require immediate attention and action. The first phase of changes to the City’s code enforcement program
began with a review of proposed changes to the City’s administrative citation appeals program. Staff appeared
before City Council on January 7th, 2014, to introduce, for Council’s approval, the recommendation of a uniform,
two-step administrative review procedure for those administrative citations appealed by aggrieved individuals. The
recommendation would be implemented by all City departments currently using administrative citations as an
enforcement tool. Council approved staff’s recommendation, and the City Attorney’s office subsequently drafted
proposed changes to Chapter 1.24 to establish two, distinct levels of administrative review before the validity of the
administrative citation could be appealed to superior court, as required under the California Government Code. The
first level of review for administrative citations would be conducted by a trained Hearing Administrator, who would
issue a decision regarding the validity of the administrative citation, and would allow the aggrieved party contesting
the citation to present evidence disputing its validity. If the administrative citation is upheld by the Hearing
Administrator, the aggrieved party would have the opportunity to appeal once more to either the Construction Board
of Appeals, acting as an adjudicatory body for technical violations implicating the adopted codes of Title 15 of the
municipal code, or, if the citation was written in violation of any other type of municipal code violation, would be
adjudicated by the newly created Administrative Review Board. City Council approved this restructuring of
Chapter 1.24 on August 19th, 2014. Currently, the City Attorney’s office is working with the Chief Building
Official, as well as the Police Department and the City Clerk’s Office, to take the next steps necessary to see the
implementation of the program through to fruition. This includes taking revised bylaws back to the Construction
Board of Appeals, finalizing the enabling ordinance creating the Administrative Review Board for approval by the
City Council, crafting that body’s bylaws, and developing a training program for hearing officers and board
members reviewing the administrative citations to ensure compliance with state and federal due process and
recruiting hearing officers. Once these changes are implemented, the focus will shift to presenting different
enforcement tools and the establishment of an abatement fund for Council consideration to enhance enforcement
tools available to address immediate health and safety issues.
Rental Inspection
A Draft Project Plan for the development of a Rental Housing Inspection Program was presented to the
Development Oversight Committee in October 2013 and it is being further refined. Two interns from the
University of Ludwigsburg, Germany, arrived on October 21st and assisted with research through January 16, 2014.
An intern from Cal Poly has expanded the research nationally to college towns having rental inspection programs.
The research provides an overview of other programs that have been implemented in other cities. and a basis for
identifying the range of best practices and options available for possible inclusion in a proposed program for San
Luis Obispo. These options will be presented to the City Council at a study session on December 2, 2014 Staff will
be seeking policy direction in order to draft an ordinance for Council consideration in February 2015.
E-11
MAJOR CITY GOALS –NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS
Public outreach regarding a potential Rental Housing Inspection Program started in January 2014 and is ongoing.
Staff has made presentations to numerous community, business and neighborhood groups to seek input on the
advisability of such a program, potential issues for stakeholders, and input on program scope and configuration.
Community Development Staff is working with the GIS Division to identify probable rental properties from
available County Assessor, Utility Department and Business Registration Data. If the City Council adopts a
program the eventual list of probable rentals will be vetted further once program implementation commences in
2015.
Street Cleanliness
Operation Clean Sweep is underway for street cleanliness. Information on where to find out what day your street is
swept was provided through newspapers, Facebook, the City’s website, Channel 20, and the spring Resource
Newsletter that goes out to households. Residents are being encouraged to keep their vehicles off the street during
their sweep day. With new residents now in place for the start of the new school year, the messaging will be
provided again before final recommendations are prepared.
Public Safety Enforcement
1.CAT Team – staff has assigned two officers who are currently working in the CAT Team capacity addressing
neighborhood concerns. The CAT Team continues to act in this capacity.
2.Development of a Neighborhood Officer Program – Patrol officers are currently assigned to thirteen different
geographical areas within the City. A link on the City’s website was created for the community to find out who their
neighborhood officer is and how to contact them. Additionally, community members can also access specific crime
data within their identified neighborhood. Since its inception in November 2013, the link has received about 1,900
visits, of which approximately 1,140 were new visitors.
Update: Neighborhood Officers will be canvassing their designated areas to enhance community connectivity by
making personal contacts.
Neighborhood Initiatives
Neighborhood Match Grants: Long Range Planning resources have been fully engaged in General Plan updates to
the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements as well as the update to the Airport Area Specific Plan/Chevron
project, delaying timing of this effort. Research into examples of neighborhood match grant programs has been
initiated and staff anticipates bringing more complete information for Council consideration and direction on
February 3, 2015.
Neighborhood boundaries: The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process included a
neighborhood mapping effort. This information was reviewed by City Council on April 2, 2013. Staff continues to
maintain known neighborhood boundaries and contact information for use during outreach efforts. This database
will be updated as information changes and as new neighborhood groups form. It will be augmented by the e-
contact lists of citizens who have asked to be kept apprised of various planning efforts regardless of their
neighborhood affiliations.
Staff is participating in the Civility Working Group, a collaborative effort between residents, Cal Poly, Cuesta
College and the City of San Luis Obispo to address issues of neighborhood wellness. Several objectives have been
identified and tasks assigned.
City staff is the “champion” for two of these objectives (#2 and #5). Objective #2 (Define stakeholders needs and
success) intends to develop a “clear picture of various stakeholders perceptions”. Then define a mutually agreed to
definition of success as it relates to changing the culture to achieve the overall vision of a shift in social behaviors
that results in “an environment that fosters mutual respect and understanding”. With the assistance of an intern from
E-12
MAJOR CITY GOALS –NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS
Creative Mediations (supported by the Student Community Liaison Committee and a subcommittee of the
Neighborhood Civility Working Group) a project plan has been created. This plan includes a variety of ways to
collect opinions and to reach consensus definition of success.
5.Engage Stakeholders - Review Current Educational and Information Efforts is currently being addressed by staff.
The task includes the following steps: inventory information channels to residents, students, and landlords, examine
content and effectiveness of educational efforts by Cal Poly, Cuesta, City, student and resident groups, compare to
identified best practices, and develop Education-Communications Plan(s), including input on development of
messages, advertising, and other outreach from residents as well as student leadership, campus administration, city
leadership (staff and elected) and other stakeholders on problem definition and solutions. The inventory of
information channels is complete and will be presented to the Civility Working Group in February of 2015 along
with recommendations. The recommendations will include collaborative communication plans as well as how each
entity can better address outreach to specific resident groups.
E-13
MAJOR CITY GOALS – SUSTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND FISCAL
HEALTH
SUSTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND FISCAL HEALTH
Objective: Sustain essential services, infrastructure, and fiscal health: preserve public health and safety and
provide essential services in line with residents’ priorities and sustain the City’s short and long term fiscal health
by planning future revenues (including renewal of Measure Y or an alternative measure), while implementing
contingency planning, efficiency measures, and cost containment strategies including implementation of the
Compensation Philosophy and monitoring further pension and benefit issues.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
Plan future revenues including renewal of Measure Y or an alternative measure, as well as contingency planning
1.Create a nine-member Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council to guide
outreach efforts, advise staff in the creation of the outreach effort, and implementation
of the Major City Goal work plan, as well as provide advice and counsel to the City
Council regarding future revenues.
7 – 8/13 Complete
2.Analyze Measure Y revenues and expenditures and identify community-wide benefits
generated through the use of this local revenue source.
8 – 9/13 Complete
3.Conduct a survey regarding residents’ priorities and report the results back to the
community.
9/13 Complete
4.Conduct study session to review options for alternative revenue measures, advisory
measures, or other revenue alternatives in line with residents priorities.
12/13 Complete
5.Prepare background information and alternatives for contingency planning and conduct
a series of study sessions with the City Council regarding likely budget reductions and
other contingency planning that would need to occur if Measure Y, or a different
revenue measure, is not reauthorized.
7/13 – 2/14 Complete
6.Provide information to the community regarding the benefits of locally controlled
revenue sources, such as Measure Y, through a variety of methods and informational
outlets, including:
a.Organize a speakers bureau of community members to engage the
community about the benefits of Measure Y
b.Make staff available to present information regarding Measure Y benefits
at a wide variety of community meetings and to service organizations
c.Present useful information about the benefits of Measure Y on the City’s
website
d.Use Facebook and Twitter to highlight key information and bring
interested citizens to the website
e.Direct mailing to registered voters.
1 – 11/14 Complete
7.Conduct annual Measure Y Community Forum 3/14 Complete
8.Conduct study session to review options for alternative revenue measures, advisory
measures, or other revenue alternatives in line with residents priorities. (To be discussed
with the presentation of the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee Final Report.)
5/14 Complete
E-14
MAJOR CITY GOALS – SUSTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND FISCAL
HEALTH
Task Current Revised
9.City Council consideration of a ballot measure to reauthorize the City to collect a ½-
cent sales tax, or authorize a different revenue measure if in line with residents’
priorities.
5/14 Complete
10.If reauthorization of Measure Y or a new revenue measure is not placed on the ballot,
develop contingency plans for necessary, future budget reductions.
7/14 Complete
11.If a proposed revenue measure fails at the ballot box, begin to implement contingency
plans for necessary, future budget reductions.
11/14
Continue to closely review and monitor the City’s fiscal condition
1.Update General Fund Five-Year Forecast at least twice annually, at mid-year and with
the recommended budget while ensuring that effective revenue and expenditure trend
monitoring tools and processes are utilized.
Ongoing
2.Prepare focused reports on areas of interest to City Council and management such as
projected pension cost trends, insurance program costs, and investment performance
and strategies.
Ongoing
3.Beginning in 2014-15, self-assess one percent of salaries to be used to reduce CalPERS
obligation.
Ongoing
4.Present a cost benefit analysis to Council regarding the City’s ability to make payments
on the CalPERS Tier 1 Safety Side Fund, pensions, or to offset ongoing employer rate
increase.
4/14 Complete
Continue emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency of the City organization
1.Continue to perform organizational reviews; prioritizing the implementation of
recommendations focused on improving effectiveness and efficiency.
Ongoing
2.Continue to review and implement ideas for savings or increased revenues as
recommended by community members and staff.
Ongoing
3.Continue use of benchmarking and best practice reviews in evaluating
recommendations.
Ongoing
4.Implement benchmark analysis to compare key financial and outcome measures with
comparable jurisdictions.
9/13 Complete
5.Identify opportunities for managed competition in City functions as identified from the
results of benchmark analysis and organizational or best practices reviews.
Ongoing
6.Examine feasibility of establishing and monitoring performance measures in addition to
workload measures.
12/14
7.Evaluation of cost effectiveness of leasing instead of purchasing equipment.Ongoing
E-15
MAJOR CITY GOALS – SUSTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND FISCAL
HEALTH
Task Current Revised
Identify and address long-term liabilities that are important to the City’s fiscal sustainability
1.Refine the five-year capital improvement program that will responsibly protect the
City’s infrastructure assets, including building facilities, and develop a plan for funding
as needed.
Ongoing
2.Establish replacement and funding plans for equipment.10/13 – 2/14 12/14
3.Establish replacement and funding plans for information technology assets.10/13 – 2/14 12/14
4.Periodically review liability and workers compensation claims trends and update a plan
of funding if needed.
Ongoing
5.Monitor liability and workers compensation claims to ensure best practices in
prevention are implemented and costs reduced.
Ongoing
6.Provide preliminary notice to the CJPIA of City’s intent to explore other coverage
options.
7/13 Complete
7.Thoroughly review liability and workers compensation coverage, claims history, and
other services provided by CJPIA and explore alternatives that ensure appropriate risk
management and cost effectiveness.
7/13 – 4/14 Complete
8.Engage an outside consultant to initiate a cost basis analysis to evaluate and document
the costs and impacts of the City’s Utilities operations on General Fund supported
operations and facilities, including but not limited to City streets and right-of-way, to
ensure appropriate and supportable franchise in-lieu or other appropriate charges to the
water and sewer funds.
7/13 – 9/13 12/14
9.Report options to Council and provide recommendation.4/14 6/14
Continue to monitor personnel costs and develop strategies to effectively manage the cost.
1.Continue to monitor personnel cost.Ongoing
2.Continue to monitor and support appropriate pension reform Ongoing
3.Continue to monitor pension costs and consider strategies to effectively reduce
liabilities associated with the pension program.
Ongoing
4.Analyze the effects of the “pay or play” mandate pursuant to the Affordable Care Act
and recommend a plan of funding if applicable.
11/13 Complete
5.Assist in the development and coordination of the HRACC compensation and benefits
survey to ensure appropriate local private sector data is available for use in future
analysis. Participate in the survey.
7/13 – 12/13 Complete
6.Conduct a market compensation comparison of benchmark classifications.1/14 – 6/14 Complete
E-16
MAJOR CITY GOALS – SUSTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND FISCAL
HEALTH
Task Current Revised
7.Develop a labor relations strategy to guide upcoming negotiations.1/14 – 12/14
8.Conduct labor negotiations consistent with Council’s labor relations strategy with
represented employee groups; initiating negotiations prior to expiration of current
agreements
9/14 –6/15
Status: 75% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps:
Plan Future Revenues
On July 1, 2014, the City Council acted to place the extension of the Essential Services Measure on the
November general election ballot. The decision was followed by direction from a majority of Council members
to discontinue outreach and education efforts other than updating the website with information requested by
members of the public.
The process leading up to the Council’s decision to place the extension before the voters included substantial
public outreach, facilitated by the work of the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee (LRMAC). The
LRMAC’s work concluded when the Council accepted its final report. The mission and responsibilities of the
LRMAC included:
1.Analyze the City’s stewardship of Measure Y resources
2.Seek community input regarding their preferences and local revenue measure spending priorities
3.Develop recommendations specific to the November 2014 General Election regarding alternatives for
reauthorization of Measure Y, or the creation of a new revenue measure
4.Assist the City in performing community outreach and education.
Prior to November 1, the LRMAC held three meetings. The first meeting covered Measure Y Fundamentals,
Services and Outcomes; the second meeting covered rules and regulations relating to revenue measures and an
overview of all of the different revenue measures considered across the State in 2012; the third meeting focused
on community priorities and included a presentation from the City’s public opinion research consultant. In
January 2014 the LRMAC selected a sub-committee to begin to write their final report and recommendations to
the City Council. The full committee held two additional meetings in January to discuss its recommendations
and review a draft version of the report.
In addition, the LRMAC held a Measure Y Open House on November 21. The purpose of the Open House was
to give the public an opportunity to speak directly with Committee members. The Open House was attended by
over 70 members of the community and was very helpful for Committee members.
Contingency Planning
The City has completed its contingency planning efforts in the event that the extension of the Essential Services
Measure is not approved by the voters in November. The City Council has taken two important steps to prepare
for this possible outcome. First, the Council set aside $1.7 million to bridge the gap between April 1, 2015,
when the revenues from the half-percent sales tax would stop being collected, and June 30, 2015, which is the
end of the fiscal year. The contingency plan relies on the 2015-17 Financial Plan process, with modifications, to
develop a balanced budget going forward should the revenue measure, which represents 12% of the City’s
general fund, not be continued.
Review and Monitor City’s Fiscal Condition
1.Staff presented the financial results of the 2012-13 Fiscal Year on December 10, 2013. At that time, the Five
Year Fiscal Forecast was updated to reflect those results. A second update to the Fiscal Forecast has been
E-17
MAJOR CITY GOALS – SUSTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND FISCAL
HEALTH
prepared and will be shared with the City Council in advance of the February 18, 2013 City Council meeting.
At that meeting, staff will review the updated forecast as well as the Mid-Year Budget Update that has been
developed for 2013-14.
2.Staff has included in the Five Year Fiscal Forecast, a self-assessment cost equal to 1% of salary starting in
2014-15 and growing to 2% of salary starting in 2015-16 to reduce the impact of future PERS rate increases.
12.Staff presented to the City Council an analysis in April 2014 showing the effects of making prepayments
against unfunded PERS liabilities as well as a prepayment against a retrospective insurance liability assessment.
The City Council determined that making a prepayment to fully retire the insurance liability was most beneficial
while also making a prepayment in the amount of $935,000 against the safety side fund liability in May.
Identify and Address Long Term Liabilities
In April 2013, staff notified the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) of its intent to withdraw
membership from the liability and workers compensation programs effective July 2014. Staff prepared a
project plan to guide a thorough evaluation of alternatives to the CJPIA. A consultant, Tom Sinclair of
Municipal Resource Group, was retained to assist in this project. Mr. Sinclair has worked with staff to identify
the risk management needs of the City including insurance coverage, training, and risk management
consultation given the City utilizes a decentralized risk management model at this time. In January 2014 staff
recommended to the City Council that the City should continue in a risk-sharing JPA model to meet ongoing
risk management needs including workers’ compensation and liability coverage. Mr. Sinclair has identified
several possible risk pools that will be evaluated to determine feasibility and fit with the City’s requirements. In
April 2014 staff returned to Council with a cost analysis. The analysis indicated the coverage and the cost
associated with the City’s liability and workers’ compensation programs through the CJPIA are reasonable and
competitive when compared to similar coverage through other JPAs.
A draft report detailing the impacts that Utiliity Funds have on public rights of way and other facilities and
programs and the costs associated with those impacts has been completed. The report indicates that the fees
charged to the Utility Funds in the form of franchise charges are in-line with the level of fees that have been
imposed in the recent past. Additional work is needed to complete the detailed analysis of the utility program
fixed assets and the share of property assessed values that they represent in relation to all property values within
the city.
Personnel Costs
In October 2013 staff presented to Council an update on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Employer Shared
Responsibility Implementation and Council adopted a resolution establishing that the City will comply with the
ACA, Employer Shared Responsibility. This provision, which goes into effect January 1, 2015, is more
commonly referred to as the “Play or Pay Mandate” and requires that employers offer health insurance coverage
that is “affordable” and of “minimum value” to “substantially all” of its full-time (on average 130 hour per
month) employees and their dependent children. While this provision doesn’t go into effect until January 2015,
the City must establish a measurement period and start preparing for the detailed administration of this
provision. Further, Council approved staff’s proposal for ensuring health coverage was affordable to temporary
full time employees under the ACA.
On August 19, 2014, the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report was presented to Council. The results showed
that overall, 50% of the 26 City benchmark classifications surveyed lag the market, 42% are at market, and 8%
lead the market in total compensation. Salary appears to be the primary contributor to the benchmarks lagging
the market. Employer contributions to health and retirement as a percent of total costs showed to be at market
depending upon health plan type. The data reflected in the Report helped Council to develop high level labor
relations objectives.
E-18
MAJOR CITY GOALS – SUSTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND FISCAL
HEALTH
In September 2014, Council approved the following Labor Relations Objectives (LRO) that will guide labor
negotiations with employee groups during 2014 and 2015:
•Maintain fiscal responsibility by ensuring that fair and responsible employee compensation expenditures
are supported by on-going revenues.
•Continue to make progress in the area of long-term systemic pension cost containment and reduction,
including reversing the unfunded pension liability trend and other actions consistent with State law.
•Continue to effectively manage escalating health benefit costs through balanced cost sharing and other
means while maintaining comprehensive health care coverage for all eligible employees.
•As necessary to attract and retain well qualified employees at all levels of the organization, provide
competitive compensation as articulated in the City’s Compensation Philosophy, including relevant
local, statewide or national labor markets
Current workload is delaying the completion of the calculations needed to determine the replacement
funding needs for equipment and information technology assets. Peripheral work is being completed at this
time.
E-19
MAJOR CITY GOALS – BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS
EXPAND BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS
Objective: Expand bicycle and pedestrian paths to improve connectivity and safety, including continued progress
on Rail Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Trail and Bob Jones Trail, and pursuit of other options contained in the
Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
Railroad Safety Trail
1.Complete design of Class I bikeway – Taft to Pepper (contingent on TIF and future grant
funding availability).
6/14 11/14
Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail
2.Complete construction of Class I bikeway connection to LOVR 2/14 Completed
3.Complete route planning of Class I bikeway – Octagon Barn Connection.4/14 12/14
4.Begin design of bicycle facilities as part of the Prado Road Bridge at San Luis Creek
project. (Contingent on TIF and debt financing funding availability).
7/13 Completed
Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths
1.Complete design and begin construction of bicycle facilities as part of the LOVR
interchange project (contingent on TIF, grant, and debt financing funding availability).*10/14 Completed
2.Construct Class II bike facilities on Prado Road as part of the Serra Meadows Project
(constructed by developer).6/14 Completed
3.Construct miscellaneous bikeway improvements identified in the Bicycle Transportation
Plan.Ongoing Ongoing
4.Construct sidewalk ramps and repair sidewalks.Ongoing Ongoing
5.Maintain pedestrian and bicycle paths.Ongoing Ongoing
Other Efforts that Support Bicycling and Walking
1.As time permits, seek funding for the construction of bikeways and pedestrian facilities
within the City.
Ongoing Ongoing
2.Complete curb ramps, sidewalks, on-street bicycle facility paving, drain grate upgrades,
and striping improvements in conjunction with City Street paving projects.Ongoing Ongoing
3.Perform pavement maintenance on bicycle and pedestrian paths.Ongoing Ongoing
E-20
MAJOR CITY GOALS – BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS
Task Current Revised
4.Complete 2013- Bicycle Transportation Plan Update 8/13 Complete
5.Conduct biennial vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic counts, speed surveys and travel
time studies (contingent on TIF funding availability).*
Ongoing 2013
Count
Complete
6.Continue bicycling educational efforts.Ongoing Ongoing
7.Continue alternative transportation marketing efforts Ongoing Ongoing
8.Continue annual Halloween Safety campaign Ongoing 2013
Complete
2014
Underway
9.Continue annual bicycle safety rodeo.Ongoing Ongoing
10.Continue providing more short term bicycle parking through the Racks with Plaques
bicycle rack donation program.
Ongoing Ongoing
11.Continue to implement General Plan and Specific Plan transportation policies, programs,
and improvements via private development projects.
Ongoing Ongoing
12.Promote bicycling among City employees.Ongoing Ongoing
*Projects that are also identified in the “Improve Transportation” Other Important Objectives. Costs for
these tasks are accounted for in the Other Important Objectives.
Status: 60% Complete. The following highlights key accomplishments so far and important next steps:
Railroad Safety Trail
1.Taft to Pepper -Although conversations continue with Union Pacific Railroad regarding a potential trail within
the railroad right-of-way; permission to construct a trail has not been granted and will likely not be achieved.
Revision to the railroad right-of-way alignment has been undertaken and an on-street, two-way path (bicycle track)
is under design for Winter 2015 construction. This alternative is under jurisdiction of the City and Caltrans and will
allow use of the existing grant funds that are set to expire in Spring 2015. The on-street project will be followed by
the construction of a bridge at Phillips (an additional phase of the project) to assist in connecting cyclists to the
southern portion of the Railroad Trail. This bridging of the UPRR right of way will require California PUC approval
but in essence reestablished the prior Phillips bridge that existed in this location for years.
Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail
2.Octagon Barn Connection – Planning for this segment is substantially complete and has been reviewed by City
BAC and PC along with the County’s P&R Commission, Bicycle Advisory Committee and County Trail
Committee. However, adjacent property owners have requested additional environmental review at this time (prior
to Council consideration) and staff is reviewing how best to address this concern prior to final public hearing on
route alternatives.
E-21
MAJOR CITY GOALS – BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS
Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths
4.Sidewalk repairs and some ramp work is ongoing, using the Job Order Contract approved by Council, and the
2013 and 2014 ramp construction projects are complete.
E-22
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Objective: Implement the adopted Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) – which includes an emphasis
on head-of-household jobs, collaboration, and measureable outcomes.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation: Permit Processing Improvements
1.Strategy 1.1: Identify opportunities for permit streamlining with the goal of reducing
permit processing times, seeking opportunities to increase internal coordination, and
improving cross department focus on development review.
7/13 –
12/14
Ongoing
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation: Infrastructure and Fees
1.Strategy 1.5(a): Complete an infrastructure financing assessment to establish priorities for
City investment in infrastructure expansion.
08/14-
06/15
2.Strategy 1.5(e): Identify one or more strategic infrastructure projects that the City could
invest in to benefit residents, businesses, employees, and property owners by providing a
significant return on investment to the City in the form of increased economic activity.
Pending
Outcome
of LUCE
Update
01/15-
06/15
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation: Key Sites
1.Strategy 1.8: Prepare and update a portfolio of “available properties” ready for
development in accordance with the findings of the permit process streamlining outcomes.
Pending
Outcome
of LUCE
Update
03/15-
06/15
2.Strategy 1.9: Evaluate the supply of land and space for residential and non-residential
development in the expansion areas of the City and prioritize areas with the greatest
potential for near term development that supports new head of household jobs. (This effort
will follow the LUCE Update and EIR).
7/14 – 6/15
Actively Support Knowledge and Innovation: Entrepreneurship/Access to Broadband
1.Strategy 2.2: Convene a cross-department team at the City with input from the local
industry experts, to facilitate expansion of broadband infrastructure including the policy for
public-private partnerships and related endeavors.
In Process
Promote and Enhance the San Luis Obispo Quality of Life
1.Strategy 3.3: Prepare a City of San Luis Obispo “view book” to facilitate business location
services and use the view book as a tool for business attraction. (This effort is coordinated
Strategy 1.8 above).
In Process
Pending
City
Website
project
2.Strategy 3.6: Explore opportunities to market the City as a place to do business via the
airport and train depots.
Ongoing
Build on Existing Efforts and Strengthen Regional Partnerships
E-23
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Task Current Revised
1.Strategy 4.2: Work with regional partners such as the Chamber of Commerce and EVC to
bring attention to existing businesses.
Ongoing
2.Strategy 4.3 (b): Through policy changes, enhance data collection using the business
licensing program (HdL) in order to facilitate collection of employment and other data
about local companies.
9/14 – 6/15
3.Strategy 4.3(c): Identify all businesses with ten or fewer employees within the City by
conducting a survey of business owners and developing an action plan that helps
businesses of this size grow.
7/14 – 6/15
Status: 55% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation
1.Permit Processing Improvements: The recommendations from the Community Development Department’s
(CDD) Organizational Assessment have been used to develop a project plan to execute the permit streamlining
process. 90% of those recommendations have been implemented. A Development Review Team (DRT) continues to
ensure a consistent and expedient approach across all involved departments. Changes to the DRT process are being
implemented to provide a mechanism to track overdue plan checks and track work flow commitments. A
Continuous Improvement Group (CIG) works to ensure that there is cross department and cross functional input,
action and alignment with the improvement process. The implementation of EnerGov will allow the CIG to use the
data on permit review and issuance performance to continuously improve the process.
2.Infrastructure and Fees: The project with the consultant (EPS) covering three planned sessions to lay the
foundation for the future direction of infrastructure financing in the City has been completed. At the conclusion of
the third session Council directed staff to move forward with a range of initiatives related infrastructure and fees.
One of these initiatives was to develop a prioritized list of infrastructure projects for the City to invest in from an
Economic Development and Quality of Life perspective. During the process of developing this list an alternative
approach was developed which could meet the intent of the prioritization while creating the decision making
support and the resources to make these investments in line with the goals and priorities of the community. The
background and details to this possible approach were provided via a memo to the Council for their evaluation and
possible action during the upcoming goal setting process.
Actively Support Knowledge and Innovation
1.Entrepreneurship/Access to Broadband: Staff is working with the EVC and a tri- County consortium that has
received $300,000 in grant funding to assess the Broadband infrastructure in the region. Once the initial work is
completed on the assessment staff will work on forming a cross functional team with local industry experts.
Promote and Enhance the San Luis Obispo Quality of Life
1.View Book Creation: Initial discussions on the creation of the view book have been completed. Finalization of
the path forward is dependent on the outcome of the City’s new website project.
Build on Existing Efforts and Strengthen Regional Partnerships
1.The City is working with the EVC, The Central Coast Economic Forecast and Beacon Economics to secure data
from the California Employment Development Department to secure access to high quality employment data that
will be invaluable in executing strategies 4.3(b) and 4.3(c).
E-24
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ASSESS & RENEW THE DOWNTOWN
ASSESS AND RENEW THE DOWNTOWN
Objective: Assess and renew the Downtown consistent with the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element
(LUCE) update, revitalize Mission Plaza (including consideration of eliminating dogleg), support the continued
development of cultural attractions, enhance lighting/safety components, reduce incidents of illegal activity and
adverse behaviors through enhanced public safety presence and enforcement, providing pedestrian-friendly
walkways, and address limits on alcohol establishments.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
1.Utilize Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) as downtown patrols 1/14 12/14
2.Present concept of an Ambassador Program to the Downtown Association for
consideration.
1/14 Complete
3.Community Action Team Downtown Deployment (CAT)7/13 Complete
4.Dedicated School Resource Officer Daytime Downtown Deployment 7/13 Complete
5.Dedicated Daytime Overtime Downtown Deployment 9/13 Complete
6.Two Daytime Downtown Officers Deployment 1/14 Ongoing
7.Public Safety Video Purchase and Implementation in Mission Plaza area 7/13 Complete
8.Extend Mission Plaza Restroom Hours Ongoing Complete
9.Retrofit Broad/Marsh restroom and open 9/13 Complete
10.Research additional restroom options and constraints 12/13 Complete
11.Council update on additional hours of restroom availability impacts, and recommendations
for additional implementation efforts.
3/14 Complete
12.Consideration of a moratorium on additional alcohol outlets 8/13 Complete
13.Mission Plaza Master Plan Initiation 1/14 11/14
14.Assess public safety access to existing business camera systems 2/14
15.Employ portable cameras in secluded high crime public areas.6/14 Ongoing
16.Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments 11/14
17.Mission Plaza Master Plan Adoption 9/15 12/16
18.Mission Plaza Railing Upgrade Ongoing
19.Removal and replacement of damaged or hazardous downtown trees and sidewalks 6/15
E-25
MAJOR CITY GOALS – ASSESS & RENEW THE DOWNTOWN
Task Current Revised
20.Downtown Renewal, including sidewalks and appurtenances 1/15 2/15
21.Initiate and Complete review of Special Event Policy and Use of Mission Plaza 1/15
Status: 70% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
1.Utilize Volunteers in Police Service to enhance Downtown Patrols: Recruitment is ongoing for police volunteers.
There is currently a background check being conducted for a potential volunteer candidate.
2.Ambassador Program has been presented to the Downtown Association. At this time, the Downtown Association
has no interest in pursuing the program.
3.CAT Team – staff has assigned two officers who are currently working in the CAT Team capacity addressing
downtown concerns. The CAT Team continues to work in this capacity.
5.Downtown Daytime Overtime – officers are currently being assigned to the downtown area on an overtime basis.
Overtime was scheduled as part of the Financial Plan from August – December 2013.
6.Two Daytime Downtown Officer Deployment – One officer has been assigned on a permanent basis and is
currently working the assignment. Due to officer recruitment and retention challenges, the second position has not
been filled; however, the department is using overtime to supplement the assignment.
7.Public Safety Video – staff has solicited bids and is reviewing vendor proposals.
Update: Public Safety cameras have been installed in three locations in the Mission Plaza area.
8.& 9. Mission Plaza Restroom hours were extended to midnight in July. Re-commissioning of the Broad Street
restrooms is complete and the restroom is open for late night use. Public Works alerted both the Police Department
and the Downtown Association to share the news with potential “customers.” Council reviewed the program at their
May 6, 2014 meeting and provided direction to staff.
12.Council held a Study Session in August 2013 and there was unanimous consensus not to proceed with a
moratorium on new alcohol beverage applications.
13.& 17. The City was not successful in obtaining a grant for an analysis of Mission Plaza needs. The Council
authorized $100,000 for the study as part of the 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget review. The project is scheduled to kick-
off in late 2014.
14.Due to staff resources and I.T. workload, this task is not feasible at this time.
18.The first Plaza Railing project is complete and the second will advertise in November 2014. Priorities have been
established based on areas of the railing previously identified by the JPIA.
E-26
MAJOR CITY GOALS – SKATE PARK CONSTRUCTION
SKATE PARK
Objective: Complete construction of the skate park, utilizing a combination of public funds, donations, and
grant funding where possible
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
1.Submit application for storm water permit 9/13 Completed
2.Skate Park marketing plan 11/13 Completed
3.Receive building and storm water permits 12/13 Completed
4.Council approval of Skate Park Public Art design and funding 12/13 Completed
5.Issue plans and specifications for construction 2/14 Completed
6.Award park construction and Public Art contracts 4/14 Completed
7.Groundbreaking Spring
2014
Completed
8.Start construction 6/14 Completed
9.Complete construction 12/14 Winter
2015
10.Identify and request maintenance resources 12/14 Completed
11.Open Santa Rosa Skate Park 1/15 Winter
2015
12.Maintain and operate the Santa Rosa Skate Park Ongoing
Status: 60% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
Construction and public art contracts for the Skate Park were awarded by City Council in April 2014. The
construction contract was awarded to ProWest using subcontractor California Skate Park. The Public Art
contract was awarded to artists, Jed Joyce and John Jones for the creation of “Concrete Jungle”. At this same
time, Council approved a budget request authorizing additional funding for the anticipated maintenance and
operations of the new Skate Park upon its public opening in early 2015.
The construction of the Skate Park Project is progressing as outlined in the Major City Goal Action Plan.
Construction began in June 2014 and as of 10/01/14 is approximately 60% complete.
Skate Park Public Art, which has been integrated into the project, continues to progress alongside the
construction activities. Fabrication of the four (4) steel “tree tops” is 80% complete. The concrete “tree trunk”
bases, which will receive the steel “tree tops”, are currently being constructed as the skate park progresses. It is
estimated that installation of four “tree tops” into the concrete trunk bases will be completed in late November
into December 2014.
E-27
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
Objective: Commit funding to expand open space and provide adequate staffing, planning, and other resources to
maintain and enhance open space quality and amenities.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
Real Property Acquisition / Administration and Conservation Planning
1.Pursue key acquisition opportunities including additions to the Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, as well as conservation easements which will
protect larger landscapes including scenic views and City gateways, headwaters to San Luis
Obispo Creek and several perennial streams, and valuable habitat areas.
Ongoing
2.Ongoing annual monitoring of all City-owned space preserves, open space easements, and
conservation easements.
Ongoing
3.Complete Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan to include Upper Goldtree
property addition.
7/13 Complete
4.Complete update of the Laguna Lake Management Plan.9/13 Complete
5.Update Conservation Guidelines for open space lands within the City of San Luis Obispo to
address minor inconsistencies with other policy documents.
6/14 Deleted
per
Council
direction
3/18/14
6.Update the Saving Special Places report pertaining to strategic open space acquisition
priorities. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan.
12/14 Deleted
per
Council
direction
3/18/14
and
replaced
with
Bishop
Peak by
6/15
7.Prepare the Islay Hill, Righetti Hill, and Terrace Hill Conservation Plans 6/15 Deletions
per
Council
direction
3/18/14
Land Restoration, Stewardship, and Monitoring
1.Continue sediment removal project at Prefumo Creek inlet to Laguna Lake and continue
monitoring of four other sediment removal locations completed in 2012.
Ongoing
E-28
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – OPEN SPACE
Task Current Revised
2.Continue vegetative stabilization efforts associated with road decommissioning project at
Froom Ranch.
Ongoing
3.Ongoing community outreach and education in partnership with ECOSLO Ongoing
1.Creek and flood protection within the City’s natural waterways through Zone 9 projects and
coordination and oversight of the Stormwater Management program.
Ongoing Complete
for 2013-
14,
starting for
2014-15
2.Ongoing monitoring, remedial action, and enhancement, as needed, of existing mitigation
sites.
Ongoing
3.Complete pampas grass treatment at Froom Ranch 3/14 11/14
4.Install wetland meadow and riparian planting / invasive species control at Calle Joaquin
Agricultural Reserve suing awarded EEMP grant funds
12/14 Phase 1
complete,
Phase 2 by
12/14
Open Space Improvements, Maintenance, User Safety, and Patrol
1.Continue patrol of the City’s open space areas and creek corridors Ongoing
2.Continue maintenance of existing City open space trails Ongoing
3.Continue to coordinate 65 trail work days (3,500 hours) a year utilizing volunteers Ongoing
4.Continue to partner with the Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers on various open
space improvements and maintenance.
Ongoing
5.Continue to construct additional trails at Froom Ranch consistent with the approved Irish
Hills Conservation Plan.
Ongoing Two new
trails now
complete.
Mine Trail
and
Mariposa
Re-Route
Complete
6.Evaluate and implement long term solution to address unsanctioned and user created trails
at Bishop Peak, and continue to evaluate and address trail head parking burdens in
surrounding neighborhoods with signs, patrol, and dissemination of directional information
on the City’s website, trail maps, and in SLO Stewards.
Ongoing
7.Evaluate and implement long term solution to maintain singular and sustainable access trail
at the Maino Open Space.
Ongoing
8.Continue Ranger Led Hikes in the City’s open space on a monthly basis and upon request.Ongoing
9.Continue Ranger Service environmental education program and Junior Ranger Camp to Ongoing Complete
E-29
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – OPEN SPACE
Task Current Revised
increase open space knowledge and user safety. for 2014
10.Increase staffing resources in the Ranger Service program to provide increased user safety
and amenities including but not limited to added open space improvements, maintenance,
and patrol.
Ongoing Complete
11.Re-route and construct a trail connecting Froom Ranch to the Bureau of Land
Management’s parcel in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Interior.
6/15 Work
starting
Fall 2014
12.Install new trail signs and kiosks including but not limited to: Froom Ranch, Froom-
Johnson Ranch connector trail, and Reservoir Canyon.
6/15
13.In coordination with Cal Poly engineering volunteers complete the Reservoir Canyon
bridge repairs.
6/15 Complete
14.Develop donation station program; creating avenue for further support of open space
maintenance and preservation (opportunities include Iron Rangers in possible partnership
with Public Art).
6/15
Urban-Wildland Interface Fuel Reduction
1.Bowden Ranch Open Space Eucalyptus thinning Ongoing Complete
2014
2.Irish Hills Open Space Eucalyptus thinning and mowing Ongoing Complete
2014
3.Terrace Hill Open Space mowing Ongoing Complete
2014
4.Islay Hill Open Space mowing Ongoing Complete
2014
5.Maino Open Space / Lemon Grove Eucalyptus thinning Ongoing Complete
2014
Status: 50% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
Real Property Acquisition/Administration and Conservation Planning
Staff is currently working on several conservation land acquisitions, to include both purchases and dedications.
These projects, if successful, total approximately 2,100 acres of important open space lands in and around the City.
Annual monitoring of open space properties and conservation easements are on schedule. The Reservoir Canyon
Natural Reserve Conservation Plan was approved by the City Council at its November 19th meeting. The Laguna
Lake Management Plan Update was approved by the City Council at its July 15th meeting. Work has begun on the
Terrace Hill Conservation Plan. At the Natural Resources Program’s Annual Report to City Council on March 18,
2014, the Council concurred with staff’s recommendation to prepare an update of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan in lieu of updating the Conservation Guidelines and the Saving Special Places reports; this work
effort will begin this winter.
E-30
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – OPEN SPACE
Land Restoration, Stewardship, and Monitoring
The City Biologist continues to track and monitor numerous new and existing sediment removal projects, as well as
provide oversight to annual “winterization” efforts in our waterways to help prevent flooding, which is complete for
2013-14 and now beginning for 2014-15 with assistance from the California Conservation Corps and the CALFIRE
/ California Men’s Colony work crews. The wetland meadow project at the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve is
scheduled for phase II installation in November. The pampas grass removal project at Froom Ranch is in planning
stages with staff currently working to requisition project materials and appropriate landscape restoration contractors.
ECOSLO is in contract to continue to assist the Natural Resources Program with community outreach through SLO
Stewards and the Natural San Luis Docents program.
Open Space Improvements, Maintenance, User Safety, and Patrol
During summer 2014, the Parks and Recreation Department hosted two "at capacity" Junior Ranger Camps with one
highlight of the camps held in Laguna Lake Natural Preserve being able to watch a bald eagle who had taken up
residence on a daily basis. Over 40 children were educated about local plants, animals, and sustainable practices in
the City's natural areas. Ongoing work on open space maintenance, user safety and patrol continues. During the
summer, upon completion of the construction of the “mine trail” including a multi-month effort through mine
tailings, work to re-route a steep and eroded portion of the Mariposa Trail was undertaken. This reconstruction to
more sustainable standards was completed in September 2014. Ranger Services looks forward to hosting its annual
trail building event, Trail Works in November in partnership with the Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers.
City Rangers will coordinate the construction of new trails totaling approximately one half of a mile in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve for future public use. Regular Saturday work days and Eagle Scout projects have occurred
throughout the summer and fall seasons accomplishing ongoing maintenance in the open space areas. Rangers
coordinated with the Police Department educational night patrols starting in October 2014 to educate users about
night hiking (not undertaking it one hour past dark) to improve user safety and alleviate concerns from neighbors
who live near open space trailheads.
Urban-Wildland Interface Fuel Reduction
Annual mowing and weed abatement was completed for summer 2013. A fuel reduction project was conducted for
the Bowden Ranch area in mid-January 2014, and was followed by work at the Cerro San Luis / Maino Open Space
and Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Fire Department staff secured a $10,000 Fire Safe Council grant to match the
City’s funds for these efforts. A Cal Poly master’s student in City and Regional Planning is completed a Vegetation
Management Plan in coordination with the Natural Resources Program and Fire Department for her graduate
project.
E-31
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – INFRASTRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Objective: Enhance maintenance of City infrastructure including attention to streets, sidewalks, pedestrian
walkways, lighting, bicycle paths, creek and flood protection, parks, open space, urban forest, public buildings, and
other City-owned property.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
Buildings
1.Facility Maintenance Ongoing
2.Jack House exterior painting 6/14 12/14
3.Jack House restroom remodel 6/14 Completed
4.Police station HVAC replacement 6/15
5.City Facility parking lot maintenance 6/15 Complete
6.City Hall perimeter drain 6/15
7.Minor exterior building painting 6/15
8.Fire Station & Corporation Yard roll-up door replacement 6/15
9.Golf Course restroom replacement design 6/15
Water
1.Distribution system and treatment facility maintenance Ongoing
2.Water Distribution system improvements – year 1 6/14 2/15
3.Telemetry system improvements 6/14 6/15
4.Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline replacement 6/15 1/16
5.Water Treatment Plant air compressor replacement 6/15
6.Water Distribution system Improvements – Year 2 6/15
7.Distribution pump station upgrade design 6/15
8.Serrano Tank replacement 6/15 On hold
9.Slack Tank replacement design 6/15 On hold
E-32
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – INFRASTRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE
Task Current Revised
Wastewater
1.Collection system and treatment facility maintenance Ongoing
2.Water Resource Recovery Facility major maintenance – year 1 6/14 Complete
3.Wastewater Collection system improvements – year 1 6/14 9/15
4.Water Resource Recovery Facility major maintenance – year 2 6/15 Ongoing
5.Wastewater Collection system improvements – year 2 6/15 6/16
Roadways
1.Roadway and traffic signal & lighting maintenance activities Ongoing
2.Street reconstruction & resurfacing – year 1 12/13 Complete
3.Street reconstruction & resurfacing – year 2 12/14 Complete
4.Prado Bridge deck overlay 6/15
5.Sidewalk repairs 6/15 Complete
6.Traffic sign maintenance Ongoing Ongoing
7.Marsh Street bridge design 6/15
8.Downtown lighted crosswalk replacement 6/15 6/15
Creek and Flood Protection
1.Creek encampment cleanup Ongoing
2.Storm drain system cleaning Ongoing
3.Annual creek winterization Ongoing
4.Johnson Underpass pump replacement 6/14 12/14
5.Broad & Leff culvert repair 6/14
6.Storm drain replacement – year 1 6/14 Complete
7.Storm drain replacement – year 2 6/15
8.Hathway & Murray culvert repair design 6/15
E-33
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – INFRASTRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE
Task Current Revised
Parking
1.Structure and lot maintenance Ongoing
2.Parking lot resurfacing 6/14 Complete
3.919 Palm Structure stair rehabilitation 6/14 8/15
4.Marsh Structure light replacement 6/14 Complete
Transit
1.Bus stop shelter replacement 6/15 Grant
Funding
not
received
Parks, Tree, and Landscape Maintenance
1.Parks, trees, medians, roadway, and facility landscape maintenance Ongoing
2.Santa Rosa Park picnic & serving table replacement 6/14 Complete
3.Pathway maintenance – year 1 6/14 Complete
4.Sinsheimer Park playground equipment replacement 6/14 1/16
5.Pathway maintenance – year 2 6/15
6.Sinsheimer Stadium stair replacement 6/15
7.Mission Plaza rail replacement 6/15
8.Meadow Park light replacement 6/15
9.Downtown tree replacement & sidewalk repair 6/15
Swim Center
1.Swim Center maintenance Ongoing
2.Replace chemical pumps 6/14 Complete
3.Olympic pool plastering 6/15 1/16
Golf Course
1.Golf Course maintenance Ongoing
E-34
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – INFRASTRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE
Task Current Revised
Open Space
1.Open space and trail maintenance Ongoing
City Maintenance & Asset Management
1.Complete implementation of Cityworks Asset & Maintenance Management Software 6/15
Status: 30% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
Buildings
3.Jack House Restrooms award of construction is underway with a goal to complete construction in time for the
upcoming “wedding” season. Quotations for painting work are being acquired to allow this work to be coordinated
with the restroom upgrade. Tight bidding allowed the Gazebo reconstruction, originally planned for 2014-15 to be
included in the bid with the restrooms, and will be completed in the same timeframe.
6.The design for the City Hall perimeter drain is nearing completion.
4.The HVAC unit replacement at the Police Department design and bidding work is complete. A contract for
construction has been awarded and will largely be complete prior to the end of the 2014 calendar year.
8.A rollup door at the Corporation Yard was replaced and a second door replacement is underway.
Water
2.Water Distribution system improvements – Year 1. New system-wide water modeling identified a better way to
perform some of these improvements. Redesign of the bid documents is being completed in-house with
construction anticipated in February of 2015. Those improvements not undergoing redesign are moving forward
and are at 90% design.
3.Telemetry System Improvements: The construction phase was deferred to 2013-14. Design phase was delayed
due to the need to conduct a radio study to facilitate design; radio study was completed and design is currently at
90%. Construction is scheduled for 6/15.
4.Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement Study requires taking Salinas pipeline offline. Study currently on
hold until Nacimiento pipeline is back online. (
5.Water Treatment Plant Air Compressor Replacements Project has been reprioritized and removed from current
CIP.
1.Water Distribution system Improvements – Year 2. Currently at 90% design.
8.Serrano Tank replacement. New system-wide water model indicates the Serrano Tank could possibly be
eliminated. Project on hold until new information is analyzed.
9.Slank Tank replacement design. (New system-wide water model indicates the Serrano Tank could possibly be
eliminated. Project on hold until new information is analyzed.
Wastewater
1.The force main portion of the Call Joaquin Lift Station will be accelerated to accommodate the LOVR
interchange construction to avoid project schedule conflicts. The project was therefore split into two phases.
E-35
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – INFRASTRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE
Roadways
2.Street Reconstruction is complete on portions of California Blvd and Fredericks Street.
3.Street sealing work in area 6 and 7 is complete.
5.Sidewalk repairs are ongoing, using the Job Order Contract approved by Council.
2.Marsh Street Bridge replacement project report was approved by Council, and technical studies and preliminary
design are underway.
Creek & Flood Protection
3.During October and November, Natural Resources staff worked with contract service providers to clear
excessive vegetation. Natural Resources and Public Works maintenance staff has teamed up to remove
accumulated silt and drain pipe outlets in small open channel areas. Accumulations can cause backups in the
system, aggravating flooding.
4.The Johnson Underpass pump replacement is starting construction.
5.& 8. Broad & Leff, and Hathway & Murray culvert repairs were not ultimately funded as part of the adopted
Financial Plan. These two projects were inadvertently left in the Action Plan.
Parking
1.Parking Lots 2, 3, 11 all completed for resurfacing and pothole remediation in November 2013.
Swim Center
1.In addition to the Chemical Pump replacement, the Boiler replacement from the previous budget was completed
along with a major repair of the circulation pump, and the new automatic vacuum robot replaced.
City Maintenance & Asset Management
1.All maintenance staff launched the new Cityworks program during the last months of 2013. Staff is routinely
entering work order and service request information. Problems with programing continue to be worked through.
The Cityworks, Maintenance & Asset Management project is now online and being utilized by Public Works and
Utilities Departments maintenance crews to dispatch work orders and service requests. All water distribution
service orders are being dispatched and closed through Cityworks and Springbrook through system integration.
Both departments are using Cityworks to track assets and project asset lifespan through the system’s infrastructure
optimization function.
E-36
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION
Objective: Improve transportation – prioritize the construction of the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) overpass,
invest in new sidewalks, bicycle paths, street lighting, curb cuts, and other amenities to improve the walkability of
the City’s neighborhoods and commercial districts.
Action Plan:
Task Current Revised
1.Los Osos Valley Road Interchange
- complete design and permitting work
- begin construction
12/13
10/14
Complete
Complete
2.Prado Road Creek Bridge Widening – NEW
- begin project study report
- begin environmental, design, and permitting work
- complete environmental, design, and permitting work
- begin construction
7/13
7/14
6/17
6/18
Complete
10/14
10/17
10/18
3.Railroad Safety Trail
- complete design of Class I bikeway – Taft to Pepper 6/14 11/14
4.Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail
- complete construction of Class I bikeway connection to LOVR 2/14 Complete
5.Rehabilitate Downtown lighted crosswalks – NEW
- Begin Design Marsh Street In – Ground Crosswalk
- complete Marsh Street in-ground lighted crosswalk
- complete Higuera Street in-ground lighted crosswalk
6/14
6/16
8/14
6/15
6/16
6.Complete Land Use & Circulation Element Update 6/14 10/14
7.Continue the Neighborhood Traffic Calming program and associated projects Ongoing Ongoing
8.Continue the Annual Traffic Safety program and associated projects Ongoing Ongoing
9.Continue the bi-annual Traffic Operations program and associated projects Ongoing Ongoing
10.Continue misc. bicycle facility improvements Ongoing Ongoing
11.Complete bi-annual citywide bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle counts (contingent on TIFF
funding availability)
Ongoing Ongoing
12.Complete Fleet vehicle conversion / replacement 7/13 Completed
13.Conduct Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) (contingent on grant funding availability)
- Evaluate possibility of Joint RTA/SLO City SRTP
- Caltrans grant Secured
- Issue RFP & hire consultant
- Complete plan & present to Council
6/15
Complete
08/14
11/14
2016
E-37
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES – IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION
Status: 70% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for this goal:
1.Los Osos Valley Road Interchange - Construction contract has been awarded and work has begun.
3.RRST – Taft to Pepper - Although conversations continue with Union Pacific Railroad regarding a potential trail
within the railroad right-of-way; permission to construct a trail has not been granted. An improved on-street, two-
way path is under design for Winter 2015 construction, to use the existing grant funds that are set to expire in
Spring 2015. The on-street project will be followed by the bridge at Phillips to assist in connecting cyclists to the
southern portion of the Railroad Trail.
6.Land Use and Circulation Element - The Land Use and Circulation Element continues to be a significant work
effort for staff and the LUCE task force with many meetings being conducted and policy level recommendations
being discussed.
12.Fleet Replacement - The Fleet replacement has been impacted by the delay in filling the Fire Vehicle Mechanic
position. The Fleet Supervisor has acted in a dual position capacity since June 2013 while additional recruitment
efforts have been undertaken. That position is now filled a new Fleet Supervisor has been hired. Major vehicle
replacement orders (fire engine, traffic signal boom truck, Police department vehicle replacements) have been
accomplished in order to address procurement timing, fleet safety and CARB air quality mandates. Additional
vehicle procurements are proceeding with the goal of completing all vehicle replacement for the FY 13-15 FP by
June 2015.
13.Short Range Transit Plan - The Short Range Transit Plan update has been delayed due to awaiting success of
being awarded a Caltrans Planning grant to perform a joint SRTP effort with RTA..
The City and RTA received word in August that the Caltrans grant has been awarded and the SRTP update process
will begin in November of 2014. The project will take approximately 12 months to complete.
E-38
CARRYOVER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following summarizes the status of “carryover” goals and important objectives from the 2011-13 and 2009-11
Financial Plans. In several cases, “carryover tasks” have been incorporated into the Major City Goals (or “Other
Important Council Objectives”) for 2013-15, and as such, they are not repeated in this section.
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES
PLANNING: UPDATE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
Objective: Within the scope of the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) Grant, undertake an update of the Land Use
and
Circulation Elements; including “Healthy Cities,” complete streets, and pedestrian circulation policies.
Building on the work completed in the previous fiscal year and public input from six workshops, on-line tools
such as Mind-Mixer, the 2012 Community Survey, and participation in hearings and open houses, the Task Force
for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update (TF-LUCE) and Planning Commission focused on policy and
program changes to the Land use and Circulation Element and provided recommendations to the Council for
consideration. The Council added the draft policies and programs to the endorsed set of physical alternatives to
develop the “project description” to be studied through the environmental review process on January 28, 2014.
The sixth community workshop was held on May 31, 2014 to review the more significant policy updates and to
learn about outcomes of the traffic modeling conducted as part of the EIR. The draft EIR was released for public
review on June 13, 2014. The City received 25 responses to the EIR, eight form agencies and 17 from
individuals as well as input from the advisory bodies: all were responded to in the Final EIR and no additional
impacts were identified. The City Council certified the Final EIR on September 16, 2014. Planning Commission
completed review of the legislative drafts on September 18, 2014 and recommended approval of the updated
documents. The $880,000 Strategic Growth Council Grant which funded the update effort has been fully
expended and a final report to close out the grant was submitted by the September 26, 2014 deadline. The City
Council has reviewed and provided direction on the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements and anticipates
taking final action on the update on October 21, 2014.
E-39
ACTION PLAN CHANGES AND NEXT REPORT
ACTION PLAN CHANGES
As noted above, in general we are well underway in
accomplishing the 2013-15 goals and objectives
based on the work programs adopted by the Council.
NEXT REPORT
Staff will present the next “formal report” to the
Council in September 2015. In the interim, we will
keep the Council up-to-date on the status of major
projects through agenda reports, Council Notes and
other briefing opportunities.
E-40
STATUS OF MAJOR CIP PROJECTS – 3RD UPDATE 2013-15
Under Construction
Design
Study
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Playground Equipment Replacement
Railroad Safety Trail—Taft to Pepper
Marsh Street Bridge Replacement
Downtown Directional Signs
Website Upgrade
Gateway Monument—Santa Rosa & Highland
Calle Joaquin Lift Station Replacement
Storm Drain System Replacements
LOVR Interchange
Bicycle Facility Improvements
Water Resource Recovery Facility Upgrade
Johnson/Santa Rosa/Emerson Parks
Mitchell/Sinsheimer/Islay Hill/Ludwick/Vista Lago
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Water Resource Recovery Fac Energy Upgrade
Laguna Lift Station Replacement
Railroad Safety Trail—Hathway to Taft
Bob Jones Trail Connector at LOVR
Street Reconstruction/Paving
Open Space Acquisition
Skate Park
E-41
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection
Section 8.2
Background Materials
Status Reports from November 13, 2014 Workshop
STATUS OF CURRENT
CIP PROJECTS
STATUS OF CURRENT CIP PROJECTS
As of October 2014
STATUS OF CIP PROJECTS
As of October 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Overview 3
Report Organization 3
Findings 5
STATUS REPORTS
Major CIP Projects 6
All CIP Projects
Construction or Acquisition Completed 7
In Process (construction/acquisition/on-going) 11
Design Completed: In Bid Process 15
In Design 16
Under Study 18
Delay or Cancel 19
2
STATUS OF CIP PROJECTS
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with a concise yet comprehensive summary
of the status of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects.
As discussed in greater detail below, the City is making excellent progress in achieving our CIP
goals: of 234 projects that have been financially active during the 2013-15 Financial Plan period:
1.67% (157) are either completed or in process. In process includes projects under
construction, acquisition, fleet carryover, and on-going projects.
2.3% (7) are in the bid process.
3.20% (47) are under design.
4.6% (13) are under study.
5.4% (10) are either delayed or recommended to be cancelled.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Status of Major City Projects
This chart concisely presents the status of our progress to-date on 19 major CIP projects by
presenting the “percent complete” based on the phase that it is in: construction, design or study.
Status of All CIP Projects
This report summarizes the status of all 234 CIP projects with financial activity during the 2013-
15 Financial Plan period organized as follows:
3
STATUS OF CIP PROJECTS
Project Status. Projects are first presented in one of six “phase” categories shown below. Each
project also shows the “percent complete” within the phase.
1.Under study
2.Under design
3.Design completed: in the bid process
4.Construction or acquisition in progress
5.Construction or acquisition completed
6.Recommended to be delayed or cancelled
Primary Funding Source. Within the “phase,” projects are then presented by their primary
funding source:
1.Capital Outlay Fund (Along with grant
funds, the General Fund is the primary
funding source for this fund.)
2.Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Fund
3.Public Art In-Lieu (Private Sector)
4.Transportation Impact Fee Fund
5.Affordable Housing Fund
6.Open Space Protection Fund
7.Parkland Development Fund
8.Fleet Replacement Fund (Along with
interest earnings and sale of surplus
property, the General Fund is the primary
funding source for this fund.)
9.Water Fund
10.Sewer Fund
11.Parking Fund
12.Transit Fund
13.Whale Rock Reservoir Fund
The report also indicates the functional area for each project: public safety, public utilities;
transportation; leisure, cultural and social services; community development; and general
government.
Priority Criteria. For each project, we have provided information about the “high priority”
criteria used by the CIP Review Committee in initially evaluating CIP budget requests before
recommending them to the City Manager for approval by the Council:
1.Does it help achieve a Major City Goal?
2.Is the project needed to meet significant public health or safety concerns?
3.Is there significant outside funding?
4.Is it needed to adequately maintain, repair or replace existing infrastructure, facilities or
equipment?
5.Will it result in significant operating cost savings or productivity improvements?
6.Is it required to meet state or federal mandates?
7.Is it needed to meet the City’s public art policy or funded through the private sector public art
in-lieu fee?
4
STATUS OF CIP PROJECTS
FINDINGS
As reflected in this summary, every project meets at least one of the “high priority” criteria (and
many meet more than one). This is not surprising, given the high level of scrutiny that each
received before being approved by the Council, and the detailed reviews that we have already
undertaken in our efforts to allocate CIP funding to high priority needs.
Based on our review of the status of the CIP and priority criteria, ten projects surfaced as
candidates to be delayed or cancelled at this time. These are all Enterprise Fund projects.
Projects recommended to be delayed or cancelled in the Water Fund are all connected to the new
Water Master Plan which will be completed in 2015. The Water Master Plan update is expected
to identify significant changes to the system, which will cause some projects to see a different
approach or elimination all together. Three Transit Fund projects are delayed based on pending
confirmation of grant availability.
5
STATUS OF CIP PROJECTS
6
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
COMPLETED PROJECTS
CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND
City Hall Entry Steps General Government 100%x
ADA Improvements General Government 100%x x
SPRR Freight Warehouse General Government 100%x
Radio System Upgrade General Government 100%x x x
GPS System Replacement General Government 100%x
Wireless Net Infr Repl General Government 100%x
Mbl Equip Lifts & Stnd General Government 100%x
Damon Garcia Parking Lot Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x
Central Irrigation Controller Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x
Laguna Lake Dredging Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x
Pool Boiler Replacement Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x x
Play Equip Replace Johnson Park Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x x
Play Equip Replace Santa Rosa Park Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x x
Play Equip Replace Emerson Park Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x x
PR Admin Software Replacement Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x
Play Equip Replace Meadow Park Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x
Storm Drain Culverts Transportation 100%x
Downtown Beautification Transportation 100%x
Utilities Asset Management System Transportation 100%x
Street Reconstruction 2013 Transportation 100%x
Storm Drain Jeff/Cerr Transportation 100%x
LED Streetlight Turnk Transportation 100%x x
Hwy 227 Signal Upgrades Transportation 100%x X
Foothill Blvd Bridge Transportation 100%x x x
Chorro St R&R Transportation 100%x x
Higuera Widening Transportation 100%x
Roadway Sealing 2014 Transportation 100%x
CDBG Curb Ramps 2013 Transportation 100%x x
Extrication Equipment Public Safety 100%x x
CAD Server Replacement Public Safety 100%x
La Loma Adobe Community Development 100%
City to Sea Greenway Community Development 100%
MAJOR FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND
Sinsheimer Pkg Resurf General Government 100%x
Project Priority Criteria
7
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
City/County Restroom Remodel General Government 100%x
Jack House RR Remodel Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x x
FLEET REPLACEMENT FUND
Utilities Asset Management System General Government 100%x
Neighbrhd Svs Sedan Public Safety 100%x
Fire Admin Sedan Public Safety 100%x
Fire Prevention SUV Public Safety 100%x
FBC Command Vehicle Public Safety 100%x
Fire Engine Public Safety 100%x
PD Marked Patrol Sedans Public Safety 100%x
Dump Truck Replacement Transportation 100%x
WRF 4WD Loader Transportation 100%
WRRF 4WD Loader Transportation 100%
Signal/Lights Lift Trk Transportation 100%x
Transport Eng Trk/Van Community Development 100%x
IT REPLACEMENT FUND
Council Chamber Tech General Government 100%x
Public Safety Vido Prog General Government 100%x
Fox Pro Replacement General Government 100%x
GPS System Replacement General Government 100%x
UB System Upgrade General Government 100%x
PUBLIC ART FUND
Library Mural Project Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x PA1
Meadow Pk Comm Garden Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x PA1
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND
Street Reconstruction 2013 Transportation 100%x
Railroad Safety Trail phase 4A Transportation 100%x x
Mid Hig Improvement Project Transportation 100%x x
RR Safety Trail Hath/Taft Transportation 100%x x
City Traffic Counts 2014 Transportation 100%x x x
RR Safety Trail Phase 4 Transportation 100%x
Traffic Volume Counts Transportation 100%x x x
CDBG FUND
313 South Street Community Development 100%x
Womens Business Center Community Development 100%x CD1
3212 Rockview Community Development 100%x CD2
542 Hathway Acqu/Rehab Community Development 100%x CD2
8
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
CDBG Curb Ramps 2013 Transportation 100%x
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
313 South Street Community Development 100%x
Housing Trust Fund Community Development 100%x
SEWER FUND
Utilities Asset Management System Utilities 100%x
Street Reconstruction 2013 Utilities 100%x
RR Safety Trail Hath/Taft Utilities 100%x
Roadway Sealing 2014 Utilities 100%x `
Sewerline Impr 09-10 Utilities 100%x
Laguna Lift Station Repl Utilities 100%x
Santa Rosa Sewerline Repl Utilities 100%x
Digester #2 Cleaning Utilities 100%x
WRRF Sludge Bed Utilities 100%x
WRRF Cooling Towers Utilities 100%x
WWV Vac-con Hydroclnr Utilities 100%x
Mbl Equip Lifts & Stnd Utilities 100%
WATER FUND
Utilities Asset Management System Utilities 100%x
Street Reconstruction 2013 Utilities 100%x
GPS System Replacement Utilities 100%x
UB System Upgrade Utilities 100%x
Mbl Equip Lifts & Stnd Utilities 100%x
Fox Pro Replacement General Government 100%x
WHALE ROCK FUND
Mbl Equip Lifts & Stnd Utilities 100%x
Whale Rock Utility Veh Utilities 100%x
TRANSIT FUND
Bus Maint Facility Exp Transportation 100%x x
Fox Pro Replacement Transportation 100%x
GPS System Replacement Transportation 100%x
PARKING FUND
Pkg Lot Resurface 13-14 Transportation 100%x
Arch Study Garage Artifact Transportation 100%x
Fox Pro Replacement Transportation 100%x
GPS System Replacement Transportation 100%x
Mbl Equip Lifts & Stnd Transportation 100%x
9
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
Utility Scooter Transportation 100%
Parking Vehicle Transportation 100%
Library Pkg Lot Resurface Transportation 100%x
10
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
IN PROCESS (under construction/acquisition, on-going)
CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND
Comm Ctr Blade Computer Repl General Government 50%x x
Fox Pro Replacement General Government 100%x
Laserfiche General Government 98%x x
Facility Pk Lot Master General Government n/a x PW2
Facility Maint Master General Government n/a x PW2
Skate Park Improvement Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 75%x
Mission Plaza Railing Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 50%x
Play Equip Replacement Leisure, Culture, Social Svc n/a x PW2
Hose Replacement Public Safety 50%x x FLT 2
LOVR/Hwy 101 Interchange Transportation 1%x x x
Master Acct Street R&R Transportation n/a x x PW2
Master Acct Sidewalk Access Transportation n/a x PW2
Master Acct CMP Repl Transportation n/a x x PW2
Master Acct Sidewalk Repair Transportation n/a x PW2
Silt Removal Master Account Transportation n/a x PW2
Master Acct Neighbor Traf Mgmt Transportation n/a x x PW2
General Traffic\ Signal Improvements Transportation n/a x x x x x PW3
Traffic Safety Report Improvements Transportation n/a x x PW3
Traffic Safety Report Transportation n/a x x PW3
Street Sign Maintenance Transportation n/a x x x PW3
Trafic Oper Rept Impl Transportation n/a PW3
Traffic Safety & Oper Imp Transportation n/a X PW3
Traffic Sign Maint Transportation n/a x x PW3
IT REPLACEMENT FUND
City Website Upgrade General Government 85%x
VPN Replacement General Government 50%x
Enterprise Strge Grwth General Government 90%x
ER Comm Ctr Blade Computer Repl General Government 20%x
Network Security Upgrade General Government 50%x
MDC In Car Video General Government 50%x
Firewall Replacement General Government 50%x
MAJOR FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND
PD Admin HVAC Replace Public Safety 5%x
FLEET REPLACEMENT FUND
11
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
Pickups - Engineering Community Development 50%x FLT 1
City Pool Cars General Government x FLT 2
Fleet Maint Pickup General Government x FLT 1
HD Water Tank Truck Leisure, Culture, Social Svc x FLT 1
Parks Maint Equip Leisure, Culture, Social Svc x FLT 1
Parks Maint Pickup Leisure, Culture, Social Svc x FLT 2
Golf Course Mowers Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 0%x FLT 2
Ranger Vehicle Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 0%FLT 2
PD Admin Vehicles Public Safety x FLT 2
PD Unmrkd Det Vehicles Public Safety x FLT 1
Patrol Sedans Public Safety 95%x FLT 1
Police SUV Public Safety x FLT 1
PD Marked Utility Vehicle Public Safety x FLT 1
Patrol Motorcycles - 6 Public Safety FLT 2
Pickup Streets Maintenance (0030)Transportation 50%FLT 1
Pickup Streets Maintenance (0116)Transportation FLT 2
OPEN SPACE PROTECTION FUND
Creek Mitigation Community Development 85%x
Froom Ranch Improvements Community Development 50%x
Calle Joaquin AG Reserv Community Development 50%x
PARKING FUND
Palm St Tile Removal Transportation 75%x
Laserfiche General Government 98%x x
City Website Upgrade General Government 90%x
Enterprise Strge Grwth General Government 90%
Network Security Upgrade General Government 50%x
Firewall Replacement General Government 20%x
PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FUND
Skate Park Improvement Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 75%x
Open Space Acquisition Community Development 90%
PUBLIC ART FUND
Skate Park Improvement - Public Art Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 80%x x
Public Art Maintenance Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 10%x
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND
Bob Jones Trail Connection Transportation 100 x x
LOVR/Hwy 101 Interchange Transportation 1%x x x
Traffic Safety Report Improvements Transportation n/a x x PW3
12
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
Bicycle Facility Impvorvements Transportation n/a x x x x PW3
Bicycle Projects Transportation n/a x PW3
CDBG FUND
Master Acct Sidewalk Access Transportation n/a x PW2
SEWER FUND
WRRF Energy Efficiency Utilities 80%x
WWC Pickup Utilities n/a x FLT 1
WRF Pickup Utilities n/a x FLT 1
Master Coll Sys Impr Utilities n/a x UT1
WRRF Major Maintenance Utilities n/a x UT1
Portable Generators Utilities n/a FLT 2
WRRF Service Truck Utilities n/a x FLT 2
Util Admin Sedan 13-14 Utilities n/a x FLT 2
Portable Generators Utilities n/a FLT 2
Utility Cons Pickup Trcks Utilities n/a x FLT 2
VPN Replacement General Government 50%x
Laserfiche General Government 98%x x
City Website Upgrade General Government 90%x
Enterprise Strge Grwth General Government 90%x
Network Security Upgrade General Government 50%x
Firewall Replacement General Government 50%x
WATER FUND
Fire Lateral Reimb Utilities n/a x
Johnson Underpass Pump Utilities 10%x
Trench Repair Utilities n/a x
Raise Valve Covers Utilities n/a x
Tank Maintenance Utilities 10%x
WTR Cust Svc Trk Utilities n/a x FLT 1
Master Distr Sys Improv Utilities n/a x UT1
Water Trtmt Major Eq Maint Utilities n/a x UT1
Util Admin Sedan 13-14 Utilities n/a x FLT 2
VPN Replacement General Government 50%x
Laserfiche General Government 98%x x
City Website Upgrade General Government 90%x
Enterprise Strge Grwth General Government 90%x
Firewall Replacement General Government 50%x
TRANSIT FUND
13
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
Bus Stop Improvements Transportation 80%x x
Bus Cap Engine Rehab Transportation 86%x
Facility Security Imp Transportation 90%x x
Bus Stop Equip Project Transportation 60%x x
Bus Rehab 2012-13 POP Transportation n/a x x PW3
SLO Transit Pickup Transportation n/a x FLT 2
PARKING FUND
Laserfiche General Government 98%x x
City Website Upgrade General Government 90%x
Enterprise Strge Grwth General Government 90%x
Network Security Upgrade General Government 50%x
Firewall Replacement General Government 50%x
Marsh St Pkg Light Repl General Government 100%x
14
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
DESIGN COMPLETED: IN BID PROCESS
CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND
Ped Bike Pathway Maint Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 50%x
Downtown Renewal Transportation 50%x
Network Switch Upgrade General Government 10%x
IT REPLACEMENT FUND x
Document Management General Government 15%x
CIP Prjct Mgt Software General Government 5%x
Network Switch Upgrade General Government 10%x
ECC Comp Equip Repl General Government 15%x
MAJOR FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND
Jack House Ext Painting General Government 100%x
SEWER FUND
Document Management General Government 15%x
Network Switch Upgrade General Government 10%x
WATER FUND
Document Management General Government 15%x
Network Switch Upgrade General Government 10%x
TRANSIT FUND
Document Management General Government 15%x
Network Switch Upgrade General Government 10%x
PARKING FUND
Document Management General Government 15%x
Network Switch Upgrade General Government 10%x
15
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
PROJECTS UNDER DESIGN
City Gateways Community Development 75%x
MS Office Replacement General Government 5%x
Olympic Pool Replaster Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 90%x
Sinsheimer Equipment Replacement Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 30%x x
Playground Equip 13-14 Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 30%x
DT Tree & Sidewalk Repl Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 75%x
Marsh St Bridge Repair Transportation 50%x x
Toro St Creek Bank Stabil Transportation 60%x x
Broad Street Bank Reinf Transportation 75%x
Directional Sign Program Transportation 50%
Flood Plan Phase II Transportation 100%x
Toro St Bank Stabil Transportation 60%x
Prado Bridge Deck Overlay Transportation 15%x
RPL Lighted Crosswalks Transportation 10%X X
CDBG Curb Ramps 2014 Transportation 75%x
Calle Joaquin Prk/Ride Transportation 10%x
MAJOR FACILITY REPLACEMENT
Sinsheimer Stair Repl Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 80%x
CDBG FUND
Homeless Campus Community Development 100%x
CDBG Curb Ramps 2014 Transportation 75%x
IT REPLACEMENT FUND
Security Video Sys Repl Public Safety 5%x
MS Office Replacement General Government 5%x
MAJOR FACILITY REPLACEMENT
City Hall Renovation General Government 70%x
CH Perimeter Drain Rep Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 50%x
Golf Course Restroom Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 5%x x
Fire St 2 Dorm Remodel Public Safety 50%x
OPEN SPACE PROTECTION FUND
Open Space Protection Community Development 25%x
PUBLIC ART FUND
9-11 Memorial Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 40%x
Kyle Roofing Mural Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 40%x
Fountain @ Marsh/Higuera Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 40%x
16
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
SEWER FUND
Scada Upgrade Integration Utilities 85%x `
Calle Joaquin Lift Station Utilities 75%x
Jennifer RR / Hig-Marsh Utilities 90%x
Margarita Lift Station Utilities 40%x
Foothill Lift Station Utilities 40%x
Sewerline Repl Rachel R Utilities 50%x
Sewerline Repl Stffrd Utilities 50%x
MS Office Replacement General Government 5%x
WATER FUND
Foothill/Chorro PRV Utilities 75%x
Wtr Pump Station Anly Utilities 95%x
16" Waterline Replace Utilities 90%x
Monterey Waterline Repl Utilities 90%x
Wireless Net Infr Repl Utilities 100%x
Network Security Upgrade General Government 5%x
MS Office Replacement General Government 5%x
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND
RR Safety Trail Hwy 101 Transportation 90%x x
Traffic Model Update Transportation 10%x
Railroad Safety Trail Lighting Transportation 90%
RR Safety Trail Taft/Pepper Transportation 90%x x
Prado Bridge Widening Transportation 10%x x x x x
TRANSIT FUND
MS Office Replacement General Government 5%x
PARKING FUND
Marsh St Paint Phase 2 Transportation 35%x
Retrofit 919 Pkg Stair Transportation x
MS Office Replacement General Government 5%x
17
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
PROJECTS UNDER STUDY
CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND
Sinsheimer Stadium Building Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 100%x
Bridge Enhancement Art Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 0%x
Mission Plaza Master Plan Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 5%
Mid Hig By Pass Channel Transportation 99%x x x
Bob Jones Octagon Barn Transportation 100 x
Foothill/California RR X Transportation 10%x
Homeless Service Ct Community Development x
PARKING FUND
Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Transportation 50%x
PUBLIC ART FUND
Public Art Master Plan Leisure, Culture, Social Svc 0%x PA1
SEWER FUND
WW Infr Repl Strategy Utilities 75%x
WRRF Upgrade Utilities 50%x
WATER FUND
Telemetry System Upgrade General Government 100%x
WHALE ROCK FUND
Old Creek Habitat Plan Utilities 80%x
Telemetry System Upgrade General Government 100%x
18
CIP STATUS REPORT
Project Function
Phase
Percent
Complete
Major City
Goal
Significant
Public
Health or
Safety
Concern
Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Facilities or
Equipment
Significant
Operating Cost
Savings /
Productivity
Improvements
Significant
Outside
Funding
Fed or State
Requirement
Public Art
Policy
Other Priority
Factors
(See Notes
Below)
Project Priority Criteria
PROJECTS RECOMMENDED TO BE DELAYED OR CANCELLED
TRANSIT FUND
Buses and Trolley Transportation x x delay - 1
Bus Shelter Replacement Transportation x x delay - 1
Transit Ctr Expansion Transportation x x delay - 1
SEWER FUND
Madonna Lift Station Utilities x cancel
WATER FUND
Reservoir CVR Repl Utilities x delay
Dist Pump Stn Upgrades Utilities x delay
Stenner Cyn Waterline Repl Utilities x delay
WTP Air Compressor RPL Utilities x cancel
Water Reuse Auto Impr Utilities x cancel
WHALE ROCK FUND
Valve Replacements Utilities x delay
COLUMN L NOTES:
CD1 - Business support for low income clients
CD2 - Affordable Housing Projects
UT 1 - Master account; no project activity occurs here.
PW2 - Master account; no project activity tracked here
PW3 - Ongoing Project
PA1 - Project Complete. Transfer remaining funding into Completed Projects account for Public Art Fund.
FLT 1 - Fleet or Equipment purchase order has been made
FLT 2 - Fleet appropriations carried forward for item waiting to be ordered
Delay - 1 - Delayed until confirmation of grant appropriation is received
19
Section 8.3
Background Materials
Status Reports from November 13, 2014 Workshop
STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Status Report on
General Plan Implementation Programs
November 2014
Status of General Plan Implementation Programs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Overview 1
Status of General Plan and Area Plan Implementation Programs 1
Report Organization 2
Findings 3
Status of General Plan Implementation Programs by Element
Land Use Element 8
Housing Element 11
Circulation Element 14
Conservation and Open Space Element 17
Noise Element 22
Safety Element 22
Parks and Recreation Element 23
Water and Wastewater Element 25
Status of Area Plan Implementation Programs
Orcutt Area Specific Plan 27
Mid-Higuera Area 32
Railroad District 34
Airport Area Specific Plan 37
Margarita Area Specific Plan 39
Climate Action Plan 45
INTRODUCTION
- 1 -
Status of General Plan Implementation Programs
High Difficulty
4.5%
Complete
or Ongoing
84%Low Difficulty 1%
Medium Difficulty
10.5%
Incomplete
Programs
16%
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this report is to provide a concise yet comprehensive summary of the status of all
General Plan implementation programs as well as implementation programs for key “area” plans:
Downtown, Mid-Higuera Area, and Railroad District Area. This report also covers action items
and the status of efforts in the Airport Area, Margarita Area and Orcutt Area Specific Plans.
STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
The following schedules provide a concise
yet comprehensive summary of the status of
all General Plan implementation programs.
As discussed in greater detail below, of the
448 individual implementation programs in
the General Plan, 84% (375) of them are
completed or have been integrated into the
City’s ongoing operations. This is a nearly
four percent increase of implemented
programs since the last Financial Plan
reporting.
Given the ambitious nature of our General
Plan and its twenty-year time horizon, we
believe that this represents significant progress in achieving General Plan goals.
The incomplete programs (16% of the total) are classified as follows:
1% (5) as being relatively easy to achieve from a resource perspective.
10.5% (47) as being of moderate difficulty.
4.5% (21) as being difficult to achieve.
Report Focus: Why Report on the Status of Programs? The City’s General Plan is composed
of a “building block” hierarchy of goals, objectives, policies and programs. Goals and objectives
are direction-setters. They describe desirable conditions and preferred outcomes as they are
applied to specific situations. Goals are generally not quantifiable, time-dependent or suggestive
of specific actions for their achievement. Objectives generally state an intermediate step toward
attaining a goal. Policies are typically more specific statements that guide decision-making.
Programs are actions that implement goals, objectives and policies. As such, monitoring our
progress in implementing General Plan programs is an excellent way of monitoring our progress
in achieving General Plan goals and objectives. And for this reason, it is the focus of this report.
INTRODUCTION
- 2 -
Report Organization
General Plan Elements. The report first organizes each of the implementation programs into
one of our eight General Plan elements:
Land Use (LU)
Housing (H)
Circulation (CI)
Conservation and Open Space (COSE)
Noise (N)
Safety (S)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Water and Wastewater (WW)
Implementation Program Summary. A short “one-line” narrative is provided for each
implementation program, referencing the specific General Plan Program number. (Each program
is assigned a “line number” solely for easy internal reference within the report itself.)
Lead Department. The lead responsible for implementing the program is presented. (In many
cases, several departments work closely together in implementing the program; this simply
indicates which department has the lead role in coordinating program implementation.)
Administration (ADM)
Community Development (CD)
Finance & Information Technology (F&IT)
Fire (FD)
Parks and Recreation (P&R)
Police (PD)
Public Works (PW)
Utilities (UT)
Implementation Status. All programs are organized into one of two major “status” categories:
If it’s complete (or will be complete by June 2015) or has been integrated into City
operations as an ongoing program, this is noted with a “C” (complete) or an “O” (ongoing) in
the first status column of the summary. For easy reference, within each element, completed
programs are listed first in the summary, followed by those that are ongoing.
If it won’t be completed (or become an ongoing program) by June 2015, then we have rated
how difficult it will be to complete on an “order of magnitude” (qualitative) basis using the
following coding:
Low (L): Minimal staff effort and no consultant assistance will be needed to complete the
analytical work and coordinate stakeholder-public outreach. While this is a qualitative
assessment by the lead department, this generally means that less than 80 hours of staff work
and no additional budget resources will be needed to implement the program.
Medium (M): Significant staff effort, some consultant assistance or supplemental funding
for operations or capital projects will be needed to complete the analytical work and
coordinate stakeholder-public outreach or implement the program. Again, while this is a
qualitative assessment by the lead department, this generally means between 80 to 500 hours
of staff work and/or up to $25,000 for added budget resources will be needed to implement
the program.
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 3 -
High (H): Major staff effort, consultant assistance or supplemental funding for operations or
capital projects will be needed to complete the analytical work, coordinate stakeholder-public
outreach or implement the program. Generally, this means that more than 500 hours of staff
work and/or more than $25,000 for added budget resources will be needed to implement the
program.
For easy reference, within each element, the incomplete programs follow those that are
complete/ongoing, with the “low” difficulty programs listed first, followed by those that are
“medium and high.”
Area Plans. “Area plans” like the Railroad District Plan are not General Plan Elements.
However, each of the area plans adopted by the Council that have “implementation programs” –
Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, Railroad District Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan,
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan – are closely linked to the General
Plan implementation. Accordingly, the status of “area plan” implementation programs is also
provided in this report. They are organized in the same manner as the status report on General
Plan program implementation. The Downtown Concept Plan is a graphical document with
supporting guidance. This plan is summarized in narrative format on page 5.
Findings
General Plan Programs
Status Summary. As noted above, 84% of the City’s General Plan implementation programs
have been completed or integrated into the City’s day-to-day operations. Due to the timing of
Council action on the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, the tables and
information in this report do not capture the modified and added programs for those elements.
The draft Land Use Element and the Circulation Element contain approximately 33 and 19 new
programs respectively as well as numerous programs that were modified as part of the update
process at the time of staff report completion.
In addition, the City is currently updating the Housing Element in compliance with timing
specified by the state. Because the existing element was reviewed and certified by the state as
recently as June 2010, staff anticipates changes to Housing Element programs will be fairly
minor to address changes in state law and respond to community input and needs .
Staff has added the Climate Action Plan as another set of programs or strategies that require
implementation. This strategy document overlaps programs in almost every other element of the
General Plan, and therefore may represent some duplication in implementation, however it is
included as a summary of strategies for which implementation is vitally important in order to
meet emissions reductions goals.
The following is a more detailed summary of the status of existing General Plan implementation
programs by element:
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 4 -
Summary: Status of General Plan Implementation Programs
General Plan Element Complete or
Ongoing
Difficulty to Complete
Total Low Medium High
No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.
Land Use 56 77% 0 0% 11 15% 6 8% 73
Housing 51 65% 2 3% 24 31% 1 1% 78
Circulation 54 83% 2 3% 6 9% 3 5% 65
Conservation & Open Space 108 92% 0 0% 4 3% 6 5% 118
Noise 4 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4
Safety 34 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 34
Parks and Recreation 36 93% 0 0% 0 0% 3 7% 39
Water and Wastewater 32 87% 1 3% 2 5% 2 5% 37
TOTAL 375 84% 5 1% 47 10.5% 21 4.5% 448
As reflected above, there are very few “low effort” programs remaining.
Resource Requirements. Based on our qualitative assessment of the resources need to
complete the implementation of the remaining programs, the following is a “high-level”
assessment of the staff resources and added budget resources that will ultimately be needed to
complete these programs at some point:
and/or
min
Low Difficulty500.23 -$
Medium 47 1.9012.00 1,175,000$
High 21 5.405.40 +525,000$ +
Total 73 7.3017.63 +1,700,000$ +
-$
-$
525,000$
525,000$
High-Level Resource Assessment
FTE's*
minRemaining Programs Consultant Costs
max max
*Annual Full-time Equivalent (FTE)
Value of Remaining Action Items. These summaries show which programs remain undone and
the “order of magnitude” resources that would be needed to complete them. However, they do
not address their relative value to the community compared with the effort that would be
required to complete them. For example, it might be tempting to direct our resources to
finishing-up the “low or medium difficulty” programs to get them off our plate. However, this
should be weighed against the value likely to be derived. In this case, we might have a greater
impact in improving the community’s quality of life if we focused the same level of resources
towards accomplishing a fewer number of “high value” (but relatively higher effort) programs.
On the other hand, we would want to avoid undertaking high-effort but lower-value programs.
The following is a paradigm or model for assessing these “value versus effort” trade-offs, which
can be summarized as follows in the context of allocating resources towards completing General
Plan programs:
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 5 -
In this model, the first priorities should be selected from Quadrant A: “low effort but high
value.” (These are the proverbial “low hanging fruit.”) After this, Quadrants B and C are a “toss-
up.” However, in all cases, we would want to minimize efforts towards programs that might fall
into Quadrant D, unless the community or decision makers think that there is greater value than
the weight assigned by City staff.
Ultimately, assessing the value of individual programs and directing resources towards
completing them is the Council’s decision (and in the final analysis, this is what the City’s goal-
setting and budget process is all about). However, staff can prepare an “order of magnitude”
assessment of those programs we believe would have the most near-term benefits relatively
quickly if the Council believes that this would be helpful background information in the goal-
setting process.
Area Plans
Railroad District Plan Programs
Ten of the forty-one Railroad District Plan implementation programs have been completed or
integrated into ongoing programs. Of the remaining thirty-one programs that are not yet
complete, we have classified two of them as “medium” difficulty and twenty-nine as “high.”
Several of the programs that call for bike paths along the railroad right-of-way may need to be
adjusted to reflect the inability to achieve easements from the Union Pacific Railroad.
Mid-Higuera Area Enhancement Plan Programs
While work has been done toward implementation, none of the twenty-four programs set forth in
this long term plan have been completed. We have classified two of the twenty-four programs
that are not yet complete as “medium” difficulty and twenty-two of them as “high.” The LUCE
calls for update of this plan.
Quadrant A Quadrant B
Low Effort, High Value Low Effort, Low Value
Quadrant C Quadrant D
High Effort, High Value High Effort, Low Value
High Low
EF
F
O
R
T
Lo
w
Hi
g
h
VALUE
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 6 -
Downtown Concept Plan
The General Plan provides policies and programs for all areas of the City including a specific
section in the Land Use Element regarding the Downtown. The Downtown Concept Plan is a
graphical map with principles that has long been used to guide decisions regarding development
in the Downtown. This document is referenced in the Land Use Element (4.0) as an illustration
of how Downtown development may occur but was never envisioned as a static document, rather
more of a vision concept. Some of the concepts are being pursued with review and approval of
private development. Others require City resources and action, and some concepts may change.
- The Land Use and Circulation Elements update calls for updating this plan.
Airport Area Specific Plan Programs
Of the twenty-eight programs set forth in this plan, twenty have been integrated into ongoing
programs. We have classified two of the remaining nine programs that are not yet complete as
“medium” and six as “high.” This Specific Plan was amended in September 2014 after many
years of agency collaboration to address the Chevron Remediation and Redevelopment proposal
and some of these programs have been updated as part of the process. There is renewed interest
to annex unincorporated properties in the City now that the recovery of the economy is fully
underway and some water and wastewater challenges are on the horizon.
Margarita Area Specific Plan
The Margarita Area Specific Plan was adopted in October 2004 and accommodates 868 dwelling
units and about 900,000 square feet of business park development. Three subdivisions have been
approved for a total of approximately 300 residential lots, and several commercial developments
have been approved. Within the approved subdivisions, approximately 51 dwelling units have
been completed with future phases starting within the upcoming months. Many of the programs
listed in the plan are dependent upon actual construction taking place since they will be
implemented with development; however, two of the 86 programs have been completed: the
dedication of the South Street Hills and the construction of the Damon-Garcia Sports Field
complex. Changes to the fee program were undertaken to clarify parkland fee structure and to re-
assign a portion of parkland payment responsibility to the community at large to reflect the
community-wide benefit of the Damon-Garcia Sports fields.
Orcutt Area Specific Plan
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan was approved in 2010 and accommodates nearly 1,000 new
residential units and some 15,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The area was annexed
to the City in November 2011. None of the 93 programs identified has yet to be completed
because the programs specify conditions that will be accomplished by development occurring in
the area. The programs are listed as “ongoing’ because the programs will apply to and be
implemented by development in the area. Currently, subdivision and development proposals
have been submitted and are in process as follows:
Wingate (Taylor) – 142 total units (45 SFR), 33 row houses, 52 senior apartments (+12
lofts) and a one-acre park: Tentative Tract Map approved
Jones – 65 total units (9 SFR, 9 MU, 43 condominium units, open space along creeks): In
process
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 7 -
Righetti Ranch – 304 total units (272 SFR, 32 townhomes, 14 + acre neighborhood park,
and 52 + acres of open space on Righetti Hill: Specific Plan update required. In process
West Creek - 179 total units (104 apartments, 18 SFR, 57 alley-loaded units): In process
OASP programs will be implemented as part of these and future developments in the area.
\\chstore4\Team\Budget Folders\2013-15 Financial Plan\Council Goal-Setting\12-18-12 Goal-Setting Process Council
Meeting\Status of General Plan Implementation Programs, 2011-13.docx
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 8 -
Status of General Plan Implementation
Programs
STATUS AS OF May 6, 2014
Complete Difficulty to
Complete Lead
Program Summary Or
Ongoing Low Med High Dept
Land Use
2.14 Consider new regulations for accessory buildings
(LU 2.14.(3))
C CD
3.9 Rezone neighborhood uses in C-S (LU 3.9.3) C CD
6.4 Revise engineering standards to allow for porous
paving and landscaping (LU 6.4.5)
C PW
2.15 Provide staff support for neighborhood issues
(LU 2.15.F)
C CD
3.6 Add warehouse stores to Zoning Regulations.
(LU 3.6.2.B)
C CD
3.6 Add R&D facilities to Zoning Regulations (LU
3.6.2.D)
C CD
3.9 Provide incentives to encourage relocation of auto
sales (LU 3.9.8)
C CD
3.9 Noise prevention in Zoning Regulations,
architectural guidelines (LU 3.9.9/N)
C CD
6.0 Prepare a refined land use map for the City and
its planning areas (LU 6.0.3)
C CD
2.16 Revise residential density determination method
for Medium, Med-High & High land use districts
(LU 2.16)
C CD
3.9 Revise zoning & architectural standards to
protect character of downtown areas (LU 3.9.7)
C CD
4.2 Revise zoning regulations to require large new
projects downtown to include dwellings (LU 4.2.1)
C CD
1.7 Encourage County to adopt cluster districts (LU
1.7.4)
C ADM
1.15 City-County MOU regarding SLO Planning Area
(LU 1.15.8)
C ADM
2.10 Review and, if necessary, revise noise, property
development, & maintenance standards (LU
2.10.1)
C CD
2.10 Adopt property maintenance standards (LU
2.10.2)
C CD
2.13 Affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements
(LU 2.13)
C CD
2.14 Consider new regulations for large infill houses
(LU 2.14. (1),(2))
C CD
3.9 Investigate ways to intensify and improve
cohesion at existing Madonna Road centers (LU
3.9.10)
C ADM
3.9 Eliminate PD minimum site area for commercial
zones (LU 3.9.2)
C CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 9 -
4.2 Develop & apply a "Residential-Office" zone in the
downtown (LU 4.2.2)
C CD
5.7 Study possible reuse of surplus City facilities by
cultural and non-profit groups (LU 5.7)
C ADM
5.8 Encourage public art in all projects (LU 5.8) C ADM
6.3 Designate sensitive sites and require ARC review
during subdivision process (LU 6.3.1)
C ADM
7.13 Establish in-lieu fee to protect airport area OS
when protection not feasible with project approval
(LU 7.13)
C CD
7.8 Work with Airport Area property owners to
complete a specific plan (LU 7.8)
C CD
8.4 Work with property owners to prepare area plans
for Santa Barbara Street area (LU 8.4)
C CD
8.5 Consider enhancement of Mid-Higuera Area (LU
3.1.4) (see also Special Design Area 8.5)
C CD
1.15 Work with County to make SLO Area Plan
consistent w/ City LU (LU 1.15.7)
O CD
1.10 Monitor nonresidential growth rate: (LU 1.10.4) O CD
1.15 Discuss feasibility of countywide planning group
(LU 1.15.4)
O ADM
1.15 Promote inter-jurisdictional review of countywide
projects (LU 1.15.5)
O ADM
1.15 Monitor County Resource Management Reports
(LU 1.15.1)
O CD
1.15 Advocate annual meetings among local
jurisdictions to discuss regional issues (LU 1.15.2)
O CD
1.15 Advocate regional growth management program
(LU 1.15.6)
O CD
2.1 Support formation & continuation of neighborhood
planning groups (LU 2.1.2)
O CD
2.10 Periodically review & update prop. maintenance
standards (LU 2.10.2)
O CD
2.1 Promote neighborhood traffic calming (LU
2.1.3./CE)
O PW
2.10 Review, revise property maintenance and
development standards (LU 2.10.1)
O CD
2.15 Undertake focused review, improvement, &
enforcement efforts for neighborhoods (LU 2.15.C)
O CD
2.15 Provide early neighborhood notice of project
reviews (LU 2.15.E)
O CD
3.9 Develop aggressive marketing programs for
tourism (LU 3.9.11.C)
O ADM
3.9 Encourage development of recreation facilities
(LU 3.9.11.E)
O ADM
3.9 Consider establishing tourist information at City
entries (LU 3.9.4)
O ADM
3.9 Develop tour concepts (LU 3.9.11.D) O ADM
4.16 Review allowed building heights in retail areas &
outside the Commercial Core (LU 4.16.4; LU 4.18)
O CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 10 -
4.19 Include Downtown Concept Plan features in
zoning regulations, architectural guidelines,
engineering standards & capital improvement
plans (LU 4.19)
O CD
6.0 Develop resource maps (LU 6.0.2) O ADM
6.3 Mitigate visual impacts of hillside houses including
considering revising method for determining
building height (LU 6.3.4)
O CD
6.5 Notify creekside property owners in advance of
work along creeks (LU 6.5.3)
O PW
7.11 Work with County to assure airline service at
Airport consistent with Circulation Element (LU
7.11)
O CD
7.3 Actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area (LU
7.3)
O CD
7.7 Expanded transit service to development sites in
Airport Area concurrent with development (LU 7.7)
O PW
8.3 Work with property owners to prepare area plans
for Broad Street area (LU 8.3)
O CD
2.11 Revise apartment standards to include usable
open space (LU 2.11.2) M
CD
2.12 Consider special downtown dev standards: New
residential density category between low &
medium (LU 2.12.A) M
CD
2.1 Identify, designate, and plan neighborhoods (LU
2.1.1, 2.15.A)
O
M
CD
2.11 Evaluate student housing needs, revise City
standards & zoning as appropriate (LU 2.11.1) M
CD
2.12 Consider special downtown dev standards: Added
dwellings on lots with existing houses (LU 2.12.B) M
CD
2.12 Consider special downtown development
standards: Mass & spacing standards (LU 2.12.C) M
CD
2.12 Consider special downtown dev standards:
Parking & coverage standards (LU 2.12.D) M
CD
2.12 Consider special downtown residential standards
(LU 2.12) M
CD
2.15 Devise strategies to stabilize owner/rental ratio
and maintain neighborhood character (LU 2.15.B) M
CD
3.7 Offer new development incentives for providing
child and elder care for employees (LU 3.7.1) M
CD
4.2 Survey downtown, rezone office, residential, and
mixed use areas (LU 4.2.2) M
CD
5.3 Work with the County to develop a City-County
downtown space needs plan (LU 5.3) M
PW
1.15 Plans capacity summary COG (LU 1.15.3) H CD
4.2 Develop a TDC program that includes
Commercial Core properties as receiver sites (LU
4.2.1) H
CD
6.0 Re-evaluate LU map based upon resource
mapping and revise as appropriate (LU 6.0.3) O H
CD
6.3 Revise Zoning Regulations to include provisions
for TDC's from outside URL to within URL (LU H
CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 11 -
6.3.2)
6.5 Removal man-made obstructions from creek
channels (LU 6.5.1.C) H
PW
8.1 Work with property owners to prepare area plans
for Madonna Road regional shopping area (LU
8.1) H
CD
8.2 Work with property owners to prepare area plans
for Foothill Boulevard area (LU 8.2) H
CD
Housing
1.4 Provide financial assistance for rehabilitation of
affordable rental and ownership units using
Federal, state and local housing funds (HE1.4)
O CD
1.5 Continue Code enforcement to expedite removal
of illegal/unsafe dwellings (HE 1.5)
O CD
1.6 Enact a rental inspection program to improve
condition of housing stock (HE1.6)
O CD
1.7 Continue to support local & regional solutions to
homelessness by funding programs such as
Maxine Lewis and Prado Center(HE1.7)
O CD
1.8 Create educational campaign to encourage
owners of older residences to conduct seismic
upgrades (HE 1.8) M
CD
2.5 Amend inclusionary requirement to provide more
ways for commercial development to meet
requirements (HE 2.5) M
CD
2.6 Prepare Criteria to sustainably manage the
Affordable Housing Fund (HE 2.6) M
CD
2.8 Review existing standards to remove regulations
that inhibit affordable housing production (HE 2.8)
O CD
2.9 Establish pemit streamlining for affordable
housing projects (HE2.9)
O CD
2.10 Pursue outside funding for payment of City impact
fees for affordable units (HE2.10)
O CD
2.11 If outside funding sources found, exempt
moderate income dwellings from impact fees (HE
2.11). Maintain current exemption for low to
extremely low income units.
O
CD
2.12 Help coordinate public/private sector actions to
develop housing to meet city needs (HE 2.12)
O CD
2.13 Assist with financial tools to develop or preserve
affordable housing (HE 2.13)
O CD
2.14 Adjust affordable housing standards to adress
HOA fees, utiities, etc. (HE 2.14) M
CD
2.15 Provide technical assistance to help preserve at-
risk units (HE 2.15)
O CD
2.16 Provide technical assistance to developers re:
design strategies to achieve affordable housing
(HE 2.16)
O
CD
2.17 Evaluate Inclusionary requirements and ability to
develop housing that meets RHNA (HE 2.17) M
CD
2.18 Evaluate workforce level of affordability (HE 2.18) M CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 12 -
2.19 Evaluate increasing residential densities on
appropriate sites for housing affordable to
extremely low income households (HE 2.19)
O CD
3.7 Develop an ordinance to discourage removal of
affordable housing (HE 3.7) M
CD
3.8 Correct unsanitary or unsafe housing conditions
by collaborating with agencies offering rehab
programs (HE 3.8)
O CD
3.9 Preserve dwellings in Downtown Core (HE 3.9) O CD
3.10 Identify properties eligible for historic listing and
assist property owners to repair, rehabilitate
properties (HE 3.10)
O CD
3.11 Amend Inclusionary requirements to allow
reduced term for rehabilitiated units (HE 3.11) M
CD
3.12 Establish a monitoring system to track affordable
units at risk of conversion (HE 3.12)
O CD
3.13 Encourage rehab of residential, commercial or
industrial buildings to expand rental housing
opportunities (HE 3.13)
O CD
4.5 Review new development for compliance with
mixed-income policies (HE 4.5)
O CD
5.5 Review new development for compliance with
housing variety and tenure policies (HE 5.5)
O CD
6.8 Maintain growth management exemption for
affordable housing and housing in Downtown core
(HE 6.8)
O CD
6.9 Amend Zoning & Parking Access Plan to allow
flexible regs for housing in Downtown Core (HE
6.9)
C CD
6.10 Provide incentives to encourage housing in
Downtown core (HE 6.10) M
CD
6.11 Include R-3 and R-4 zoned land in OASP to
accommodate extremely low to low income
housing (HE 6.11)
C CD
6.13 Consider GP amendments to rezone non-
residential land to higher density, infill or mixed
use - 13 sites listed (HE 6.12)
O
M
CD
6.13 Continue to support SLO Housing Trust Fund HE
6.13)
O CD
6.14 Encourage residential infill and densification over
new annexation of land (HE 6.14)
O CD
6.15 Seek opportunities with other public agencies to
develop surplus land for housing (HE 6.15)
O CD
6.16 Develop multi-family housing standards to
promote innovative higher density housing (HE
6.16) M
CD
6.17 Complete the OASP and obtain City authorization
to file annexation app (HE 6.17)
C CD
6.18 Financially assist lower income housing using
State, Fed & local sources (HE 6.18)
O CD
6.19 Actively seek new revenue sources for affordable
housing (HE 6.19)
O CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 13 -
6.20 Update Community design guidelines & amend
MC2.48 to exempt smaller residential
developments (HE 6.20)
C CD
6.21 Identify vacant or under-used City land for
housing (HE 6.21)
O CD
6.22 Prepare property profiles for properties suitable
for housing (HE 6.22) L
CD
6.23 Evaluate adding a Special Considerations overlay
to 46 acre County-owned property behind General
Hospital (HE 6.23) M
CD
6.24 Update Affordable Housing incentives to be
consistent with state law (HE 6.24)
C
M
CD
6.25 Evaluate increasing residential densities allowed
in CN, O and CD zones (HE 6.25) M
CD
6.26 Evaluate underlying lot patterns in R-2, R-3 and
R-4 zones for ability to meet density (HE 6.26) H
CD
6.27 Support residential infill and promote higher
density (HE 6.27)
O CD
6.28 Consider changes to SDU ordinance to provide
incentives to encourage production HE 6.28)
O
M
CD
6.29 Evaluate subdivision and zoning regs changes to
support small lot subdivisions & other alternatives
(HE 6.29) M
CD
7.8 Implement strategies to ensure residents are
aware of planning decisions affecting
neighborhoods (HE 7.8)
O CD
7.9 Identify specific neighborhood needs (HE 7.9) M CD
7.10 Help fund neighborhood improvements (HE 7.10) M CD
7.11 Continue to implement neighborhood parking
strategies (HE 7.11)
O CD
8.11 Support regional solutions to meet the needs of
the homeless (HE 8.11)
O CD
8.12 Continue mobile home park rent stabilization
program (HE 8.12)
O ADM
8.13 Identify sites suitable for mobile home parks, self-
help housing and others to meet special needs
(HE 8.13) M
CD
8.14 Advocate more housing and refurbishing campus
housing at Cal Poly (HE 8.14)
C CD
8.15 Work with Cal Poly to secure on-campus
fraternity/sorrority groups (HE 8.15) M
CD
8.16 Jointly implement a good neighbor program with
colleges for student housing in residential
neighborhoods (HE 8.16)
O ADM
8.17 Provide education regarding universal design (HE
8.17)
O CD
8.18 Solicit input on provisions for homeless shelters
from service agencies (HE 8.18)
O CD
8.19 Update zoning ordinance to allow homeless
shelters by right in zones subject to standards (HE
8.19)
C
M
CD
8.20 Continue to allow transitional housing and
supportive housIng in residential zones (HE 8.20)
O CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 14 -
8.21 Identify properties that can be converted to
affordable and supportive housing for homeless
persons (HE 8.21) M
CD
8.22 Update Community Design Guidelines to include
universal access standards (HE 8.22) M
CD
8.23 Develop a program addressing reasonable
accommodation procedures (HE 8.23)
O CD
8.24 Consider an overlay zone for existing and future
mobile home and trailer parks (HE 8.24) M
CD
9.6 Educate staff and advisory bodies on energy
conservation opportunities for housing (HE 9.6)
O CD
9.7 Evaluate solar regulations and revise local
regulations as needed (HE 9.7) M
CD
9.8 Adopt LID standards (HE 9.8) L CD
9.9 Develop an ordinance to increase production of
green housing units (HE 9.9) M
CD
9.10 Promote building materials reuse and recycling
(HE 9.10)
O CD
10.3 Work with County to mitigate housing impacts due
to expansion in areas adjacent to City (HE 10.3)
O CD
10.4 Encourage residential developers to promote
projects within SLO housing market first (HE 10.4)
O CD
10.5 Advocate link between enrollment and expansion
of campus housing for colleges (HE 10.5) M
CD
10.6 Advocate for state legislation to provide funding
for colleges to develop campus housing (HE 10.6) M
CD
11.3 Adopt measures to ensure ability of legal
conforming non-residential uses to continue where
new housing is proposed on or adjacent to sites
(HE 11.3)
C CD
Circulation
4.1 Revise zoning regulations to provide standards for
lockers, secured bicycle parking and showers (CI
4.1.5)
C CD
11.1 Encourage Airport Land Use Commission to
complete Airport Land Use Plan update (CI 11.1.2)
C CD
10.1 Amend Home Occupation regulations to preclude
regular home delivery by commercial trucks (CI
10.1.2)
C CD
15.1 Revise ARC guidelines to incorporate protection
of views from scenic roads (CI 15.1.2)
C CD
2.1 Recommend that county-wide trip reduction
include an AVR of 1.60 or larger (CI 2.1.2)
C PW
3.1 Encourage SLORTA to expand commuter bus
service to Cuesta & the Men's Colony (CI 3.1.4)
C PW
3.1 Cooperate with SLOCOG to evaluate centralized
transit services (CI 3.1.5)
C PW
4.1 Update the City bicycle plan (CI 4.1.2) C PW
4.1 Request Cal Poly & Cuesta to adopt bicycle plans
(CI 4.1.3)
C PW
4.1 Request Cal Poly & Cuesta to revise campus
master plans to encourage alternate transportation
C PW
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 15 -
(CI 4.1.4)
8.1 Maintain a computerized circulation system model
(CI 8.1.4)
C PW
9.1 Require a Project Study Report for Prado Road to
ensure proper sequence of improvements (CI
9.1.3)
C PW
9.1 Evaluate street designs as method to achieving
Conceptual Plan for City's Center (CI 9.1.5)
C PW
9.1 Evaluate feasibility of arterial between Santa
Barbara St & the S. end of Santa Rosa (CI 9.1.5)
C PW
9.1 Ask SLOCOG to monitor pattern of development
throughout County (CI 9.1.7.A)
C PW
9.1 Ask SLOCOG to study regional traffic needs
between SLO and the coast (CI 9.1.7.B)
C PW
12.1 Encourage SLOCOG to evaluate local rail service
(CI 12.1.2)
C PW
13.1 Periodically update the Parking Management Plan
(CI 13.1.1)
C PW
13.1 Build additional parking structures only after a
comprehensive parking study is done (CI 13.1.4)
C PW
13.1 Work with the Downtown Association to evaluate
curb parking in the downtown (CI 13.1.5)
C PW
16.1 Incorporate a Transportation Work Program into
the City financial plan (CI 16.1.1)
C PW
16.1 Adopt a transportation impact fee ordinance (CI
16.1.2)
C PW
3.1 Adopt 5 yr Transit Master Plans (CI 3.1.1) C PW
2.1 Cooperate with APCD & others to establish trip
reduction programs (CI 2.1.1)
O PW
3.1 Pursue goal of City employees reaching an AVR
of 1.7 or greater (CI 2.1.4)
O PW
3.1 Maintain a downtown trolley service (CI 3.1.3) O PW
4.1 Obtain RR ROW & easements for separated bike
path & pedestrian trail (CI 4.1.6) H
PW
4.1 Use street funds to maintain bicycle facilities (CI
4.1.7)
O PW
5.1 Pursue completion of the community sidewalk
system (CI 5.1.2) H
PW
5.1 Continue program of replacing existing curbs with
handicapped ramps (CI 5.1.3)
O PW
5.1 Work with schools to establish a "suggested
routes to school" program (CI 5.1.4)
O PW
6.3 Revise subdivision regulations to include ROW
and design standards (CI 6.3.2) M
PW
7.1 Adopt neighborhood traffic management plans (CI
7.1.1)
O PW
7.1 Undertake measures to control traffic in
residential areas (CI 7.1.2)
O PW
7.1 Organize neighborhood traffic calming workshops
(CI 7.1.3)
O PW
7.1 Upon request, analyze residential streets for O PW
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 16 -
livability (CI 7.1.4)
7.1 Non-safety City vehicles shouldn't use residential
local or collector streets as shortcuts (CI 7.1.5)
O PW
8.1 Establish on-going transportation monitoring
program (CI 8.1.2)
O PW
8.1 Conduct bi-annual transportation use survey (CI
8.1.3)
O PW
9.1 Establish building setback lines along Figure 4
routes (CI 9.1.1)
O PW
9.1 As part of Dalidio-Madonna-McBride
development, evaluation new road between W.
Prado Rd and LOVR (CI 9.1.8)
O PW
9.1 As part of Maino-Madonna development, evaluate
frontage road on west side of Highway 101 (CI
9.1.9)
O PW
10.1 Continue to provide reserved commercial truck
loading in downtown areas (CI 10.1.4)
O PW
12.1 Encourage daily morning & evening train service
both north & south (CI 12.1.1)
O PW
13.1 Monitor public parking in the commercial core (CI
13.1.2)
O PW
13.1 Work with CalTrans to consider park-and-ride lots
(CI 13.1.3)
O PW
15.1 Work with CalTrans to improve appearance of
Highway 101 (CI 15.1.1)
O
H
PW
16.1 Reevaluate all Circulation Element projects before
implementation (CI 16.1.3)
O PW
16.1 Major project proposals will include effects on the
nearby neighborhoods and entire city (CI 16.1.4)
O PW
3.1 Develop a bulk discount rate for monthly transit
passes (CI 3.1.2)
O PW
2.1 Support aggressive APCD programs for Cal Poly,
Cuesta and the Men's Colony (CI 2.1.3)
O PW
4.1 Encourage Cal Poly & Cuesta to provide
incentives to use alternate transportation (CI 4.1.1)
O PW
8.1 Cooperate with State & SLOCOG in evaluating
HOV lanes on State highways (CI 8.1.5) L
PW
10.1 Work with APCD to encourage trucks to turn off
idling motors when parked (CI 10.1.1) L
PW
15.1 Adopt a street corridor landscape plan for scenic
roadways (CI 15.1.3)
O CD
9.1 Ask CalTrans to designate Prado Road from
Broad to Highway 101 as Highway 227 (CI 9.1.2)
C
H
PW
3.1 Adopt 20 yr Transit Master Plans (CI 3.1.1) O M PW
3.1 Develop a comprehensive marketing to reach
target audiences (CI 3.1.6; CI 8.11) M
PW
8.0 Give priority to traffic programs identified in CI
8.0.1A with the greatest potential to reduce traffic
increases permitted by the City's Growth
Management Plan(CI 8.1.1) M
PW
5.1 Adopt a pedestrian transportation plan (CI 5.1.1) M PW
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 17 -
6.3 Develop joint design & construction standards
with County for streets within the URL (CI 6.3.1) H
PW
10.1 If LOS exceeded, limit truck delivery times in the
commercial core (CI 10.1.5) M
PW
9.1 Adopt a plan & standards for installation and
maintenance of street amenity improvements (CI
9.1.4)
O PW
11.1 Work with the ALUC to encourage quieter &
environmentally sensitive aircraft (CI 11.1.1) H
PW
2.1 Work with area employers on a voluntary trip
reduction program (CI 2.1.5) H
PW
Conservation and Open Space
3.6 Promote public awareness of cultural resources
through activities, including tours & clean-up
events (COSE 3.6.1.A.3)
C ADM
3.6 Assist the CHC in preparing archaeological
resource guidelines (COSE 3.6.5)
C ADM
3.6 Display artifacts which illuminate past cultures
(COSE 3.6.6)
C ADM
3.6 Expand ARC guidelines to address specific
guidance for new buildings in historic districts
(COSE 3.6.3)
C CD
7.7 Adopt creek setback requirements (COSE 7.7.9) C CD
7.7 Protect natural communities (COSE 7.7.1) O ADM
7.7 Preserve ecotones through changes to or
conditions on new development (COSE 7.7.7)
O ADM
7.7 Protect wildlife corridors through changes to or
conditions on new development (COSE 7.7.8)
O ADM
8.7 Acquire land or interests in land for open space;
seek variety of funding sources (COSE 8.7.1.D) O
ADM
8.7 Manage open space holdings and enforce open
space easements (COSE 8.7.1.E) O
ADM
8.7 Avoid imposing taxes or fees that discourage
open space or agriculture (COSE 8.7.1.K)
O ADM
8.7 Maintain the position of Natural Resources
Manager and consolidate open space functions
(COSE 8.7.1.M) O
ADM
8.7 Provide and maintain wildlife corridors thru or
under barriers to wildlife movement (COSE
8.7.2.E) O
ADM
8.7 Provide continuing community education on open
space values, programs, rules (COSE 8.7.2.G) O
ADM
8.7 Enlist volunteers and academic programs to
restore and monitor open space (COSE 8.7.2.H) O
ADM
8.7 Adopt conservation plans for open space under
City easement or fee ownership (COSE 8.7.2.J) O
ADM
9.3 Preserve the Morros, in cooperation with other
government agencies, non-profit land trusts and
property owners (COSE 9.3.12)
O ADM
8.7 Provide information on natural resources and land
conservation (COSE 8.7.1.I) O
ADM
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 18 -
10.3 Participate with other agencies in watershed
planning and management (COSE 10.3.2.E)
O ADM
3.6 Provide cultural resource awareness public
educational programs (COSE 3.6.6) O
ADM
3.6 Encourage partnering for preservation (COSE
3.6.7) O
ADM
3.5 Acquire in fee or partial interest in archaeological
sites (COSE 3.5.1)
O ADM
4.6 Promote technology and energy conservation
businesses (COSE 4.6.16)
O ADM
5.5 Maintain inventory of recycling businesses and
services (COSE 5.5.5)
O ADM
8.7 Improve interagency cooperation for open space
acquisition (COSE 8.7.1.J)
O ADM
8.7 Encourage sustainable agricultural practices, limit
grading and livestock near creeks (COSE 8.7.1.H) O
ADM
8.7 Enhance and restore open space (COSE 8.7.2) O ADM
8.7 Establish self-sustaining populations of native
species (COSE 8.7.2.B) O
ADM
8.7 Remove invasive non-native species and prevent
their introduction (COSE 8.7.2.C) O
ADM
8.7 Where possible, remove man-made elements
from open space areas (COSE 8.7.2.D) O
ADM
7.7 Replace invasive non-native vegetation with
native vegetation (COSE 7.7.6) O
ADM
3.6 Rehabilitate and maintain City-owned adobes and
historic structures (COSE 3.6.9) O
ADM
8.7 Protect open space resources (COSE 8.7.1) O ADM
8.7 Identify alternative funding tools for replanting
degraded creek sections (COSE 8.7.2.K) O
ADM
8.7 Acquire ownership/easements along creeks &
wetlands for drainage maintenance. & appropriate
public access (COSE 8.7.2 D, E, and F)
O ADM
8.7 Pursue means to protect open space (COSE
8.7.1)
O ADM
8.7 Pursue source of open space funding (COSE
8.7.1.D.2)
O ADM
8.7 Replace non-native creekside plants with native
species (COSE 8.7.2.B.2)
O ADM
2.2 Model air pollution behavior, help educate public
(COSE 2.2.5)
O CD
2.3 Monitor air quality and Clean Air Plan
implementation (COSE 2.3.2) O
CD
2.3 Consult with APCD on significant development
proposals (COSE 2.3.2, 4.6.18)
O CD
2.3 Promote alternative transportation/land use
strategies (COSE 2.3.3) O
CD
2.3 Amend the General Plan as needed to achieve air
quality goals (COSE 2.3.5)
O CD
3.6 Maintain and support the Cultural Heritage
Committee (COSE 3.6.1) O
CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 19 -
3.6 Maintain financial assistance program to
encourage preservation & restoration of historic
properties (COSE 3.6.2)
O CD
3.6 Implement historic preservation standards for
construction within historic districts (COSE 3.6.3) O
CD
3.6 Provide financial assistance and incentives for
historic preservation (COSE 3.6.2) O
CD
3.6 Sponsor educational programs to foster
appreciation of historic resources (COSE 3.6.6)
O CD
3.6 Promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings
(COSE 3.6.8) O
CD
3.6 Implement Cultural Heritage Committee
Whitepaper (COSE 3.6.10)
C CD
4.6 Reduce obstacles to energy conservation (COSE
4.6.4)
O CD
4.6 Administer State Building Energy Standards
(COSE 4.6.7) O
CD
4.6 Encourage energy-efficient design in private
development projects (COSE 4.6.8) O
CD
4.6 Address solar access in new development (COSE
4.6.9)
O CD
4.6 Require solar power for new dwellings (COSE
4.6.17)
O CD
4.6 Seek Air Pollution Control District support for
maintaining air quality (COSE 4.6.18) O
CD
5.5 Ensure new development projects include space
for materials recycling/storage (COSE 5.5.8) O
CD
7.7 Maintain creek setbacks (COSE 7.7.9) O CD
8.7 Maintain Urban Reserve location (COSE 8.7.1.A) O CD
8.7 Promote open space by applying C/OS and
Agriculture zoning (COSE 8.7.1.B) O
CD
8.30 Set subdivision and new development conditions
consistent with General Plan (COSE 8.30.1.C) O
CD
8.7 Set conditions of subdivisions and development
approvals consistent w/ General Plan (COSE
8.7.1.C) O
CD
8.7 Encourage transfer of development credit from
open space lands (COSE 8.7.1.F)
O CD
9.3 Maintain and apply Sign Regulations consistent
with the General Plan (COSE 9.3.3) O
CD
9.3 Conduct environmental and architectural review
consistent with General Plan (COSE 9.3.4) O
CD
9.3 Require visual assessments for projects affecting
important scenic resources and views from public
places (COSE 9.3.5)
O CD
9.3 Determine that view blockage along a scenic
roadway is a significant impact (COSE 9.3.6)
O CD
9.3 Review development in unincorporated County for
consistency with General Plan (COSE 9.3.7)
O CD
9.3 Prohibit billboards (COSE 9.3.10) C CD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 20 -
9.3 Establish and maintain a program of describing
and monitoring viewsheds within and adjacent to
City limits to establish a photographic baseline of
visual setting (COSE 9.3.13)
O CD
10.3 Identify and protect groundwater recharge areas
to maintain suitable groundwater levels and to
protect groundwater quality and potential City
water sources (COSE 10.3.2.I)
O CD
4.6 Encourage sustainable employee commuting
practices (COSE 4.6.5) O
HR
8.7 Remove trash and contaminants with minimum
disruption to open space areas (COSE 8.7.2.F) O
P&R
2.3 Provide alternative transportation incentives
(COSE 2.3.4) O
PW
4.6 Promote Sustainable design in City facilities
(COSE 4.6.3) O
PW
5.5 Use materials with reduced environmental
impacts in City operations and facilities (COSE
5.5.4) O
PW
7.7 Implement natural communities policies through
the Tree Committee (COSE 7.7.9) O
PW
8.7 Locate, design and operate City facilities
consistent with General Plan (COSE 8.7.1.G) O
PW
9.3 Locate and design public facilities and utilities
consistent with General Plan (COSE 9.3.1) O
PW
9.3 Place underground existing overhead utilities, with
highest priority for scenic roadways, entries to the
City, and historic districts (COSE 9.3.9)
O PW
2.3 Employ best available practices in City operations
(COSE 2.3.1) O
UT
4.6 Promote efficient City energy use (COSE 4.6.1) O UT
4.6 Promote energy conservation education (COSE
4.6.6) O
UT
4.6 Retrofit City facilities for energy savings (COSE
4.6.10) O
UT
5.5 Use materials efficiently in City operations
(computer technology and copying) (COSE 5.5.1) O
UT
5.5 Promote City materials reuse and recycling
(COSE 5.5.2) O
UT
5.5 Coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts
(COSE 5.5.3)
O UT
8.7 Establish positive relationships with landowners
and conservation organizations (COSE 8.7.1.L) O
UT
10.3 Use water efficiently (COSE 10.3.1) O UT
10.3 Promote use of water-conserving landscape
design and plant materials (COSE 10.3.1.A) O
UT
10.3 Encourage landscape maintenance and irrigation
design to conserve water. (COSE 10.3.1) O
UT
10.3 Facilitate use of tertiary-treated water and seek
legalization of grey water for non-potable
household uses (COSE 10.3.1)
C UT
10.3 Promote water conservation through leak control
in all plumbing systems (COSE 10.3.1)
O UT
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 21 -
10.3 Maintain water quality (COSE 10.3.2) O UT
10.3 Design and operate water supply, treatment and
distribution systems to prevent adverse effects on
water quality (COSE 10.3.2.A) O
UT
10.3 Design and operate wastewater collection and
treatment systems to prevent adverse effects on
water quality (COSE 10.3.2.B)
O UT
10.3 Regulate design, construction and operation of
City facilities to protect water quality (COSE
10.3.2.C) O
UT
10.3 Regulate design of private water facilities to
protect water quality (COSE 10.3.2.D)
O UT
4.6 Seek financial assistance for energy efficiency
improvements in City facilities (COSE 4.6.11) O
UT
4.6 Manage City operations for energy self-reliance
(COSE 4.6.2) O
UT
5.5 Expand City public information efforts on energy
and materials conservation goals (COSE 5.5.6) O
UT
10.3 Coordinate erosion control in watershed w/
County & property owners (COSE 10.3.2.)
O PW
3.5 Establish and maintain records of archaeological
sites (COSE 3.5.9)
O
M
ADM
8.7 Establish performance standards for open
space/agricultural buffers (COSE 8.7.1.N) M
ADM
3.6 Prepare post-disaster historic preservation
standards (COSE 3.6.4)
C
M
CD
3.6 Update archaeological resource preservation
standards (COSE 3.6.5)
C CD
9.3 Update community design guidelines to address
views from scenic routes (COSE 9.3.2) M
CD
9.3 Advocate State and County scenic highway
designations and protective programs for scenic
routes connecting San Luis Obispo with other
communities (COSE 9.3.8) M
CD
4.6 Monitor energy use in City facilities and prepare
biannual report for City Council (COSE 4.6.12)
O UT
8.7 Inventory natural areas that have been degraded;
prioritize list of restoration sites (COSE 8.7.2.A) H
ADM
4.6 Prepare energy conservation plan for City
facilities (COSE 4.6.13) M
CD
4.6 Adopt green building standards (COSE 4.6.14) H CD
10.3 Prevent storage of biological or chemical pollution
from locating in flood zones (COSE 10.3.2.F) H
CD
9.3 Remove existing billboards through amortization,
conditions of development approval and grants for
enhancing open space and transportation
corridors (COSE 9.3.11) H
CD
9.3 City & County enforce an amortization program
for billboard removal along scenic roadways
(COSE 9.3.11) H
PW
10.3 Establish standards for non-point source water
pollution in cooperation with RWQCB (COSE
10.3.2.G)
O PW
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 22 -
10.3 Establish a program for baseline water quality
testing in City creeks (COSE 10.3.2.H)
O UT
4.6 Consider City-owned green energy utility (COSE
4.6.15) H
UT
Noise
1.12 Review public and private development proposals
for Noise Element conformance (N 1.12)
O CD
1.13 Require noise studies early in the review process
when project noise may exceed allowable limits
(N1.13)
O CD
1.14 Assure that noise mitigation measures are
carried-out during construction (N1.14)
O CD
1.15 Monitor compliance with mitigation measures after
project completion (N1.15)
O CD
Safety
9.19 Establish complaint-based code compliance for all
buildings (S 9.19.C)
C CD
9.19 Implement City-adopted program on Unreinforced
masonry buildings (S 9.19.D)
C CD
9.3 Set response-time objective for Public Works (S
9.3.C)
C PW
9.3 Evaluate fire-flow and identify deficiencies (S 9.3) C UT
9.4 Train building & planning staff in lessons from
previous disaster areas (S 9.4.B)
O CD
9.19 Establish routine code inspections for
commercial, industrial, public-assembly, & group
housing (S 9.19.B)
O CD
9.19 Provide outreach program for earthquake bracing
of wood-frame buildings (S 9.19.E)
O CD
9.20 Administer zoning, subdivision, & Architectural
standards consistent with police & fire
recommendations (S 9.20)
O CD
9.21 Fire, police, public works, & utilities review
development applications for safety objectives (S
9.21)
O CD
9.22 Maintain & administer building regulations in
conformance with State requirements (S 9.22)
O CD
8.2 Review emergency response plans of utilities and
transportation agencies (S 8.2.5.B)
O FD
9.7 Establish emergency operation center in Fire
Station 1 and backups sites (S 9.7)
C FD
9.9 Keep Multi-hazard Emergency Response Plans
current (S 9.9)
O FD
9.2 Maintain and annually update emergency
response plan (S 9.2)
O FD
9.3 Meet response-time objective of four minutes (S
9.3.A)
O FD
9.6 Work w/CalTrans on hazardous materials
approved routes and related safety precautions (S
9.6.C)
O FD
9.8 Expand and keep current safety-related
information (S 9.8)
O FD
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 23 -
9.10 Work with other jurisdictions on mutual-aid &
automatic-aid agreements (S 9.10)
O FD
9.15 Support education programs for lower grades to
teach fire hazards (S 9.15.D)
O FD
9.22 Maintain & administer fire regulations in
conformance with State requirements (S 9.22)
O FD
9.4 Train fire fighters, police, building inspectors,
public works, & utilities staff (S 9.4.A)
O FD
9.4 Conduct non-nuclear disaster-response exercises
(S 9.4.C)
O FD
9.5 Obtain information about specific location & type
of fire & toxic hazards (S 9.5)
O FD
9.6 Participate in periodic regional disaster-response
drills (S 9.6.A)
O FD
9.11 Prepare for post-disaster recovery (S 9.11) O FD
9.15 Develop program to familiarize residents with fire
hazards and appropriate responses (S 9.15.A)
O FD
9.15 Promote efforts of the Fire Safe Council (S
9.15.B)
O FD
9.15 Continue CERT training program (S 9.15.C) O FD
9.16 Help organizations that provide emergency
outreach & education (S 9.16)
O FD
9.17 Encourage & participate in individual home
inspection programs (S 9.17)
O FD
9.23 Conduct fire & hazardous materials inspections in
commercial, industrial, & multifamily buildings (S
9.23)
O FD
8.1 Identify and maintain or remove hazardous trees
for City property and assist property owners (S
8.1)
O PW
9.3 Set response-time objective for Utilities (S 9.3.C) C UT
9.19 Identify & evaluate facility hazards for City owned
property (S 9.19.A)
C
M
PW
Parks and Rec
6.0 Add fields in Damon-Garcia Sports Complex (PR
6.0.6)
C P&R
3.16 Update & improve indoor facilities (PR 3.16.3) C P&R
3.18 Construct a therapy pool at the SLO Swim Center
(PR 3.18.1.2)
C P&R
3.19 Pursue joint use of SLO High School swimming
pool (PR 3.19.2)
C P&R
4.3 Accommodate schedules of working people (PR
4.3.3.2)
C P&R
5.1 Develop collaborative fee exchange with
S.L.C.U.S.D. (PR 5.1.1)
C P&R
6.1 Upgrade Recreation Center to provide interim
community center (PR 6.1.1)
C P&R
6.0 Develop joint use agreements with other agencies
in addition to schools (PR 6.0.3)
C P&R
6.2 Construct mini-parks at Purple Sage Drive (PR
6.2.1)
C P&R
6.2 Construct mini-park at Marsh & Santa Rosa (PR C P&R
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 24 -
6.2.1)
3.14 Partner with schools and other joint users to
renovate existing sports fields (PR 3.14.1)
O P&R
3.19 Continue the Playground Equipment Replacement
Program (PR 3.19.1)
O P&R
4.2 Regularly evaluate demand and need and modify
as appropriate (PR 4.2.2.1)
O P&R
4.2 Conduct periodic public evaluations of services
(PR 4.2.2.2)
O P&R
4.2 Regularly publicize recreational opportunities (PR
4.2.2.3)
O P&R
4.2 Consider needs of underserved groups (PR
4.2.2.4)
O P&R
4.2 Avoid duplication of commercial programs (PR
4.2.3)
O P&R
4.2 Collaborate with groups providing high risk
programs in open space areas (PR 4.2.8)
O P&R
4.3 Recruit at-risk youth to participate in activities (PR
4.3.2.1)
O P&R
4.3 Collaborate with other agencies in serving at-risk
youth (PR 4.3.2.2)
O P&R
4.3 Evaluate services to determine benefits (PR
4.3.3.1)
O P&R
4.3 Prioritize new activities from results of public input
(PR 4.3.3.3)
O P&R
4.3 Continue to maintain publicly accessible open
space trails (PR 4.3.6)
O P&R
6.0 Continue to improve existing fields (PR 6.0.1) O P&R
6.0 Transition from multi-use to single use fields (PR
6.0.2)
O P&R
6.0 Develop new programs to not conflict with existing
field use (PR 6.0.4)
O P&R
6.0 Ensure athletic fields are provided within new
residential development (PR 6.0.5)
O P&R
6.0 Consider additional fields for needs not addressed
with Damon Garcia fields (PR 6.0.6)
O P&R
6.1 Consider revenue enhancement to fund new
community center (PR 6.1.3)
O P&R
6.2 Support neighbor efforts to develop mini-parks
(PR 6.2.2)
O P&R
6.3 Design new parks so they can connect to
recreational trails (PR 6.3.3)
O P&R
6.3 Connect existing parks & open space with trails
(PR 6.3.4)
O P&R
6.4 Schedule "unmet needs" projects through the CIP
process (PR 6.4.1)
O P&R
6.4 Look for alternatives to address unmet needs
projects (PR 6.4.2)
O P&R
6.3 Acquire open space property to construct trails
(PR 6.3.1)
O P&R
6.3 Use a variety of techniques to acquire open space
(PR 6.3.2)
O P&R
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 25 -
3.16 Acquire property and construct a community
center (PR 3.16.2) H
P&R
3.17 Implement the revised Laguna Lake Park Master
Plan (PR 3.17.1 & PR 6.5.1) H
P&R
3.18 Implement the revised Sinsheimer Park Master
Plan (PR 3.18.1.1 & PR 6.5.1) H
P&R
Water and Wastewater
A2.3 Work cooperatively on regional water issues &
resource planning (WW A2.3.1)
O UT
A2.3 Participate with SLO County in Integrated
Regional Water Mgmt Plan (WW A2.3.2)
O UT
A2.3 Participate with other appropriate agencies in
controlling invasive species which could impact
water supplies (WW A2.3.3)
O UT
A2.3 Work with agencies to minimize water quality
impacts (WW A2.3.4)
O UT
A2.3 Continue to work with SLO County-operation of
Salinas Reservor & Nacimiento project (WW
A2.3.5)
O UT
A2.3 Complete sanitary surveys for Salinas & Whale
Rock reservoirs every five years (WW A2.3.6) L
UT
A3.3 Provide water resource update to Council as part
of annual report (WW A3.3.1)
O UT
A3.3 Update safe annual yield computer model for
Salinas & Whale Rock reservoirs following drought
periods (WW A3.3.2)
C UT
A3.3 Monitor ongoing research for potential long term
impacts to water supplies from climate change
(WW A3.3.3)
O UT
A4.3 Work with other agencies to implement Best
Management Practices to reduce siltation (WW
A4.3.1)
O UT
A4.3 Continue education & outreach to owners in
watersheds to reduce siltation (WW A4.3.2)
O UT
A4.3 Consider periodic siltation studies at each
reservoir (WW A4.3.3) M
UT
A4.3 Provide annual update on siltation to Council
(WW A4.3.4)
O UT
A5.3 Provide annual update on water supply & demand
projections to Council (WW A.5.3.1)
O UT
A5.3 Conduct periodic updates to water development
impact fees (WW A5.3.2)
O UT
A5.3 Prepare Urban Water Management Plan every
five years (WW A5.3.3)
O UT
A5.3 Prepare water supply assessments for large new
developments (WW A5.3.4)
O UT
A5.3 Analyze water efficiency program impacts to
overall reduction in water demand (WW A5.3.5)
O UT
A6.3 Work with SLO County water agencies to identify
cooperative water efficiency measures (WW
A6.3.1)
O UT
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
- 26 -
A6.3 Participate in state & regional water conservation
efforts (WW A6.3.2)
O UT
A6.3 Implement Water Shortage Contingency Plan as
required (WW A6.3.3)
O UT
A7.3 Expand recycled water distribution system (WW A
7.3.1)
O UT
A7.3 Review development projects to ensure recycled
water is used appropriately (WW A7.3.2)
O UT
A7.3 Present annual recycled water use as part of
annual report to Council (WW A7.3.3)
O UT
A7.3 Consider delivery of recycled water to customers
outside City limits (WW A7.3.4) M
UT
B2.3 Expand capacity in collection system and Water
Reclamation Facility (WW B2.3.1) H
UT
B2.3 Evaluate wastewater flows of proposed projects
(WW B2.3.2)
O UT
B2.3 Conduct periodic updates to wastewater
development impact fees (WW B2.3.3)
O
H
UT
B3.3 Prepare & implement Water Reclamation Facilty
master plan (WW B3.3.1)
O UT
B3.3 Work cooperatively on regional water quality
issues (WW B3.3.2)
O UT
B4.3 Investigate cost-effective methods for reducing
infiltration and inflow to the wastewater collection
system (WW B4.3.1) H
UT
B4.3 Provide education and outreach regarding
infiltration and inflow (WW B4.3.2)
O UT
B4.3 Support retrofit of sewer laterals to reduce
infiltration and inflow (WW B4.3.3)
O UT
B4.3 Update Sewer System Management Plan to
maintain its applicability (WW B4.3.4)
O UT
B4.3 Maintain master plans for wastewater service to
developing areas of City (WW B4.3.5)
O UT
B4.3 Review development proposals to ensure
necessary infrastructure is in place (WW B4.3.6)
O UT
B4.3 Provide a Pretreatment Program pursuant to
Clean Water Act (WW B4.3.7)
O UT
ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 27 -
STATUS OF ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAMS
STATUS AS OF October 2014
Lead Compl Difficulty to Complete
No. Dept Implementation Program Summary Or
Ongoing Low Med High
1 CDD 2.2.2a Development subject to 20 ft setback
from creek.
O
2 CDD 2.2.2b Development subject to 30 ft. setback
from wetland habitat
O
3 CDD 2.2.2c Development subject to 20 ft. setback
from riparian/wetland mitigation areas & fenced.
O
4 ADM 2.2.3a Create 1.94 acres of wetland & 2.76
acres of riparian enhancement.
O
5 ADM 2.2.3b Allow filling of .78 acres of isolated
agricultural wetland seeps on hill.
O
6 ADM 2.2.4a Allow .12 acres of creek fill for 3 bridge
crossings.
O
7 CDD 2.2.4b All creek channel modifications to comply
with Drainage Design Manual & any other
required permits from Army Corps or Fish and
Game.
O
8 ADM 2.2.5a Plant native species between trails/rec
features and wetland/riparian habitat
O
9 ADM 2.2.5b Provide educational signage re: wetland
& creek habitats on public trails and OS.
O
10 ADM 2.2.9a City will manage Righetti Hill open space
in accordance with City Standards.
O
11 ADM 2.2.9b City will provide & maintain access to
Righetti Hill. City will development a
management plan consistent with COSE.
O
12 CDD 2.2.10a Landowner maintains right to existing
#structures & will manage parcel consistent with
Open Space standards.
O
13 CDD 2.3.3a 16.3 acres of active & passive parkland to
be provided with development. City will pursue 4
acres of joint use with SLCUSD with new school
development nearby.
O
14 CDD 2.3.3b 12 acre park to be developed: 10 acres to
be dedicated w/Phase I development
O
15 PR 2.3.3c 2.5 acre junction park to be developed
when impact fees are available.
O
16 CDD 2.3.3d 1.5 acres of linear park to be developed
w/bike path adj to stormwater basin.
O
17 CDD 2.3.3e 4 acres of park to be provided by a joint
use facility when elementary school is
O
ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 28 -
developed.
18 CDD 2.3.4a Subdivisions may provide parkland in lieu
of fee payment if findings can be made.
O
19 CDD 2.4.1a 20 ft landscaped setback from Orcutt and
Tank Farm Roads.
O
20 CDD 2.4.1b Parcels adjacent to Tank Farm & Orcutt
are sensitive sites & require ARC review.
O
21 CDD 2.4.1c ARC shall review landscape plans -
cluster trees and screen views of new structures.
O
22 CDD 2.4.1d Buildings on sensitive parcels shall not
include 2nd story unless 2nd floor is set back by
50 ft.
O
23 CDD 2.4.1e PC shall review design of sensitive lots
during subdivision review to ensure views are
maintained
O
24 CDD 2.4.1f ARC design review of units along Tank
Farm & Orcutt for compatibility & views of hill
O
25 CDD 2.4.1g E street residences shall not be visible
from Orcutt/Tank Farm intersection
O
26 CDD 2.4.1h R-1 subdivision at west base of Righetti
Hill - preserve views from D street to hill
O
27 CDD 2.5.1a Implement environmental mitigation
measures with entitlements as appropriate.
O
28 CDD 3.2.19a Provide public plaza/seating areas
adjacent to A/B streets intersection.
O
29 CDD 3.2.19 b Commercial uss to occupay ground
floor of primary commercial area.
O
30 CDD 3.2.19c Provide commercial development
incentives: additional story, parking reduction,
exemption from OASP add-on fees.
O
31 PW 3.2.24a Right-to-farm ordinance notification for
real property transfers.
O
32 CDD 3.2.24b Ag activities to be phased out by project
build-out. Existing uses legally-established
subject to Non-conforming uses under Zoning
Code.
O
33 CDD 3.3.4a City will support affordable housing in
area through state and local density bonus
incentives.
O
34 CDD 3.4.1a Geotech study required for each project
site prior to development.
O
35 CDD 3.4.1b All structures & development shall meet
appropriate codes (Building & Transportation).
O
36 CDD 3.4.2a Sites not previously surveyed shall
conduct a Phase I site assessment.
O
ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 29 -
37 CDD 3.4.2b Environmental assessment reqd prior to
public access or development for buidlings
associated with ag uses and 55 gallon drums in
plan area.
O
38 CDD 3.5.2a-h Performance standards for airport
compatibility.
O
39 CDD 4.1.1a Encourage archtectural styles:
Craftsman, CA Bungalow, CA Mission themes
O
40 CDD 4.1.1b Design Standards for R-1 and R-2
districts.
O
41 CDD 4.1.1c Design Guidelines for R-1 and R-2
districts.
O
42 CDD 4.1.1d Design Standards for R-3 and R-4
development
O
43 CDD 4.1.1e Design Guidelines for R-3 and R-4
development
O
44 CDD 4.1.2a Residential design - use local streets to
enhance neighborhood atmosphere
O
45 CDD 4.1.2b Design features (porches, entryways,
yards) to strengthen connections.
O
46 CDD 4.1.2c Encourage universally accessible entries
to residences.
O
47 PW 4.2.3a Traffic calming design for intersection of
A and B streets
O
48 CDD 4.2.3b Mixed use commercial area near
intersection of A&B streets to have 2 public
plazas. Adjacent buildings to be 2 stories tall.
O
49 CDD 4.2.3c Southern part of intersction of A&B
streets to be landscaped.
O
50 CDD 4.2.4a Building setbacks from A Street defined O
51 CDD 4.2.4b Trees in tree wells for whole mixed use
area
O
52 CDD 4.2.4c Mixed-use building facades, materials,
entries, windows to be consistent with one
another.
O
53 CDD 4.2.1a Use figures 3.1 and 3.2 when reviewing
intersection plans for A and B streets
O
54 CDD 4.2.1b Height ordinance allowed to be relaxed to
enable architectural features.
O
55 CDD 4.3.4a Final landscape plan to include details &
not use invasive non-native plant species.
O
56 CDD 4.3.4b List of plants not be be planted in OASP. O
57 CDD 4.4.3a OASP lighting standards - style, height,
efficiency, sheilding, type, etc.
O
58 CDD 4.5.1a 160 ft wide distance buffer from train
tracks to residential areas.
O
59 CDD 4.5.1b Add landscaped berm or sound wall
where buffer is not adequate for noise.
O
ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 30 -
60 CDD 4.5.1c Orient residential uses and outdoor areas
away from railroad tracks.
O
61 CDD 4.5.1d Put parking lots between residence and
railroad tracks.
O
62 CDD 4.5.1e Locate sensitive uses within residences
away from tracks.
O
63 CDD 4.5.1f Use insulating construction to reduce
noise.
O
64 CDD 4.5.2a Set outdoor activity areas 80' back from
Orcutt and Tank Farm Rd to reduce noise.
O
65 CDD 4.5.2b Locate sensitive uses within residences
away from roads.
O
66 CDD 4.5.2c 60 ft wide distance buffer from Orcutt and
Tank Farm Rd to residences.
O
67 CDD 4.5.2d Use insulating construction to reduce
noise.
O
68 CDD 4.7.2 Building placement & construction to
maximize passive systems for heating, cooloing
& lighting.
O
69 CDD 4.7.2b Use shade, skylights, daylight controls, &
glazing to maximize energy savings.
O
70 CDD 4.7.2c Residential developments of >5
units/non-residential uses >5,000 sq ft shall
comply with green building criteria
O
71 CDD 4.7.2d 5% of all single family units shall use
photovoltaics. Increase this percentage by 4%
each year.
O
72 CDD 4.7.3a Energy star compliant appliances
required for dwellings.
O
73 CDD 4.7.3b Use CFLs where possible. O
74 PW 5.1.1 Orcutt Rd to have a continuous 2-way left-
turn lane, Class II bike lane, & curb/gutter
between Johnson and Tank Farm.
O
75 PW 5.1.2 Tank Farm to be widened at D St,
Brookpine & Wavertree w/left turn lanes.
O
76 PW 5.1.3 Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection realignment
to be completed in Phase I.
O
77 PW 5.2.1 Collector streets will be single lane of
travel in each direction.
O
78 PW 5.2.2 A St. shall have Class II bike lanes &
separated sidewalks & no parking (except
adjacent to neigbhorhood commercial area) on
both sides.
O
79 PW 5.2.3 B St. development standards. O
80 PW 5.2.4 C St. development standards. O
81 PW 5.2.5 D St. development standards. O
82 PW 5.2.6 Bullock Ln to be extended to connect with
traffic circle at B & C streets.
O
ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 31 -
83 PW 5.2.7 Traffic circle to be built at B and C street
intersections.
O
84 PW 5.2.8 Shared driveway access for A, B, C, & D
streets ok. Limited private drives ok.
O
85 PW 5.3.1 E St development standards O
86 CDD 5.3.2 Allow alley area to count towards net site
area for density determination.
O
87 PW 5.4.1 Bus routes, stops & pullout areas to be
determined by City transit.
O
88 PW 5.5.1 Bike trail connections descriptions O
89 PW 5.5.2 Neighborhood park bike trail path
description
O
90 PW 5.5.3 Tank Farm & Orcutt Road bike paths and
bike bridge over Industrial Way
O
91 PW 7.2.2a Circulation & road widths shall
accommodate Fire Dept emergency access.
O
92 PW 7.2.2b Public fire hydrants reqd. Adequate
water volumes to support fire hydrants for fire
protection needs.
O
93 FD 7.2.2c Buildings shall have fire sprinkler systems
per SLOFD requirements.
O
MID-HIGUERA AREA ENHANCEMENT PLAN
- 32 -
STATUS OF MID-HIGUERA AREA ENHANCEMENT PLAN
STATUS AS OF October 2014
Lead
Complete
Difficulty
to
Complete
No. Dept Implementation Program Summary Or
Ongoing Low Medium High
1 ADM Plant native veg along creek. Acquire
land on fwy side of creek & propety on
east side of creek between City prop &
Marsh Street bridge for open space
(Crk-a) H
2 ADM Improve open space at south end of
Brook St. (PPO-d) M
15 PW Restripe street spaces & reduce
driveway ramps (Pkg-b) M
3 P&R Acquire CalTrans property & develop
park (PPO-a) H
4 PW Modify or replace Marsh St bridge if
desirable to align w/Higuera- Marsh
(Flood-a) H
5 PW Install bypass overflow channel
parallel to creek on City-owned OS
(Flood-b) H
6 PW Coordinate other flood-planning
improvements (Flood-c.) H
7 PW Widen Higuera to four lanes w/bike
lanes & median & mid-block turns
(Circ-a) H
8 PW Realign Bianchi Ln w/ High St. (Circ-
b) H
9 PW Realign Pacific St. Close Walker St.
Landscape Walker closed area (Circ-
c) H
10 PW Parker St- CGS, trees, benches,
lighting. Higuera - trees, lighting &
benches.Madonna- landscaped
median.Underground utilities &
remove billboards (Circ-d) H
11 PW Extend Brook St. w/Caltrans site
(Circ-e) H
12 PW Install bikeway along creek with
bridge (Crk-b) H
13 PW Construct ped path on east side of
creek. Add benches, public art &
interpretive displays & bridges (Crk-c) H
MID-HIGUERA AREA ENHANCEMENT PLAN
- 33 -
14 PW Establish a Mid-Higuera Area parking
committee & consider parking
assessment dist (Pkg-a) H
16 PW Review shared use parking & expand
to distribute parking (Pkg-c) H
17 PW Lease or purchase 2 public parking
lots (Pkg-d) H
18 PW Acquire & improve public parking near
Archer/Walker/Higuera & Parker/High
(Pkg-e) H
19 PW Complete street improvements
including ped amenities (Pkg-f) H
20 PW Establish in-lieu parking fee for the
Mid-Higuera Area (Pkg-g) H
21 PW Add transit stops w/shelter, benches
& signage for the Mid-Higuera area.
(Pub-a & Pub-b) H
22 PW Develop mini-plaza at Walker (PPO-b) H
23 PW Provide info kiosks at strategic places
for peds as part of the Mid-Higuera
Enhancement Plan. (PPO-c) H
24 PW Acquire & maintain OS along creek &
install bridges & imps (PPO-e) H
RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 34 -
STATUS OF RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAMS
STATUS AS OF October 2014
Lead
Comp Difficulty to Complete
No. Dept Implementation Program Summary Ongoing Low Med High
1 PW Install traffic signals at Upham (4.1B) C
2 ADM Use CIPs & economic revitalization tools to
promote area (2.9C) O
3 CD Limit noise & emissions from engine idling
between 10pm and 6am (3.1M) O
4 CD Ped Circulation Plan, Bike Transp. Plan,
Circulation Element, and RR District Plan to be
consistent (2.7B) O
5 CD Identify code violations & work with owners to
correct (2.8C) O
6 PW Rehabilitate historic SP Freight warehouse
(1.11)
- 4 construct phases & roof repair completed C
7 PW Install Curb, gutter, boardwalk & trees along
Santa Barbara, High, Roundhouse, Emily &
South Street (4.1D) O H
8 CD Clearly communicate with property owners,
railroad & ops staff (3.1I) O
9 CD Encourage added public telephones or
emergency call boxes (2.7E) M
10 PW Install pedestrian crosswalks at Leff & Upham
streets (4.1A) M
- Upham Crosswalk complete, Leff still
needed
11 PW Widen Santa Barbara Street from Broad to
Upham - including left turn pocket (4.1C) C
12 CD Install standard gauge railroad track to display
of historic railroad cars (1.12) H
13 CD Install historic markers & improved walk of
history describing RR features (1.14) H
14 CD Public access to RR bikeway provided with
Villa Rosa development (1.17) H
15 CD Consider MU zone to allow broader range of
uses (2.9D) H
16 CD Consider CDBG funds for business loans and
rehabilitation grants (3.1K) H
RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 35 -
17 CD Enforce property screening & maintenance
along ROW (3.1N) H
18 CD Rehabilitate historic water tower to 1940s
condition & update historic marker (1.6) H
19 PW Evaluate assessment district to pay for
undergrounding utilities (3.1O) H
20 PW Construct bikeway on land adjacent to
Johnson Ave for Southbound bicyclists (1.1) H
21 PW Install bridge off Johnson Ave for bikeway
north to Cal Poly (1.2) H
22 PW Install pedestrian bridge over RR linking
Fairview with Penny Lane (1.3) H
23 PW Install bikeway & trail linking east side of RR
tracks to signal on Johnson @Lizzie St (1.4) H
24 PW Install new bikeway along both sides of RR
ROW (1.5) H
- Partial improvements completed,
significant improvements still remain
25 PW Expand passenger loading zone in parking lot
north of depot (1.7) H
26 PW Install textured concrete paving & crosswalks,
ped lighting, trees & signage @ Leff and Osos
(1.8) H
27 PW Plant palm trees on 50-100 ft centers (1.9) H
28 PW Acquire land & construct a multi-modal transit
center with parking, shelter, restrooms, info,
bike storage, lockers etc (1.10) H
29 PW Install street paving, curb, gutter, wood
sidewalks, street trees, lighting, & signage on
Railroad Ave, Osos, Santa Barbara, High,
Emily and Roundhouse Streets (1.13) H
- Santa Barbara Street improvements
complete; other improvements remain
30 PW Install bikeway between Alphonso and Emily
streets (1.15) H
31 PW Install ped/bike crossing for access from
Stoneridge/Lawrence Dr./Villa Rosa
neighborhoods to Sinsheimer Park (1.16) H
32 PW Improve bike/ped undercrossing to Sinsheimer
Park (1.18) H
33 PW Install bikeway linking RR bikeway with
Augusta /Southwood Drive neighborhood
through creek & park areas (1.19) H
34 PW Replace/repair fencing, remove trash & install
landscaping along fence line (1.20) H
RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 36 -
35 PW Encourage expanded parking & staging area
for bikes (1.21) H
36 PW CIPs to install improvements at Emily,
Roundhouse, High, Church, Santa Barbara &
Osos for paving, curbs, lighting, boardwalks,
signage & trees (2.7C) H
37 PW Consider special engineering standards for
district public improvements (2.7D) H
38 PW Improve traffic circ-expand public transit,
bikeways, & widen Santa Barbara (3.1H) O
- Santa Barbara Street improvements 90%
complete; other improvements remain
39 PW Improve passenger loading facilities at depot
parking area (3.1J) H
40 PW Use RR parking lease funds to improve
parking enforcement, & lot appearance (3.1L) H
41 PW Install additional traffic signage and street
lighting, where considered necessary at
pedestrian crossings to improve sight distance
(4.1E)
Traffic Signal at Upham completed. H
AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 37 -
STATUS OF AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
STATUS AS OF October 2014
Lead
Complete Difficulty to Complete
No. Dept Implementation Program Summary Or
Ongoing Low Med High
1 PW Establish joint RTA bus service in area (AASP
6.3E) C
2 AD
M
Management program for area creeks required
with minimum setbacks of 35 ft. (AASP 3.3.1) O
3 AD
M
Develop remediation actions for Chevron site
to preserve natural resources (AASP 3.3.4) C
4 AD
M
Establish mitigation bank within Chevron
property to serve AASP & MASP areas (AASP
3.3.5) O
5 AD
M
Develop public access levels compatible with
maintaining habitat for Chevron property
(AASP 3.3.6) C
6 AD
M
Restore creek channels I identify maintenance
requirements & responsibilities (AASP 3.3.7) O
7 AD
M
Retain open space corridor to allow movement
of wildlife on Chevron property (AASP 3.3.8) O
8 AD
M
Maintain wildlife corridors south from AASP
toward Indian Knob & Davenport Hills by
obtaining greenbelts and working with County
(AASP 3.3.9P) O
9 AD
M
Enlarge wetland connection between areas
north and south of Tank Farm Rd (AASP
3.3.10) O
10 AD
M
City will manage acquired open space land to
preserve habitat (AASP 3.3.11) O
11 AD
M
City will pursue MOU for privately owned open
space lands to preserve habitat (AASP 3.3.12) O
12 AD
M
In lieu fee for development not able to dedicate
land for open space (AASP 3.3.14) O
13 AD
M
Expansions of URL will secure open space
(AASP 3.3.15) O
14 AD
M
Resource management activities compatible
with airport operations (AASP 3.3.17) O
15 AD
M
Expansion of wetlands to be evaluated for
aircraft safety & may only occur with
remediation and sestoration (AASP 3.3.18) O
16 CD 50 ft wetland setback required through
subdivision, development, & public facilities
(AASP 3.3.3) O
AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 38 -
17 CD Require development to dedicate land or
easements for greenbelt (AASP 3.3.13) O
18 PW Locate bike paths outside creek setback area
(AASP 6.3H) O
19 PW Bike lanes shall meet or exceed CA DOT &
City design standards (AASP 6.3I) O
20 PW Require bike lanes as part of frontage
improvements for development. Require bus
stops as part of development improvements
where appropriate (AASP 6.3G) O
21 PW Development to provide street furniture or
passenger amenities such as transit stops,
shelters, pads, trash receptacles, etc. (AASP
6.3L) M
22 PW Amend Bicycle Transportation Plan to include
Airport area facilities (6.3F) M
23 AD
M
Public trail from Broad to Tank Farm via
Damon Garcia. Avoid creeks, wetlands, and
habitat. (AASP 3.3.2) H
24 CD Access & interpretive info for historical
resources (AASP 3.3.16) H
25 PW TIF funds used for new buses to serve AASP.
Bus stops provided by adjacent development
(AASP 6.3C) H
26 PW Amend Circulation Element to expand truck
route network (AASP 6.3A) H
27 PW Connect bike lanes at intersections in the
Airport Area (AASP 6.3J) H
28 PW Establish a CIP program to include bikeways
not part of Airport development (AASP 6.3K) H
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 39 -
STATUS OF MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
STATUS AS OF October 2012
Lead
Compl Difficulty to Complete
No. Dept Implementation Program Summary Ongoing Low Med High
1 ADM 1.1a Hills to be dedicated to City &
protected. C
2 CDD 1.1b Livestock grazing may be limited &
City will manage hillside vegetation. O
3 CDD 1.1c Previously graded road to Telecom
facilities will be relocated. O
4 CDD 1.2.a Acacia Creek corridor shall be 100
ft wide exclusive of sports fields & will be
replanted with riparian plants. O
5 CDD 1.2.b Swales emerging from hills will
have open space corridors 50 ft wide &
fenced near developed areas. O
6 CDD 1.2c Lower swales thru neighborhood
park will be accessible for play O
7 CDD 1.3 Riparian and seasonal wetlands
which are shown as development areas
will be replaced in kind within MASP. O
8 CDD 1.4a MASP development to detain peak
stormwater flows on-site. Shallow basins
are preferable to deeper ones. O
9 CDD 1.5a Protect ag land elsewhere in URL or
greenbelt. O
10 CDD 1.6a Provide 10 acre neighborhood park,
and 16 acre improved sports field. O
11 CDD 1.6.1a Neighborhood Park req's including
equipment and landmark feature
12 CDD 1.6.1b Some seating, cooking & small
child play space to be partly enclosed. O
13 CDD 1.6.2 Greenspace and play fields mainly
semi-natural vegetation, with large trees
only at edges & possiblity of community
gardens. O
14 CDD 1.6.3 Greenways for cycling & walking
paths. O
15 CDD 1.6.4 Sports fields to accommodate
active recreational uses & include on-site
parking. Shielded night lighting. C
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 40 -
16 CDD 2.1.1 Low Density Residential areas for
SFRs only. No churches, schools or
secondary dwellings. O
17 CDD 2.1.2 Density will be 7-9 dwellings/acre O
18 CDD 2.1.3 Lot dimensions are regulated by
Table 2 O
19 CDD 2.1.4 A-C - setbacks and building/parking
orientation O
20 CDD 2.1.5 Each dwelling shall have 2 off-
street parking spaces - one covered. &
alley access standards O
21 CDD 2.2.1 Medium density residential areas -
detached houses on small lots or groups
of detached dwellings on larger lots O
22 CDD 2.2.2 Medium Density shall be 8-16
dwellings/acre. O
23 CDD 2.2.2a-e Lot dimension table & standards
for Med Density O
24 CDD 2.2.4 Med Density Building form -
setbacks and architecture O
25 CDD 2.2.5 Parking to be located at rear. Alley
access standards and special setbacks if
located in front. O
26 CDD 2.3.1 Med-High Density Res for attached
dwellings or PUDs. No churches or
schools allowed. O
27 CDD 2.3.2 Med-High Density will be 13-18
units/acre. O
28 CDD 2.3.3 Lot dimensions per Table 4 O
29 CDD 2.3.4a&b Setbacks and architectural
criteria O
30 CDD 2.3.5 Parking to be located at rear. Alley
access standards and special setbacks if
located in front O
31 CDD 2.4.1 High-Density Residential - allow a
mix of densities and ownership. Churches
and Schools not allowed O
32 CDD 2.4.2 High-Density Residential density
will be 19-24 units/acre O
33 CDD 2.4.3 Lots to be developed as a single
parcel or condo however it may be
divided into two land parcels to allow for
affordable housing. O
34 CDD 2.4.4a-c High Density building form -
setbacks, arch character and porches or
other outdoor space. O
35 CDD 2.4.5 Parking requirements and location O
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 41 -
36 CDD 2.5.1 Neighborhood commercial uses =
CN zone except no uses larger than
5,000 sq ft, schools, services stations O
37 CDD 2.5.2 CN Density shown in Figure 5 O
38 CDD 2.5.3 CN lot dimensions & size minimums O
39 CDD 2.5.4a-f CN Building Form (coverage,
height, setbacks, FAR, size, architectural
character O
40 CDD 2.5.5 CN parking rquired 1/500 sq ft. &
1/300 sq ft for bikes O
41 CDD 2.6.1 Business Park uses - master-
planned campus-type development. O
42 CDD 2.6.1a BP Office - small offices and mixed
use. O
43 CDD 2.6.1b BP General - R&D, Light
manufacturing, business services.
Alowed uses listed by approval level. O
44 CDD 2.6.1c BP- Outdoor - landscaped parking,
storage, employee recreation areas O
45 CDD 2.6.1d BP- prohibited uses = carnivals,
convalescent hospitals, dwellings,
homeless shelters, schools or public
assemby uses O
46 CDD 2.6.2 BP employee density not to exceed
40 persons/acre O
47 CDD 2.6.3 BP parcel sizes & dimensions O
48 PW 2.6.4 BP vehicle access will be loops or
grid extensions. NO driveways on Prado
Rd. O
49 CDD 2.6.5a-i BP site and building design (FAR,
Orientation, outdoor space, setbacks,
parking lots, heights, massing, entries, &
materials) O
50 CDD 2.6.6a-d BP Continuity of landscape
space O
51 CDD 2.6.7a-d BP parking requirements &
design O
52 CDD 2.6.8a-b BP Landscape screening
required for loading, waste
collection,utilities & mechanical
equipment O
53 CDD 2.6.10 BP Outdoor employee amenity
areas are required O
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 42 -
CDD 2.7.1 Special use area between hills and
Broad street (1.2 acres). House and
grounds should be preserved and uses
may include residence; B7B, hostel,
museum, art or craft gallery with retail
sales, restaurant, retail sales of food,
office for sales of MASP properties or
visitor info center. O
54 CDD 3.1a Buildings to express human scale by
articulating mass O
55 CDD 3.1b Architectural styles in plan are
encouraged O
56 CDD 3.1c Residentail entries should be
identifable from streets or ped walkways O
57 CDD 3.1d Universally accessible entries are
encouraged for all buidlings O
58 CDD 3.1e All development is encouraged to
have outdoor space shileded from aircraft
noise. O
59 CDD 3.2 Street trees to create sense of
identity; focal areas should be highlighted
through trees and planting; riparian
corridors should have native landscaping;
and all landscaping should be water
efficient. O
60 CDD 3.3 Lighting shall be energy efficient,
avoid glare and minimize illumination
toward sky. O
61 CDD 3.4 Buidling form & placement to meet
solar exposure objectives. O
62 CDD 3.5 Public art to be encouraged at
neigbhorhood park & principal collector
street entries. O
63 CDD 3.6 Dwellings & outdoor spaces to be
separated from Prado Rd by greenways,
green space & BP uses. Landscaped
berm to be installed where appropriate. O
64 CDD 3.7 Fence and wall designs to comply
with community design guidelines O
65 CDD 4.2a-g performance standards to ensure
airport compatibility including limitation on
uses and operations that might be
dangerous; indoor noise level
requirements, avigation easement and
disclosure requirements O
66 PW 5.0 Traffic calming features to be
developed. Streets & drives to provide
access without unnecessary paving O
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 43 -
67 PW 5.1 City will extend transit service into
area as roads are developed. Transit
stops to include turnouts, shelters,
benches, trash receptacles & real time
arrival status displays. O
68 PW 5.2a New development shall include
sidewalks, ped paths, bike lanes and bike
paths. Precise alignments will be
determined with subdivisions. O
69 PW 5.2b Bike path width, paving, signs and
features to comply with Bicyce
Transportation Plan. Proposed crossings
may include features such as pavement
changes, signs or bulb-outs. O
70 PW 5.2c. Pedestrian and bike access to
sports fields will be by enhanced under or
over crossing with visibility for safety and
sense of place O
71 PW 5.3a-I Streets to foster traffic volumes
appropriate for land uses and
neighborhoods O
72 PW 5.4 Alleys should be used where feasible O
73 PW 5.5 Local streets will have bulb-outs at
the end of blocks and at mid-block for
blocks longer than 500'. O
74 PW 5.7.1 Additional right-of-way for Broad
Street to accommodate bike lane, vertical
curbs, landscaped parkway, and center
median. O
75 PW 5.7.2 Prado Road facilities, phasing and
construction requirements O
76 PW 5.8 Traffic calming required -
roundabouts, traffic circles, intersection
treatments, and bulb-outs. O
77 CDD 5.9 Street names to follow City
requirements. O
78 PW 6.3 Fire-dept activated signal control
devices required for all intersections with
traffic signals O
79 PW 7.3.1 Subdivision plans must show
detailed solutions to stormwater issues.
Develoers areresponsible for drainage
facilities serving their parcels. O
80 PW 7.3.2 All drainage facilities must comply
with NPDES & post construction runoff
controls O
81 PW 7.5 Each residence shall have one 2"
conduit conneted with underground
system to facilitate future installation of
high-speed data system. O
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
- 44 -
82 PW 7.7 All new power, telephone & cable
lines to be installed undergound. All
existing line facilities to be underground at
time of frontage construction. O
83 PW 7.8 Streets& utilities installations must be
built to ensure that later projets can build
upon systems that are appropriately sized
and located. O
84 CDD 8.1a The area shall accommodate at
least 2 sites with a total capacity of 40
dwellings for HASLO to provide affordable
housing. O
85 CDD 8.1b Residential area may be developed
with modular or manufactured dwellings
that comply with specific plan. O
86 CDD 8.1c Affordable housing density bonuses
available in area designated in Fig 5 only
due to airport land use plan. O
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
- 45 -
STATUS OF CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS AS OF October 2014
Lead
Compl
Difficulty
to
Complete
No. Dept Implementation Program Summary Ongoing Low Med High
1 CDD BLD 1:Efficiency Improvements
to existing buildlings M
2 CDD BLD 2: New Construction
Energy Conservation L
3 CDD BLD 3: Public Outreach and
Education L
4 CDD BLD Adaptation 1: Public Relief
during Extreme Heat M
5 CDD RE 1: Renewable Energy
Financing M
6 CDD RE 2: Renewable Energy
Implementation H
7 CDD RE 3: Public Outreach and
Education L
8 PW TLU 1: Transit Service H
9 CDD TLU 2: Alternative Vehicles
M
10 PW TLU 3: Bike Travel H
11 PW TLU 4: Complete Streets H
12 CDD TLU 5: Land Use Diversity and
Density H
13 PW TLU 6: Parking Management M
14 CDD TLU 7: Shared Parking M
15 CDD TLU 8: Reduce the Need for
Commuting L
16 CDD TLU 9: Public Outreach and
Education M
17 UTIL WTR 1: Water Conservation:
Existing Development L
18 CDD WTR 2: Water Conservation:
New Development L
19 CDD WTR 3: Public Outreach and
Education M
20 CDD WTR Adaptation 1: Recycled
Water O
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
- 46 -
21 UTIL WST 1: Increased Waste
Diversion H
22 CDD WST 2: Public Outreach and
Education L
23 PW PKS 1: Enrich the Urban Forest H
24 ADM PKS 2: Parks & Open Space
Development H
25 PW PKS 3: Green Waste Recycling L
26 PR PKS 4: Foster Local Food
Production M
27 PR PKS 5: Public Outreach and
Education L
28 CDD PKS Adaptation 1: Vegetation
Management O
29 CDD PKS Adaptation 2: Fire
Management O
30 UTIL GO 1: City Energy Conservation H
31 CDD GO 2: City Renewable Energy H
32 PW GO 2: City Renewable Energy H
33 PW GO 3: Transit Fleet Upgrades H
34 PW GO 4: Energy-Efficient Street
Lighting H
35 UTIL GO 5: Water & Wastewater
Infrastructure H
36 UTIL GO 6: Increase Waste Diversion
from City-owned property M
37 PW GO 7: Water Conservation M
38 PW GO 8: Fleet and Equipment
Upgrades M
39 PW GO 9: Employee Commute M
40 UTIL GO 10: Sustainability
Coordinator H
41 UTIL GO 11: Public Outreach and
Education L
Section 8.4
Background Materials
Status Reports from November 13, 2014 Workshop
LONG-TERM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
LONG-TERM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Overview 3
Report Organizations 4
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS BY FUNCTION
Public Safety
Police Protection and Fire & Environmental Safety 5
Public Utilities
Water and Wastewater Services 6
Transportation
Streets 7
Creek & Flood Protection 8
Pedestrian & Bicycle Paths 8
Parking 10
Transit 10
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services
Parks & Recreation and Cultural Services 11
Community Development
Natural Resources 12
General Government
Information Technology and Buildings 13
Cost Summary by Function 13
INTRODUCTION
1
OVERVIEW
What is a Long Term Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)?
The Long Term CIP provides a glimpse in the future of the City. Many of our current
infrastructure assets are not adequate to handle the needs of the future. Many streets must
be built or widened, water lines and sewer lines must be extended into new areas, and
new parks must be built. At the time of General Plan build out, now assumed as the year
2050, the projects on this list would ideally be completed and in use for the residents of
the City.
Why does the City need a Long Term CIP?
The Long Term CIP can serve as a blueprint to guide the Council’s future investments. It
is clear that the Council will be making annual investments in infrastructure repair and
maintenance, but there will likely be opportunities to leverage grant funding to build
larger infrastructure projects to complement or assist what new development provides.
Without this plan for build out, the City may miss out on strategic investments that must
be made in a timely manner to help facilitate orderly development.
What projects are included in the Long Term CIP?
The Long Term CIP only includes new improvements needed to support General Plan
build-out, based on current policies, plans and goals in place today. Maintenance oriented
improvements, such as for pavement or storm drains, are not included in this plan. While
costs for maintenance only projects can be significant, those costs are incurred to
adequately maintain what we already have in place today. This plan focuses on the new
facilities and infrastructure needed to support the City at build-out.
How does staff determine which projects to include in the Long Term CIP?
Using the City’s major policy documents, like the General Plan and the Circulation
Element, City staff identified the improvements that need to be in place to accommodate
build out of the City. For virtually all of the projects in the plan, there is a link to a major
policy document approved by the Council. In most cases, these links come from the
General Plan, while some others come from an adopted master plan.
When would we build these projects?
Ideally, these projects would be built as part of new development taking place in the City.
Realistically, only some of the projects could be built by new development, with many
needing to be built by the City using grant funds or some form of debt financing. The key
purpose of the this plan is to have already identified the improvements needed in
advance, so that as development occurs (or funding opportunities arise) the City is ready
to proceed with what needs to be built and where.
How does the Long Term CIP fit into the two year Financial Plan process?
By considering the Long Term CIP in the context of the 2015-17 goal-setting and
Financial Plan process, these projects provide an important starting place in assessing
which ones might be a high priority to consider in the next two years. The list is a way for
INTRODUCTION
2
the Council to see the long term infrastructure needs for the City and have an “order of
magnitude” idea of how much it may cost to fully implement.
With this understanding, the Long-Term CIP is one of the pieces of information for the
Council to consider in setting goals and priorities for 2015-17. This Long-Term CIP is
conceptual, and in most cases, the projects have not undergone detailed analysis, nor
undergone the rigor of the public review process. They represent City staff’s best
assessment of costs and scope based on what is known today, but may undergo changes
in scope or importance as new challenges and issues emerge over time.
In short, this report focuses on presenting the "inventory" of improvements that may be
needed at some time in the future, as a starting point in the goal-setting process to help
decide which CIP projects will go forward. Crafting funding solutions for implementation
based on Council priorities is the next step in the process, and an integral part of the
Financial Plan process.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The report organizes CIP projects into the six major functional areas used in the City's
Financial Plan:
Public Safety
Police Protection, Fire & Environmental Safety
Public Utilities
Water, Wastewater
Transportation
Streets, Pedestrian & Bicycle Paths, Creek & Flood Protection, Parking, Transit
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services
Parks & Recreation, Cultural Services
Community Development
Natural Resources
General Government
Information Technology, Buildings
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
Land Acquisition for New Police Headquarters Police Facilities Master Plan 8,994,400
New Police Headquarters Facility Police Facilities Master Plan 34,379,100
43,373,500
Equipment
Fire Pumper for Station 5 Fire Master Plan 560,000
Facilities
New Station 5 without land costs Fire Master Plan 3,500,000
Replacement Fire Station 2 & 3 Fire Master Plan 7,000,000
Fire Apparatus Maintenance Shop Fire Master Plan 500,000
Station 4 Addition Safety Element 350,000
11,910,000
55,283,500$
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection
Fire and Environmental Safety
Total Police Protection
Total Fire and Environmental Safety
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY
3
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETY
Master Plan Implementation Draft Water Master Plan, October 2014,45,000,000
prepared by Wallace Group
Water Reuse Master Plan Implementation Draft Water Reuse Master Plan 7,500,000
prepared by Wallace Group
52,500,000
Buckley Lift Station Wastewater Master Plan AA, Oct 2009 6,360,000
prepared by Brown and Caldwell
Los Verdes Lift Station Wastewater Master Plan AA, Oct 2009 2,060,000
prepared by Brown and Caldwell
Calle Joaquin Lift Station Wastewater Master Plan AA, Oct 2009 1,350,000
prepared by Brown and Caldwell
Silver City Lift Station Wastewater Master Plan AA, Oct 2009 260,000
prepared by Brown and Caldwell
Master Plan Implementation Wastewater Master Plan, Oct 2000 43,940,000
prepared by Brown and Caldwell
Plant Treatment Disinfection Modifications Estimated by Brown and Caldwell 4,100,000
58,070,000
110,570,000$
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water Services
Total Water Services
Wastewater Services
Collection
Treatment and Reclamation
Total Wastewater Services
TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES
4
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETY
New Roads
Prado Road: Broad to Higuera Circulation Element A.1 21,500,000
Prado at Higuera Intersection Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)310,000
Buckley Road: Extend from Vachell to Higuera Circulation Element A.3 4,300,000
Bullock Lane Extension to Tank Farm Road Circulation Element A.4 3,300,000
Sacramento Drive Extension Orcutt Road Circulation Element A.5 1,600,000
Bishop Street Extension Across UPRR to Broad Circulation Element A.6 10,700,000
Santa Fe Rd: Realign s/o Tank Farm Road Circulation Element A.7, AASP 5,300,000
Santa Fe Rd: Connect with future Prado Rd Circulation Element A.7, MASP, Airport
Area Specific Plan (AASP) 1,600,000
Road Widenings
Prado Road: Higuera to US 101 Circulation Element A.1, B.4 6,100,000
Higuera Street - High to Marsh Circulation Element B.1 3,700,000
Orcutt Road - Broad to Johnson Circulation Element B.2 1,600,000
Orcutt Road - UPRR Crossing Widening Circulation Element B.2 3,000,000
Tank Farm Road - S Higuera to Broad Circulation Element B.3, AASP 5,800,000
South Higuera - Madonna to Prado Road Circulation Element B.5 500,000
LOVR - Madonna to US 101 Circulation Element B.6 500,000
Santa Rosa Street - Olive to Foothill Road Circulation Element B.7 3,200,000
Santa Rosa Street at Foothill (EB RT lane)Circulation Element B.8(a)1,100,000
Santa Rosa Street at Olive (NB RT Lane)Circulation Element B.8(b)1,600,000
Santa Rosa Street at Walnut (LT lanes)Circulation Element B.8(c)310,000
Santa Barbara Street: Upham to Broad Railroad District Plan 1,300,000
Santa Barbara Street: Leff to Upham Railroad District Plan 260,000
Broad Street: South Street to Alphonso Four Creeks EIR 1,100,000
Freeway Interchanges
Prado Road Interchange Circulation Element C.1 42,800,000
Route 101/HWY 1 (Santa Rosa)Circulation Element C.3 43,500,000
Broad Street/US 101 (Ramp Modifications)Circulation Element C.4 1,600,000
Other Street Projects
Monterey Street: Santa Rosa to Grand Circulation Element D.1 16,000,000
Orcutt Road Grade Separation at UPRR Circulation Element D.2 21,500,000
Prefumo Canyon Road - Landscaped median Circulation Element D.3 525,000
Broad Street Dogleg Circulation Element D.5 380,000
Guard Rail Upgrade and Replacement Safety Element 1,100,000
Congestion Relief Projects Circulation Element 5,300,000
Neighborhood Traffic Management Circulation Element, LU 2.1.3.850,000
Traffic Safety Mitigation Circulation Element 5,500,000
Broad Street Landscaped Medians (S of Orcutt)AASP 2,700,000
Broad Street Corridor Enhancement Circulation Element 2,100,000
Santa Rosa Street Corridor Enhancement Circulation Element 1,600,000
Foothill Road Corridor Enhancement Circulation Element 1,600,000
Undergrounding of Overhead Utility Lines Circulation Element 21,500,000
City Assistance: Neighborhood Improvements Housing Element 7.3.3 5,300,000
Parker Street Improvements Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan 80,000
Brook Street Extension & Plaza Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan 230,000
Walker/Pacific Closure & Plaza Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan 230,000
TRANSPORTATION
Streets
5
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETYTraffic Signals, Street Lights & Signals
New Traffic Signals Circulation Element 2,650,000
Traffic Signal System Upgrade Circulation Element 790,000
Video Detect/Surveillance Circulation Element 1,100,000
Traffic Signal Communications Circulation Element 1,600,000
Downtown Pedestrian Level Street Lighting Circulation Element 2,400,000
New Street Lights ($15,000 Per Year)Circulation Element 330,000
Street Light Modifications/Upgrade Circulation Element 2,600,000
Downtown Pedestrian Signals Improvements Circulation Element 300,000
Billboard Removal Program Circulation Element 14.11 2,100,000
Acquire 975 Broad Street, Extend SLO Creek Circulation Element 2,100,000
Path West of Nipomo
Crosswalk Lighting Systems Circulation Element 310,000
Street Lights at Crosswalks in Railroad District Railroad District Plan 100,000
Bridge Replacements
Prado Road: SLO Creek Land Use Element 6.4.6E, OS 3.2.1E 4,800,000
California Avenue: SLO Creek Land Use Element 6.4.6E, OS 3.2.1E 6,500,000
Johnson Avenue: SLO Creek Land Use Element 6.4.6E, OS 3.2.1E 3,000,000
Chorro Street: Stenner Creek Land Use Element 6.4.6E, OS 3.2.1E 2,700,000
Madonna: Prefumo Creek Land Use Element 6.4.6E, OS 3.2.1E 1,500,000
Bianchi Lane: SLO Creek Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan 1,000,000
Calle Joaquin: Prefumo Creek Land Use Element 6.4.6E, OS 3.2.1E 2,000,000
Murray Street: Stenner Creek Land Use Element 6.4.6E, OS 3.2.1E 4,000,000
294,955,000
Cuesta Park Detention Facility Waterway Management Plan 11,000,000
Mid-Higuera Bypass Channels Waterway Management Plan 5,300,000
Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan
Elks Lane Bypass Channels Waterway Management Plan 12,850,000
Channel Modifications near LOVR Waterway Management Plan 6,800,000
Creek Bank Stabilization Waterway Management Plan 31,800,000
Creek Bed Stabilization Waterway Management Plan 22,600,000
Remove human-made obstructions from creeks Land Use Element 6.5.1C 5,225,000
95,575,000
Pedestrian
Complete Community Sidewalk System Circulation Element, CI 5.1.2 18,254,000
Continue Program of Replacing Existing Curbs with
Handicapped Ramps Circulation Element, CI 5.1.3 6,273,000
Repave Pedestrian Crossings and Install
Pedestrian Bulb-Outs Circulation Element 5.0.5B.523,000
Monterey Street Civic Center Plaza Installation Circulation Element 2,379,000
Garden Street Makeover Circulation Element D.4 345,000
Complete Downtown Mission-Style Sidewalks Downtown Plan; Resolution No. 9114 4,280,000
RR District Boardwalks Railroad District Plan 400,000
Leff and Osos Improvements Railroad District Plan 309,000
Walk of History (West Side of Tracks)Railroad District Plan 523,000
Total Streets
Total Creek and Flood Protection
Creek and Flood Protection
Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths
6
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETY
Laguna Lake Bikeways 2013 Bike Plan 2,454,000
Prado Road Bridge @ SLO Creek 2013 Bike Plan 300,000
Bob Jones Trail (Elks to Prado)2013 Bike Plan 422,000
Bob Jones Trail (Madonna to Elks)2013 Bike Plan 894,000
Elks Lane Parallel Bike Bridge 2013 Bike Plan 200,000
Bob Jones Trail (Marsh to Madonna) 2013 Bike Plan, Mid-Higuera
Enhancement Plan 842,000
Madonna Road & LOVR Underpasses 2013 Bike Plan 1,500,000
Bob Jones Trail (LOVR to Barn)2013 Bike Plan 550,000
Prefumo Arm (Calle Joaquin to Madonna)2013 Bike Plan 1,878,000
Railroad Bike Path (Depot to Marsh)2013 Bike Plan 4,000,000
Railroad Bike Path (Marsh to California)2013 Bike Plan 6,000,000
Railroad Bike Path (Hathway to Foothill)2013 Bike Plan 366,000
Railroad Bike Path (Foothill to Campus)2013 Bike Plan 162,000
Path Along n/Orcutt to Laurel 2013 Bike Plan 146,000
Path Along Creek to Southwood 2013 Bike Plan 270,000
Railroad Bike Path (Laurel to Tank Farm)2013 Bike Plan 1,150,000
Bridge Over Tank Farm Road 2013 Bike Plan 1,568,000
Bridge Over RR @ Fairview/ Penny Ln 2013 Bike Plan, Railroad District Plan 2,091,000
Underpass at Industrial Way 2013 Bike Plan 732,000
Bridge from Sinsheimer Park to Lawrence Drive 2013 Bike Plan, Railroad District Plan 3,000,000
Railroad Bike Path (High to Roundhouse)2013 Bike Plan 250,000
RR Bike Path (Roundhouse to McMillian)2013 Bike Plan 820,000
Acacia Creek BP (Rockview to Damon-Garcia)2013 Bike Plan 627,000
Acacia Creek BP (Damon-Garcia to Tank Farm)2013 Bike Plan; AASP 261,000
Acacia Creek Underpass @ SR 227 2013 Bike Plan 366,000
Union Oil Prop BP (Tank Farm to Buckley)2013 Bike Plan; AASP 1,568,000
Buckley Road Path (Broad to Vachell)2013 Bike Plan; AASP 3,450,000
Tank Farm Crk. BP (Tank Farm to Vachell)2013 Bike Plan; AASP 1,464,000
Morro Street BB (Santa Barbara to Pismo)2013 Bike Plan 52,000
South Street Widening for BP 2013 Bike Plan 52,000
Bikeslot at California-Foothill 2013 Bike Plan 162,000
Bikeslot at South-Broad 2013 Bike Plan 142,000
Bikeslot at S.Higuera-LOVR 2013 Bike Plan 209,000
Bike Path (Flora to Fixlini)2013 Bike Plan 314,000
Laguna Lake Park (to Foothill)2013 Bike Plan 1,673,000
Marsh Street Interchange Mods 2013 Bike Plan 314,000
South Hills Path (Margarita Area to Exposition)2013 Bike Plan; MASP 1,568,000
Broad Street Bicycle Blvd & Hwy Xing 2013 Bike Plan 5,050,000
Santa Rosa Grade Sep Xing at Boysen 2013 Bike Plan 1,500,000
Railroad Corridor Palm Tree Planting Railroad District Plan 105,000
81,758,000
Bicycle Paths:*
*Note: The Bicycle Path portion of this document has been updated to reflect the 2013 Bike Plan update. The original
report provided to Council on 11/13/14 provided a list of projects and costs based on the 2007 Bike Plan.
Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths
7
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETY
Parking Structure East/Of Santa Rosa (NARF)Access and Parking Management Plan 31,350,000
New Parking Structure (1 every 5 years)Access and Parking Management Plan 62,725,000
New Parking Lot Acquisition Access and Parking Management Plan 6,275,000
New Meter Installations - E/o Santa Rosa Access and Parking Management Plan 52,000
Residential Parking District Implementation Access and Parking Management Plan 209,000
Develop Downtown Park and Ride Lots Circulation Element 12.6, Access and 2,100,000
Parking Management Plan
Additional Passenger Loading Area Near Depot Railroad District Plan 105,000
102,816,000
Capital
Bus Stop Improvements Short Range Transit Plan 418,000
Bus Expansion (1 Every 3 Years)Short Range Transit Plan 2,600,000
RTA Joint Transit Facility (DTC Consolidated)Regional Transportation Plan 5,225,000
Transit Signal Priority System Short Range Transit Plan 1,050,000
Freight Warehouse Transfer Center Regional Transportation Plan 1,350,000
Bus Yard Expansion Regional Transportation Plan 3,125,000
13,768,000
588,872,000
Transit
Total Parking
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION
Total Transit
Parking
8
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETY
Parks
Laguna Lake Park Master Plan Parks and Recreation Element (2.55.2) 2,614,000
Laguna Lake Dredging Laguna Lake Management Program 7,319,000
Margarita Area Neighborhood Park/Additional
Sports Fields
MASP/Parks & Recreation Element
(2.53)
8,158,500
Orcutt Area Neighborhood Park OASP/Parks & Recreation Element
(2.53)
11,111,100
Caltrans North Property Acquisition & Park Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan 2,331,000
Other Parks to Meet 10 acres/1,000 Goal Parks and Recreation Element (2.1.1) 71,639,400
Other Improvements
Mini Parks Parks and Recreation Element (2.40) 1,050,000
Tennis Courts Parks and Recreation Element (2.40) 625,000
Sinsheimer Park Master Plan Parks and Recreation Element (2.56.2) 2,100,000
Community Center Parks and Recreation Element (2.54) 8,350,000
Meadow Park Upgrades Parks and Recreation Element (2.54) 260,000
Sand Volleyball Facility Emerson Park Parks and Recreation Element (2.57.5) 105,000
Golf Course Parks & Recreation Element (1.33.2) 209,000
Total Parks and Recreation 115,872,000
Cultural Services
Adobe Restoration Parks and Recreation Element (2.57.5)3,500,000
Railroad District Gateway Tree Planting Railroad District Plan 26,000
Historic Railroad Car Display Railroad District Plan 26,000
Public Art @ 1% of CIP Costs Art in Public Places Policy 5,500,000
Total Cultural Services 9,052,000
TOTAL LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES 124,924,000
LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Parks and Recreation
9
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Natural Resources
Open Space Acquisition, Trail Development Conservation & Open Space Element 10,000,000
Creek Pedestrian Trail and Open Space Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan 500,000
Total Natural Resources 10,500,000
TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10,500,000
10
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETYGENERAL GOVERNMENT
Information Technology
Document Management IT Strategic Plan, August 2012 680,000
E-Government IT Strategic Plan, August 2012 260,000
Technology Mgt Tools/Security Improvements IT Strategic Plan, August 2012 235,000
Technology Data Center Improvements IT Strategic Plan, March 2001 850,000
Total Information Technology 2,025,000
Buildings
City Hall Expansion Conceptual Physical Plan for City Ctr;
Facilities Master Plan: 1988-2010
20,000,000
Total Buildings 20,000,000
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 22,025,000
11
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description Plan or Policy Link Cost
PUBLIC SAFETYSUMMARY BY FUNCTION
Public Safety 55,283,500
Public Utilities 110,570,000
Transportation 588,872,000
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services 124,924,000
Community Development 10,500,000
General Government 22,025,000
Total $912,174,500
Public Safety
6%
Public Utilities
12%
Transportation
65%
Leisure, Cultural
and Social Services
14%
Community
Development
1%
General
Government
2%
Long-Term CIP by Function: $912 Million
12
Section 9
Background Materials
FISCAL OUTLOOK:
DECEMBER 16, 2014 FORECAST
General Fund Five Year Fiscal Forecast: 2015-20
Projecting Steady Growth While Meeting Our Fiscal Responsibilities
December 2014
Table of Contents
Overview
Purpose of Forecast…………………………….…………. 3
Summary of Findings……………………….…………….. 4
Where We’ve Been ……………………………….……..... 6
Revenue Forecast……………………………….…………. 7
Expenditure Forecast………………………………………11
Summary…………………………………………...……....16
Synopsis of Major Assumptions………….………………...17
Five Year Forecast Summary
Forecast of Revenues, Expenditures, Fund Balance……......19
Projection Factors……………………………………….......20
Historical Trends and Supplemental Information
Overview…………………………………………….……... 21
Population and Housing Trends…………………….…….... 22
Consumer Price Index …………………………….……….. 23
General Fund Revenue Sources…………………….……….24
General Fund Expenditures ………………………….…….. 30
Revenues Compared to Expenditures…………………...…...35
2
Purpose of Forecast
The purpose of the General Fund fiscal forecast
is to evaluate current and future fiscal conditions
to guide decisions about goals, policies, and
programs. This fiscal forecast assesses the
General Fund’s ability over the next five years
to do the following:
1. Deliver current service levels.
2. Maintain the City’s existing infrastructure
and facilities.
3. Preserve the City’s long-term fiscal health
by aligning operating revenues and
expenditures.
4. Maintain fund balance at policy levels.
5. Reinvest in the General Fund supported
Capital Improvement Program, particularly
in areas that are underfunded such as
infrastructure maintenance, fleet
replacement, Information Technology
replacement, and facilities maintenance.
The forecast does this by projecting revenues
over expenditures over a five year period, using
assumptions about economic conditions, future
expenditure scenarios, and other salient factors.
The balance remaining is available for Council
decision on whether to build reserves to guard
against future financial uncertainties or to fund
increased investment in maintaining
infrastructure, new capital improvement or
operating initiatives. If this balance were to be
negative, the balance would represent a “budget
gap” that requires corrective action consistent
with the City’s commitment to fiscal
sustainability.
It is important to stress that this forecast is
not a budget.
The forecast sets the stage for the upcoming
budget process but it does not represent formally
adopted revenues or expenditures. Its purpose is
to provide context for considering the City’s
ability to continue current services, maintain
existing assets and/or fund new initiatives.
The Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) recommends that governments of all
levels forecast major revenues and expenditures
extending over several years into the future. The
forecast should be clearly stated and made
available to stakeholders in the budget process.
It should also be regularly monitored and
periodically updated. The City of San Luis
Obispo, through its financial planning process,
embraces each of these recommendations in
making the forecast an integral part of the
budget process.
3
Summary of Findings
This update of the five year fiscal forecast
provides a clear indication that the City is
benefiting from a continuously improving
economic climate. Unaudited year-end results
from 2013-14 show that revenues were $2.2
million or 3.7% over budget. This represents the
fourth consecutive year of steady growth in
revenues. Whereas revenue growth experienced
in 2010-11 and 2011-12 brought the City’s
revenue base back to and slightly above pre-
recession levels, the growth levels experienced
in 2012-13 and 2013-14 reflect new highs in the
City’s revenue base which have not been
experienced in any previous year. This forecast
uses 2013-14 revenues as a new base and
projects that there will continue to be steady
growth in 2014-15 and throughout the five year
forecast period.
Although all major economic indicators are
pointing in a positive direction for the City’s
revenue sources, it is important to note that very
significant fiscal challenges are expected in the
upcoming years as it relates to the City’s
expenses. This is particularly true in regards to
the rapidly escalating cost of retirement and
insurance programs. The California Public
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) (the
City’s provider of retirement benefits) is
implementing a new retirement funding plan
beginning in 2015-16 which includes a strategy
to have unfunded liabilities fully amortized in 30
years. While this is consistent with creating a
fiscally sustainable system, the plan includes
steep increases in rates over the next five years.
This is true in spite of the important efforts
achieved locally to implement pension reform
measures including a second tier and third tier
pension benefits. For reference, about 20% of
our work force is now covered by the second or
third tier benefit program. For context the fiscal
forecast projects that CalPERS costs will
increase by an estimated annual average of 8%
over the next five years. By the fifth year of this
forecast, costs are projected to rise cumulatively
by $3.9 million to $12.3 million in General Fund
retirement costs by 2019-20. This represents a
63% increase over actual retirement cost levels
in 2013-14. While this is a tremendous increase
over a relatively short period of time it is
important to note that these costs represent a
fundamental shift in funding philosophy and
some significant changes in demographic
assumptions. All this should be leading to a
more sustainable model that will pay off
unfunded liabilities over the next 30 years.
An additional cost burden will come in the form
of increased costs for liability and workers
compensation insurance. The city’s provider of
liability and workers compensation coverage,
the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
(CJPIA), recently informed staff of the potential
for a previously unanticipated retrospective
insurance adjustment cost of $1.4 million in
2015-16 which would result in a $1.1 million
charge to the General Fund. This amount is
pending final results from the CJPIA but is
anticipated in the forecast. It is worth noting that
it is proposed that this funding come from one-
time resources since this amount has varied
widely and should not be built into the City’s
base budget.
As a result of the City’s continuously improving
economic condition, combined with prudent and
fiscally responsible actions taken to control costs
in recent years, the City is well positioned to
cover these escalating insurance and employee
benefit costs while also identifying opportunities
to make new and important investments in our
community. This fiscal forecast projects full
payment of cost increases identified in
CalPERS’ actuarial retirement valuation reports.
It projects full payment of the potential CJPIA
insurance cost increase plus additional funds to
help guard against cost increases of this nature
in the future. The forecast also anticipates new
Projecting Steady Growth
While Meeting Our Fiscal
Responsibilities
4
funding will be dedicated towards vital
community services and infrastructure.
After factoring in each of these required and
important investments, the fiscal forecast
projects a fund balance which exceeds the City’s
20% fund balance policy reserve requirement.
These reserves are an essential first line of
defense against unexpected economic
emergencies or natural disaster. In 2014-15 the
fund balance is projected to be $4.4 million in
excess of the reserve requirement, and this
amount is projected to increase slightly in future
years.
In addition to the $4.4 million in excess of the
20% reserve, there is an undesignated and
unappropriated amount that is available for
appropriation by the Council. It should be noted
that the majority of this amount is available for
one-time funding only. This is the case because
the amount ebbs and flows such that added on-
going operating costs cannot be maintained. In
other words it would be prudent to limit on-
going expenditure commitments to the lowest
amount in the five year period available for
programming. Additionally, once the excess
balance above the 20% reserve is used it is no
longer available.
Additional details regarding major revenue and
expenditure assumptions are described in detail
within this report. The report narrative is
followed by 15 years of revenue and expenditure
history which helps form a basis and context for
projections made in the forecast.
5
Where We’ve Been
While we are planning for the future it is helpful
to review where we have been in the recent past,
and the steps that have been taken in response to
the constant changes in our financial condition.
Following is a brief summary of the fiscal
condition that the City has been faced over the
past three financial plans, dating back to 2009.
In the 2009-11 Financial Plan Council
responded to declining revenues caused by the
severe recession and unanticipated staffing cost
increases with actions to reduce the budget by
$11.3 million. While the use of reserves and a
declining amount needed for the 20% reserve
played an important role, about 80% of the
budget-balancing strategy relied heavily upon
expenditure reductions with the bulk provided
by CIP reductions. Reductions from 3-11% by
department were imposed with the deepest
reductions occurring in support departments.
These reductions included 17.2 regular positions
and 6.4 temporary full time equivalent positions
in the General Fund. This also included salary
deferrals by employees totaling nearly $1
million.
The City continued to be negatively impacted by
the impacts of the recession during the 2011-13
Financial Plan. In order to address the budget
gap at this time the City focused on permanent,
on-going changes as much as possible. Whereas
2009-11 reductions focused primarily on CIP,
the departmental operating budgets and
employee concessions were the two largest
elements of the budget balancing strategy in
2011-13. This included ongoing employee
concessions totaling $2.6 million in the General
Fund. This financial objective set the stage for
Council labor relations objectives that included
pension reform and a 6.8% reduction in
employee total compensation.
The 2013-15 Financial Plan represented the first
time in five years that a budget was passed
which did not require reductions. This was made
possible by on-going cost containment strategies
that were implemented in previous budgets,
combined with slow but steady revenue growth
that the City was experiencing after coming out
of the recession. The Capital Improvement Plan
included major new investments and important
reinvestments in critical infrastructure. Limited
and strategic operating program enhancements
that help to achieve the City Council’s Major
City Goals and Other Important Objectives were
also implemented.
Reserve Levels Have Been Maintained
Reserves have been maintained at or above
policy levels of 20% throughout each of these
years, including the most difficult years of the
Great Recession. As indicated above, these
reserves are a first line of defense against
unexpected economic emergencies or a natural
disaster.
Unaudited results for 2013-14 and revised
projections for 2014-15 indicate that the City has
higher than previously expected revenues and
expenditure savings, resulting in higher than
previously projected fund balances.
6
Revenue Forecast
This forecast presents a positive revenue outlook
for the General Fund which is consistent with
what the City has experienced in recent years.
Key revenue sources such as Sales Tax and
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) have
experienced significant growth over the past
four fiscal years. Property Tax and Utility Users
Taxes (UUT) have both increased over the past
two years. The largest area of growth in 2013-14
was in Development Review Fees. This is the
result of developers making increased
investments in our community, another positive
economic indicator. All major indicators show
that these revenue sources are expected to
continue to increase in future years, and this is
reflected in the forecast.
Sources used in developing revenue projections
for the forecast include long and short-term
trends in City revenues; projections shared by
HdL, the City’s sales tax advisor; information
developed by the State Legislative Analyst and
the State Department of Finance; property tax
information provided by the San Luis Obispo
County Auditor-Controller’s Office; and
materials prepared by the League of California
Cities and State Controller’s Office.
To assist in improving the reliability of revenue
forecasts, staff has also engaged the services of
Beacon Economics to provide professional
forecasts (Appendix A) for a number of key
revenue sources. Beacon’s projections will be
discussed in the applicable narrative discussions
below. This firm provided a forecast for the City
two years ago to assist with the 2013-15
Financial Plan process.
Ultimately, the revenue projections in this
forecast reflect staff's best judgment about the
performance of the local economy during the
next five years and how it will affect the City's
General Fund revenues.
Analysis of Key Revenue Sources
Sales Tax revenues totaled $15.4 million in
2013-14. This represents an 8.2% or $1.16
million increase over 2012-13. This level of
increase is consistent with what the City has
experienced over each of the past four fiscal
years. Since 2010-11 sales taxes have increased
by an average of 9% or $1.17 million per year.
While 2011 and 2012 sales tax collections
brought the City back to and above pre-recession
levels, 2013 and 2014 have represented sales tax
increases above what has been experienced in
any prior year.
In 2014-15 the forecast projects $15.7 million in
sales tax collections. This reflects a 2.2%
increase over 2013-14 and a $462,000 increase
over the current budget which is expected to be
revised at the Mid-Year budget update in
February. The forecast is higher than the original
budget due to multiple factors. Sales tax from
auto sales, which were previously projected to
decline, have continued to increase through the
second quarter of 2014. Sales tax from building
& construction, as well as restaurants & hotels
are expected to experience steady growth.
While the growth rate is high in these sectors,
the forecast is tempered by projected declining
growth rates in the Food and Drug, Business and
Industry and Fuel and Service Station business
sectors.
Going forward, sales tax is projected to increase
by 1.1% in 2015-16, 5.6% in 2016-17, 3.3% in
2017-18, 3.2% in 2018-19 and 3.1% in 2019-20.
The 2015-16 projection is heavily impacted by
the elimination of the “triple flip” sales tax for
property tax exchange which will be coming to
an end and is expected to include a one-time
deduction of approximately $320,000.
Excluding this deduction and normalizing the
growth rate, sales taxes are projected to increase
by 3.8% in 2015-16 and 3.5% in 2016-17.
As part of the fiscal forecast, staff conducted a
review of future development projects which are
expected to generate significant revenue in
future years. This forecast projects additional
sales tax revenues of $95,000 in 2016-17 and
$190,000 in 2017-18 and thereafter based on
anticipated development related to the
Chinatown development project.
7
The following table includes sales tax growth
projections that are factored into the projection
by the City, along with projections prepared by
Beacon Economics and HdL, the City’s sales tax
advisor. The data indicates varying degrees of
confidence in taxable sales growth over the
forecast period. Staff recommends using HdL’s
growth assumptions in the current forecast
calculation. In addition to taking a more
conservative approach it is important to note that
sales tax projections provided by HdL have been
reliable in previous fiscal years and are based on
the actual sales tax permit activity of each local
business. For example, 2012-13 sales tax
projections provided by HdL, including regular
sales tax and Measure Y, represented 99% of the
actual results for the Fiscal Year.
Sales Tax Growth Projections
Fiscal
Year Beacon HdL Fiscal Forecast
2015-16 4.9% 3.8% 3.8%
2016-17 4.7% 3.5% 3.5%
2017-18 4.5% 3.3% 3.8%
2018-19 4.3% 3.2% 3.2%
2019-20 4.2% 3.1% 3.1%
Measure Y / Measure G. The Measure Y half-
percent local sales tax revenue stream will come
to an end on March 31, 2015 and is being
replaced by Measure G. Measure G was
approved by voters in November 2014 and
provides an eight year extension of the local
general sales tax measure, meaning that this
revenue stream will continue beyond the life of
this forecast.
The growth projections for Measure Y/G are the
same as identified in the previous table for
general sales tax revenue. Combined, Measure
Y/G is projected to generate $6.9 million in
2014-15 and is anticipated to increase to $8.1
million by 2019-20.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Revenues
from transient occupancy tax (TOT) ended
2013-14 up by 8.8% from the prior year,
reaching $6.06 million. TOT revenues have
consistently grown at an average rate of 8% over
the past four years and are now at historic high
levels.
Localities throughout the region are benefiting
from a vibrant tourism industry, and this is
reflected in the TOT. TOT has also benefitted
from the extensive marketing efforts of the
Tourism Business Improvement District and
investments in the City’s community promotions
program.
As of September 2014, TOT revenues in 2014-
15 are 9.4% higher than the first quarter of
2013-14. Based on this level of continued
growth, the forecast projects that TOT revenues
will increase by 7.5% in 2014-15. Growth of 5%
down to 4.2% is projected from 2015-16 through
2019-20. This compares to the Tourism Board
Improvement District (TBID) strategic plan
which targets a total increase of 25% over five
year period (an average of 5% per year).
The following chart is provided to demonstrate
how significant TOT revenue increases have
been since 2010 and the trend for the future. The
forecast does not reflect the addition of TOT that
will be generated by any new hotels that are
slated for future construction, due to the
uncertainty of their completion dates and the
need to assess whether they will increase the
occupancy rate in the community.
Property Taxes. Property tax revenues in 2013-
14 totaled $12.6 million. This amount includes
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
20
1
9
TOT Revenues ($ in 000's)
Projected Actual
8
Property Taxes In Lieu of Vehicle License Fees.
While this represents a 2.4% reduction
compared to the 2012-13 total, it is important to
note that 2012-13 included a one-time refund in
the amount of $620,000 from the County for
previously paid administrative fees. Taking the
one-time payment out of the total, 2013-14
property taxes increased by 4.3% over the prior
year.
Based on data from the County Auditor-
Controller’s Office, staff projects property tax
growth of 3.9% in 2014-15 and 5.8% in 2015-
16. In years 2-5 of the forecast, property tax
growth rates of 3.9% to 4.3% are projected. This
reflects an increase from the June 2014 forecast
which projected growth rates of approximately
3% per year. The forecast revenue was increased
to reflect anticipated growth in assessed
valuation during this period, which differed from
that used by Beacon Economics because their
forecast was based on county-wide growth trend
assumptions and were not limited to the growth
within the City.
The following chart is shown to display
historical results, the impact of the one-time
administrative fee reimbursement in 2012-13,
and the forecasted property tax revenue
projection through Fiscal Year 2019-20.
Grants. The forecast does not reflect the receipt
of any new competitive grant revenues over the
next five years. The City’s past experiences
indicates that while new grants will be awarded
over the 5 year period, the timing and amount of
these awards cannot be accurately predicted.
Also, because grants cannot supplant existing
funding sources and have restrictions on their
use for specified purposes, incorporating an
estimate for them into the forecast is not
practical.
The forecast does include $319,000 annually for
grants and subvention amounts which have been
on-going and can reasonably be anticipated to
continue into the future. This amount includes
funding from the housing in-lieu fee, Zone 9
reimbursements and Homeowner Property Tax
Relief (both from the County), and the state
Supplemental Law Enforcement Allocation.
Development Review Fees. There continues to
be a high volume of development applications
and calls for inspection services in the
community. This has resulted in $4.2 million in
development review fees in 2013-14, a 62%
increase over the prior year. These fees support
the added resources needed by the Community
Development Department to maintain its
performance obligations during this period of
increased development activity. Based on results
from the first five months of the current fiscal
year, the Community Development Department
is projecting that development fees will grow to
$5.2 million in 2014-15, an increase of 23.7%
over 2013-14.
Based on trends in development applications and
building permit activity, the fiscal forecast
estimates that development review activity will
continue to increase in future years.
The revenue forecast uses growth projections
that are tied to the level of growth in building
permit valuation as predicted by Beacon
Economics, with one notable adjustment. The
fiscal forecast projects that development review
fee growth rates will lag by one year compared
to changes in building permit valuation rates
projected by Beacon. This adjustment was made
because Beacon is projecting a decline in 2014-
15 whereas staff is not seeing this trend since
current permit activity remains at a high level.
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
Property Taxes ($ in 000's)
One Time Projected Actual
9
This one-time decline is instead reflected in the
fiscal forecast for 2015-16.
The one-time decline in the permit valuation
growth rate is due to an expectation that some of
the growth experienced in recent years is caused
by pent up demand for development after
coming out of a recession. In spite of this, an
average annual growth rate of 6.9% in
development fees is projected over the next five
years.
The following table compares Beacon’s permit
valuation forecast to the City’s forecast for
Development Review Fees to show how the
revenue projection was applied. Essentially, the
table shows the City’s projection lagging one
fiscal year.
Fiscal Year
Building
Permit
Valuations
(Beacon)
Development
Review Fee
Forecast
FY 14-15 -20.5% 23.7%
FY 15-16 11.9% -20.5%
FY 16-17 16.2% 11.9%
FY 17-18 14.9% 16.2%
FY 18-19 12.1% 14.9%
FY 19-20 8.4% 12.1%
It is important to note that development review
fees paid at the time of an application represent a
prepayment for work in conjunction with the
development review process. Not all of these
should be allocated for expenditures in the
period they are received because some of the
work can only occur when the project is under
construction, which may be many months or
years after an application is processed and
payment is received.
In order to address rapidly increasing
development fees and their impact on
development review operations, in June of 2014
the City Council approved a policy whereby
75% of projected revenues in excess of the
current development review fee budget forecast
may be dedicated for the purpose of
accomplishing the timely processing of
development permit applications and to ensure
that there is adequate resources to process
applications following the payment of fees.
The forecast reflects this policy going forward
with the assumption that 75% of increased
revenues will be allocated to development
services operating activities. The table below
compares development review fees projected in
the last update of the fiscal forecast (June 2014)
to the current update. Also shown is how the
75% allocation impacts expenditure projections.
Development Review Fee Forecast ($ in 000s)
Fiscal Year
June
Forecast
Current
Forecast Variance
75%
Allocation
FY 14-15 3,396 5,206 1,810 1,357
FY 15-16 2,578 4,115 1,537 1,153
FY 16-17 2,581 4,527 1,946 1,460
FY 17-18 2,584 5,260 2,676 2,007
FY 18-19* 2,584 6,044 3,460 2,595
FY 19-20* 2,584 6,775 4,191 3,143
*2018-19 and 19-20 were not included in the June forecast. The
same amount forecasted in 2017-18 is shown for these years.
10
Expenditure Forecast
Operating Costs. In preparing this update of the
fiscal forecast, a detailed review of all operating
expenditures was conducted using the 2014-15
adopted budget as the base, net of one-time
expenditures. The forecast projects operating
costs to increase by 4.2% in 2015-16, followed
by incremental increases of 2.5% in the
following years. These factors do not include
potential cost increases related to PERS
retirement programs, which have been reviewed
on their own due to the magnitude of increases
in this area. The forecast projects higher growth
in operating costs in the first year because the
City is faced with a number of challenges going
into 2015-16 which may require additional
funding. These factors include, but are not
limited to: increases in standard operating costs
such as utilities which have gone up in recent
years; increases in contract services based on the
negotiated terms of the agreements; changes in
non-staffing budgets which were reduced during
the recession have not been fully restored; and
potential changes in staffing costs including
overtime factors, contractual obligations, and
insurance costs. As discussed later, there is the
potential for future retrospective adjustments for
both worker’s compensation and liability
insurance programs administered through the
CJPIA.
With respect to staffing costs, these expenditures
have remained relatively flat with slight declines
over recent years. Average staffing costs have
reduced by (0.7%) since 2010. This is the result
of efforts made by the City to control costs. For
example, all employees now pay the full
member contribution for CalPERS retirement
(8% or 9%). Beginning in January 2014,
members of the Police Officers Association are
now making 3% contributions towards the
employee normal cost. Second and third tier
retirement benefits are now in effect so that
benefits received by every new employee results
in less costs to the City. Ongoing savings have
resulted from positions eliminated during the
budget balancing efforts of the “Great
Recession.”
Going back to 2011, staffing as a percentage of
operating costs was at 80%. As a result of the
cost-sharing strategies identified above, this
percentage has been reduced down to 74%. The
following chart shows a ten year history of total
staffing costs and staffing as a percent of
operating expenditures in the General Fund.
One-Time Expenses. As indicated above, one-
time expenditures were excluded from the base
budget for purposes of forecasting costs into the
future. The 2014-15 budget includes $6.7
million in one-time or limited term expenditures.
These one-time expenses include:
$1.6 million in one-time or limited term
Significant Operating Program Changes
(SOPC’s) that are part of the 2014-15
budget but not assumed going forward.
These one-time SOPC’s were approved
at the Financial Plan, 2013-14 Mid-Year
Budget, and 2014-15 Supplement.
$2.065 million payment to CJPIA for
retrospective insurance expenditures
$1.8 million in carryover of encumbered
and unexpended operating funds from
2012-13
$468,300 of excess Development
Services revenues from 2013-14 have
been appropriated to fiscal year 2014-15
(75% of excess revenues)
$40,000 of one-time Zone 9 grant
appropriations
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Total Staffing and % of Operating Cost
($ in 000's)
Total Staffing % Operating
11
$154,000 in one-time funds approved by
Council since June budget adoption,
including $75,000 for Pismo Preserve
and $79,000 for the Downtown Renewal
project
California Public Employees Retirement
System (CalPERS). Fiscal Year 2015-16
represents the starting point of CalPERS’ new
funding formula designed to have all member
agencies pay down their unfunded liabilities
within 30 years. The new funding formula
includes a “ramp up” phase in which payments
to the unfunded liability are planned to escalate
over a 5 year period.
The City Council will be discussing the issue of
whether to consider a policy that will increase
the payments against the unfunded liabilities in
order to pay them off sooner than the current 30-
year period. This forecast does not reflect
payments to the unfunded liability above the
amounts that are projected based on valuation
reports.
Each year CalPERS provides member agencies
with actuarial valuation reports that provide the
basis for the PERS cost estimates included in the
fiscal forecast. The latest valuation report was
received in October and reflects information for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. The
valuation report for the Safety Tier I retirement
plan now includes a fixed amount to be paid
towards the unfunded liability in place of a
charge shown as a percentage of payroll that
would be applied against the safety plan’s actual
payroll during the year. The amounts to be paid
towards the unfunded retirement liability are
subject to change each year based on the latest
actuarial valuation.
2015-16 CalPERS costs are projected to increase
by 8% or by $666,000 over the 2014-15
budgeted amount. By 2019-20 these costs are
projected to grow by $3.9 million or 46% over
the current budget. Approximately 80% of the
increase in cost is estimated due to changes in
PERS retirement formulas. The majority of the
cost increase represents payments to be made
towards the unfunded liability. Normal costs,
which represent the value of the benefits earned
by current employees, are projected to remain
flat.
The table below estimates the portion of annual
required retirement contributions that have been
and will be directed towards normal costs
compared to the unfunded accrued liability
(UAL). This table provides a clear indication
that the growth in cost is attributable to the
unfunded liability. Note that this chart does not
include $1.2 million in total payments that the
City made towards the unfunded liability in
2013-14 and 2014-15. These payments were in
addition to the required annual contribution.
Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB)
costs. The City maintains a retiree health
benefit program in accordance with the
requirements of the CalPERS Health Benefit
Program. The City is legally obligated to pay the
same amount for each current employee and
retirees to allow future retirees to purchase
health coverage through the City’s program with
CalPERS Health Benefit Program. This program
provides retirees who qualify with a $119.00
monthly benefit toward the cost of their health
insurance premiums. (There is a group of 6
retirees for whom the City contributes more to
the cost of their health insurance premiums until
they reach age 65 or pass away.) The City also
pays CalPERS $119 for each current employee
to give them the right to purchase health
insurance after they retire. The City has been a
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
Ratio of Normal Costs to UAL Payments
UAL Normal Cost % UAL
12
me mber of this program since 1993 and entered
into an agreement with the California
Employers’ Benefit Trust (CERBT) to pre-fund
the City’s OPEB liability during the 2008-2009
fiscal year. Under the current funding plan, the
City is on track to retire the unfunded liability in
23 years.
An actuarial valuation of the City’s OPEB
system was completed on April 15, 2014 for the
year ending June 30, 2013 which reported that
the unfunded liability as of June 30, 2013 was
$4.4 million based on the actuarial value of
assets. The annual city-wide contribution toward
the cost of this benefit program is currently
$588,000 of which the General Fund pays
approximately 79% based on the distribution of
employees among the various programs operated
by the City. This amount is made up of the
City’s share of cost to prefund the unfunded
liability ($297,000) and premium contributions
made by retirees who purchase their health
insurance under the City’s health insurance
program.
A recent change has been made to the Actuarial
Standards of Practice rules that will require the
calculation of an “implied subsidy” starting in
two years. An implied subsidy is an actuarially
determined liability that results from allowing
retirees to both purchase their insurance and
obtain the post-retirement benefit at the same
rates as active employees. Because the cost of
health care increases with age, and because
retirees are older than the population of active
employees, the true cost of providing health care
benefits to retirees is generally higher than the
amount reflected in the health insurance
premium cost. This reporting change will result
in an increase in the amount of the Annual
Required Contribution (ARC) to reflect the cost
associated with the higher liability starting in
2016-17. The estimated increase in cost for that
year is $383,000 and the General Fund portion
($304,000) has been reflected in the 5 Year
Fiscal Forecast starting in that year. Following
are the estimated amounts of the additional cost
to fund the implied subsidy starting in 2016-17
according to the latest OPEB valuation report.
2016-17 $304,000
2017-18 $303,200
2018-19 $309,100
2019-20 $298,900
In the valuation report that was completed for
the year ending June 30, 2013, the actuary
calculated the implied subsidy using the
actuarial value of assets to be $5.0 million. As a
result, the combined total of the OPEB unfunded
liability is $9.4 million as of June 30, 2013.
Retrospective Insurance Liabilities. Based on
preliminary information provided by the
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
(CJPIA), the fiscal forecast projects that a $1.1
million General Fund deposit ($1.4 million all
funds) is required to fund the most recent
retrospective adjustment for the worker’s
compensation and general liability programs.
These insurance programs are reviewed annually
and require retrospective adjustments (increases
or decreases) until all claims are closed in their
respective years up to 2012-13.
At this time, the CJPIA is unable to provide the
City with an estimate for the cost of any future
retrospective adjustments. For that reason, staff
recommends creating a reserve of excess general
fund balance to include the $1.1 million
retrospective payment that must be made in
2015-16. In addition, staff recommends
increasing the reserve by $1.32 million which
represents the cumulative five year total of the
original estimate that was shown in the last five
year forecast prepared as part of the
supplemental budget process. This reserve
amount will be reviewed annually as new
information is received from the CJPIA to
determine if it is adequate to cover future
retrospective deposits.
While the CJPIA has developed a new funding
model that is designed to eliminate retrospective
adjustments in the future, this only applies to
plan years after 2012-13. The most recent
retrospective adjustment applies to plan years
ending with 2012-13.
Insurance / Benefit Fund (IBF). The Insurance
Benefit Fund was established in 2013-14 to
accumulate resources needed to pay for
13
anticipated increases in employee benefit costs,
most notably PERS retirement costs as they
were expected to increase significantly. As a
result, the fiscal forecast reflects a General Fund
transfer in 2014-15 in the amount of $280,000 to
the IBF, which represents 1% of staff salaries.
When the fund was established there was a plan
to increase this funding level to 2% of salaries in
the future and this was reflected in the previous
fiscal forecast.
Now that CalPERS has provided more detailed
information about the 5 year trend in retirement
costs which are now included in the fiscal
forecast, staff recommends discontinuing the
future transfers into the Insurance Benefit Fund
to set aside monies to fund future retirement
costs to avoid double counting the change in
retirement costs.
However, this does not mean that the use of the
Insurance Benefit Fund would be discontinued.
Based on auditor recommendations, staff will
program any future retrospective payments made
to the CJPIA in the Insurance Benefit Fund and
as well as a transfer from the General Fund to
cover that expense, as shown in the fiscal
forecast.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Support
Costs
One of the Council’s continuing Other Important
Objectives is to “Enhance maintenance of City
infrastructure including attention to streets,
sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, lighting,
bicycle paths, creek and flood protection, parks,
open space, urban forest, public buildings, and
other City-owned property.” This is
accomplished in part through the Capital
Improvement Plan. The purpose of the CIP is to
systematically plan, schedule, and finance
capital projects to ensure cost-effectiveness as
well as conformance with established policies.
The CIP is a five-year plan organized into the
same functional groupings used for the operating
programs. The CIP will reflect a balance
between capital replacement projects that repair,
replace or enhance existing facilities, equipment
or infrastructure; and capital facility projects that
significantly expand or add to the City's existing
fixed assets.
Funding for the general government projects that
are included in the CIP is mostly from transfers
made out of the General Fund and into the
General Capital Outlay, Fleet Equipment
Replacement, Information Technology
Replacement, Debt Service and Facility
Maintenance Funds. Previously, contributions
made to the debt service fund have not been
counted as part of this total however staff has
recognized that the debt service cost for CIP
projects paid by the General Fund is another
measure of support for the City’s CIP program.
A review of General Fund contributions for the
CIP including debt service dating back to 1995-
96 reveals that the annual average contributions
made by the General Fund up through 2006-
2007 were $5.4 million. Since that time, the
annual average has been $8.0 million. The 5
Year Fiscal Forecast reflects the following CIP
contributions, including debt service payments
for on debt issued for equipment and facility
construction.
The following chart indicates the City’s ability
to better that investment in CIP for the next five
years. It also shows how CIP funding in the
current fiscal forecast reflects an increase over
what was estimated in the last update of the
fiscal forecast as of June 2014. Since 2018-19
and 2019-20 were not part of the June forecast,
the chart reflects growth above 2017-18 levels.
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Fiscal Forecast: Transfers to CIP
CIP Debt Svc CIP (June Forecast)
14
*The 2014-15 debt service budget includes amounts for
retrospective insurance and unfunded liability payments;
these amounts are excluded from the chart above which
only reflects CIP related expenses.
The estimated contributions to debt service are
based on the actual debt service requirements
while the contributions to the capital outlay
funds reflect modest growth intended to
continue the General Fund’s ongoing support for
infrastructure, facilities and equipment
maintenance and replacement needs.
15
Summary
The City enters the 2015-17 Financial Planning
period in a substantially improved economic
condition both in the long and short terms than it
has in previous financial plan periods. However,
it still faces significant challenges, particularly
in the area of increased employee retirement
benefit costs, insurance programs and the legal
obligation concerning retiree medical. As a
result of an improved economy, combined with
fiscally responsible decisions of the past, the
City is positioned to address these challenges
while also having an opportunity to make
investments and reinvestments which will
continue to improve our community.
The City continues to have substantial
advantages compared with many communities in
California due to the following:
1. A balanced budget and reserves above
minimum policy levels;
2. Dedication to fiscal responsibility;
3. Strong financial systems, policies and
procedures;
4. Commitment to transparency and
principles of engagement;
5. Strong Council leadership
6. Citizens who care deeply about the
City’s quality of life and services
7. Staff that is committed, dedicated and
passionate about achieving the City’s
mission
8. A Great tradition of responsible
stewardship
The civic infrastructure will serve San Luis
Obispo well in successfully meeting challenges
ahead.
16
Synopsis of Major Assumptions
Demographic Trends
Inflation. Grows by 2.5% in each year of the
forecast
Population and Housing. Over the last five
years population has grown by an average of
0.2% and housing units by an average of 0.5%.
The forecast does not include revenue or
expenditure assumptions specifically related to
these modest growth factors.
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures Compared to the
adopted budget for 2014-15 net of one-time cost
factors, operating costs are projected to increase
by 4.2% in 2015-16 followed by 2.5% for
inflation.
Operating Expenditures – PERS Retirement
Costs. Retirement costs are based on the
employer rates identified in the October 2014
CalPERS’ actuarial valuation, adjusted for
employee contributions. CalPERS has provided
the actual employer rates applicable to 2015-16
and estimates for the remaining years shown in
the forecast.
CIP Expenditures – The amount of support for
CIP spending reported in the five year forecast
reflects a balance between the investment in CIP
that is needed and the amount of available
excess revenues that are identified in each fiscal
year. Council has the discretion to amend the
amount of funding available to CIP activities
through the 2015-17 Financial Plan process.
Debt Service. The forecast includes the support
needed to fund the current debt service payments
through 2019-20. A $612,000 reduction is
projected in 2019-20 due to a reduction in 2009
Lease Revenue Bonds and completion of 2013
Fire Engine Lease Financing.
Key Revenues
The “top dozen” revenue sources described
below account for about 95% of the total
General Fund revenues.
1. Sales Tax. Sales taxes include multiple
components. General Sales Tax growth is
based on the information provided by HdL
as part of their sales tax permit monitoring
service. Staff also incorporated specific
factors for the Chinatown development
project. The forecast estimates $95,000 in
additional revenues in 2016-17 and
$190,000 in the following years for this
project.
Measure Y revenues are projected to grow at
the same rates as those shown for the
general sales tax.
Proposition 172 sales tax revenues, which
are a component of the state sales tax rate,
were projected using growth rates provided
by Beacon Economics. These revenues are
projected to grow by 5.3% in 2015-16, 7.4%
in 2016-17, 7.6% in 2017-18, 6.8% in 2018-
19, and 6.3% in 2019-20.
2. Property Tax. Growth in assessed
valuation, which drives the property tax
revenue trend, is estimated to be 5.8% in
2015-16 based on information provided by
the County Auditor-Controller’s Office.
This trend varies from 3.9% to 4.3% in the
following years.
3. Transient Occupancy Tax. TOT is
projected to grow by 5% in 2015-16, 4.8%
in 2016-17, 4.5% in 2017-18, 4.3% in 2018-
19, and 4.2% in 2019-20. These rates are in
line with the Tourism Improvement Board’s
strategic plan revenue forecast for this
timeframe.
4. Utility Users Tax. Grows by 4% in all years
which is comparable to the average growth
rate projected by Beacon Economics (4.1%)
5. Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License
Fees. Grows by the same rate as projected
17
property tax revenues throughout the
forecast period.
6. Business Tax. Grows by 2.5% or the
projected rate of inflation over all five years
which is comparable to the growth rate
experienced in the past five years.
7. Franchise Fees. Grows by 1.5% for all
years of the forecast which is comparable to
historical trends over five years (1.6%)
8. Gas Tax Subventions. Remains flat
throughout the forecast based on
information from California City Finance
which monitors the State’s payments of gas
tax and expected trends in fuel sales
volumes
9. Development Review Fees. Growth is
based on the projected growth rate in
building permit valuations forecast by
Beacon Economics. Staff adjusted the
timing of the growth rates provided by
Beacon so they more closely align with the
current growth in revenue. Over the 5 year
period, the following rates are reflected:
-20.5% in 2015-16 followed by increases of
10% in 2016-17, 16.2% in 2017-18, 14.9%
in 2018-19, and 12.1% in 2019-20.
It should be noted that the one-time
reduction projected in 2015-16 is following
two years of significant growth (62% actual
growth in 2013-14 and 23.7% projected in
2014-15).
10. Recreation Fees. Grows by 2% throughout
the forecast period
11. Other Fees. Projected to remain flat over
the forecast period. However, a review of
the City’s fee schedule is currently being
conducted which could lead to changes in
this estimate as part of the financial plan
adoption process.
12. Investments. Investment income is
projected to be flat and reflects the
expectation that interest rates will continue
to remain low throughout the forecast
period. However, the Finance Director is
exploring alternatives to the current
investment strategy which could increase
interest yields by a modest amount over
time.
18
City of San Luis Obispo - General Fund Five Year Fiscal Forecast
December 2014
$ in 000's Actual Actual Actual Budget Projected
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Sales Tax 13,290 14,242 15,406 15,277 15,739 15,907 16,897 17,542 18,099 18,664
Measure Y/G Sales Tax 6,237 6,494 6,774 6,775 6,882 7,141 7,393 7,635 7,880 8,129
Sales Tax Prop 172 307 328 392 350 411 432 464 500 534 567
Property Taxes 8,367 9,177 8,960 8,934 9,263 9,801 10,183 10,600 11,046 11,520
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 3,492 3,533 3,646 3,722 3,849 4,073 4,231 4,405 4,590 4,787
Transient Occupancy Tax 5,222 5,572 6,063 6,290 6,518 6,844 7,170 7,496 7,822 8,148
Utility Users Tax 4,584 4,916 5,345 5,500 5,506 5,720 5,949 6,187 6,434 6,692
Franchise Fees 2,462 2,552 2,637 2,540 2,676 2,716 2,757 2,798 2,840 2,883
Business Tax 1,838 2,055 2,143 2,185 2,197 2,251 2,308 2,365 2,425 2,485
Real Property Transfer Tax 144 256 288 180 180 184 187 191 195 199
Subtotal Taxes 45,944 49,126 51,653 51,752 53,221 55,069 57,540 59,719 61,864 64,074
Gas Tax / TDA / Transfers In 1,408 1,375 1,640 1,489 1,489 1,489 1,489 1,489 1,489 1,489
Other Subventions & Grants 564 1,355 1,238 327 399 319 319 319 319 319
Development Review Fees 2,454 2,595 4,207 3,396 5,206 4,115 4,527 5,260 6,044 6,775
Recreation Fees 1,742 1,748 1,733 1,548 1,635 1,667 1,701 1,735 1,769 1,805
Other Service Charges 2,090 1,851 1,952 1,743 1,763 1,764 1,764 1,764 1,764 1,764
Other Revenues 893 903 604 373 496 496 496 496 496 496
Bond Proceeds 5,386 - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal Non-Tax Revenues 14,537 9,828 11,374 8,875 10,987 9,850 10,295 11,063 11,881 12,648
Total Revenues 60,481 58,953 63,027 60,627 64,209 64,919 67,835 70,781 73,745 76,721
Operating Expenses (excl PERS)38,845 40,996 42,417 43,982 46,309 45,101 46,186 47,895 48,708 50,432
PERS Normal Costs 1 4,189 3,145 2,921 4,522 4,621 3,535 3,735 3,836 3,935 4,031
PERS Unfunded Liability 4,178 4,443 4,642 3,791 3,791 5,629 6,327 6,942 7,592 8,278
Development Svcs Allocation2 - - - - 1,358 1,154 1,460 2,007 2,595 3,143
Subtotal: Operating Expenses 47,212 48,583 49,981 52,295 56,079 55,419 57,708 60,680 62,830 65,885
Bond Costs 5,779
Debt Service 2,437 2,773 3,551 5,577 5,382 3,000 2,994 2,994 2,892 2,280
Transfer to CDBG 54 45 52 75 75 126 126 126 126 126
Transfer to Insurance Benefit Fund - - - 280 280 1,124 - - - -
CIP - Fleet Replacement 500 500 411 533 533 624 655 824 824 975
CIP - IT Replacement - 200 566 967 967 650 683 700 850 900
CIP - Major Facility Replacement - - 853 551 551 607 637 720 825 850
CIP - All Other 3,723 3,496 5,754 2,516 2,739 3,765 3,953 3,953 4,072 4,400
Subtotal: Operating Transfers 12,492 7,014 11,187 10,498 10,527 9,896 9,048 9,317 9,589 9,531
Total Expenditures 59,704 55,597 61,168 62,793 66,606 65,315 66,757 69,997 72,419 75,416
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenses 3 777 3,356 1,860 95 2,175 728 1,079 784 1,326 1,306
One Time Use of Reserve4 - - - (2,261) (4,572) (1,124) - - - -
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 12,908 13,684 18,938 15,189 20,797 18,400 18,004 19,083 19,867 21,193
Funding Adjustment - 1,897 - - - - - -
Ending Fund Balance 13,685 18,938 20,797 13,023 18,400 18,004 19,083 19,867 21,193 22,499
Reserve @ 20% Operating Costs 9,161 10,070 10,458 10,813 11,216 11,384 11,542 12,136 12,566 13,177
Adj for Debt Svc Reserve (603) (332) (332) (332) (332) (332) (332) (332) (332) (332)
Encumbrance & Designated Reserve 5 (2,279) (1,768) (6,272) (1,700) (2,444) (1,320) (1,320) (1,320) (1,320) (1,320)
Reserve Over/(Under) Policy Level 1,642 6,767 3,735 179 4,409 4,969 5,890 6,079 6,975 7,670
Change In 20% Reserve Level 168 158 594 430 611
Undesignated and Available 6 4,409 560 921 190 896 695
Notes
1 PERS costs estimated based on CalPERS valuation reports and broken out by normal cost vs unfunded liability to show the impact of PERS rate changes.
2 Relfecs 75% of development services revenues in excess of prior fiscal forecast levels
3 Projected revenues over expenses excluces one-time use of designated reserves shown in the line below
4 2014-15 use of reserve includes $2 million CJPIA, $196k Dev Svcs SOPC, $1.8M carryover, $468k Dev Svcs revenue appropriation. 2015-16 reflects CJPIA.
5 2013-14 reserve includes $2.1M CJPIA, $1.7M contingency reserve, $1.8M carryover, $468k Dev Svcs, $196k SOPC. 2014-15 and beyond reflects CJPIA.
6 Undesignated reflects balance available for appropriation. If allocated to operating this amount is to be reduced by 20% for reserve requirements.12/9/2014
Five Year Forecast
15-17 Financial Plan
19
PROJECTION FACTORS 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
DEMOGRAPHICS
Population 0.2%0.2%0.2%0.3%
Housing Units 0.3%0.5%0.6%0.7%
Inflation 1.6%2.4%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%
KEY REVENUES
Sales Tax (excluding Triple Flip Adj)8.0%5.4%3.5%4.0%2.2%3.8%3.5%3.3%3.2%3.1%
Triple Flip Adjustment (322)
Chinatown 95 190 190 190
Measure Y/G Sales Tax 4.2%3.9%NA NA 1.6%3.8%3.5%3.3%3.2%3.1%
Property Tax 3.7%0.5%4.1%5.2%3.4%5.8%3.9%4.1%4.2%4.3%
Transient Occupancy Tax 7.8%5.4%4.6%4.0%7.5%5.0%4.8%4.5%4.3%4.2%
Utility Users Tax 8.2%4.4%4.2%4.2%3.0%3.9%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%
Franchise Fees 3.5%1.6%3.0%7.1%1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5%
Business Tax 8.3%2.6%3.8%4.9%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%
Gas Tax / TDA / Transfers In 7.5%15.2%6.7%5.1%-9.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Development Review Fees 34%24%23.7%-21.0%10.0%16.2%14.9%12.1%
Recreation Fees 0%8%-5.7%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
EXPENDITURES
Operating Costs (excluding PERS 4.2%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%
PERS (Estimated based on actuarial reports)-23.5%5.7%2.7%2.6%2.5%
Estimated Staff savings 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
Estimated Non-Staff savings 2.0%2.0%
Debt Service (Based on Existing Debt)-44.2%-0.2%0.0%-3.4%-21.2%
CIP (including Fleet, IT, Major Facility, All Other)17.8%5.0%4.5%6.0%8.4%
Forecast AssumptionsHistorical Trends (Annual Growth Rates)
20
Historical Trends and Supplemental Information: Overview
In order to establish the five-year forecast, the City looks at historical trends and other relevant information in
order to make informed decisions about its projections. The following information is an important part of the
fiscal forecast and highlights information that has and will continue to influence the City's past, current, and future
standing.
In preparing the forecast, the below information was reviewed:
Population, Housing, CPI .................................................................................................. page 22
• Population and Housing growth rates over the past 15 years
• Consumer Price Index (CPI) growth rates over 15 years
Overview of General Fund Revenue Sources .................................................................. page 24
• General Fund Revenue Overview including 2013-14 unaudited results and trends over 15 years
• Review of Major revenue sources over 15 years
• Sales tax revenues by Industry Group over 5 years
• Sales tax "Pool" revenues
• Property Tax Supplemental Information
• Development Review Fee revenues by type over 5 years
General Fund Operating Program Expenditures .............................................................. page 31
• Total operating expenditures by Function over 15 years including unaudited results from 2013-14
• Staffing Expenditures over 15 years
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Expenditures over 15 years
• Debt Service Obligations over 15 years
• PERS rate assumptions used in Fiscal Forecast
Revenue Compared with Expenditures over 15 years........................................................ page 35
21
Population & Housing
Year Population % Change Housing Units Annual Change %Change
2000 44,032 0.6%18,871 95 0.5%
2001 44,293 0.6%19,355 484 2.6%
2002 44,406 0.3%19,461 106 0.5%
2003 44,293 -0.3%19,558 97 0.5%
2004 44,271 0.0%19,617 59 0.3%
2005 44,630 0.8%19,962 345 1.8%
2006 44,483 -0.3%20,062 100 0.5%
2007 44,438 -0.1%20,102 40 0.2%
2008 44,650 0.5%20,222 120 0.6%
2009 44,938 0.6%20,318 96 0.5%
2010 45,046 0.2%20,375 57 0.3%
2011 45,269 0.5%20,578 203 1.0%
2012 45,312 0.1%20,663 85 0.4%
2013 45,593 0.6%20,697 34 0.2%
2014 45,473 -0.3%20,779 82 0.4%
2 Year Avg 0.2%0.3%
5 Year Avg 0.2%0.5%
10 Year Avg 0.3%0.6%
15 Year Avg 0.3%0.7%
Source: State of California Department of Finance - Demographic Research Unit
Population. The population in San Luis Obispo has grown during most of the past 15 years at a steady
pace with no major increases. As of January 1, 2014 the City's population is 45,473. Compared to 2000,
this is an increase of 1,441 or an average of 96 new residents per year.
Housing. Housing units have also experienced a steady increase with two more significant growth spurts
in 2001 (2.6% / 484 Units) and in 2005 (1.8% / 345 Units). Over the past 15 years the City's housing
inventory has grown by 1,908 units from 18,871 to 20,779.
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
Annual Population & Housing Change: Last 15 Years
Population
Housing
22
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Avg Growth US: CPI-U So. Cal No. Cal
Last 2 Years 1.6%1.4%2.4%
Last 5 Years 2.4%2.0%2.6%
Last 10 Years 2.5%2.6%2.5%
Last 15 Years 2.5%2.7%2.7%
The City uses several CPI regions depending on the application. The City's rates and fee structure is
increased annually by the U.S. City Average (All Urban Consumers CPI), but many of the labor
agreements use the Southern California (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange) or Northern California (San
Francisco, Oakland, San Jose) CPI. The following charts summarize changes in the CPI for those
regions over the past 15 years.
150
170
190
210
230
250
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
CPI - Last 15 Years
US: CPI-U So Cal No Cal
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
Percent Change in CPI: Last 15 Years
US: CPI-U So Cal No Cal
23
General Fund Revenue Sources
Tax Revenue Column1 Tax Entity
2014-15
Budget per
6/30/14 % of Budget
Sales Tax State 15,276,800 26%
Sales Tax - Measure Y Local 6,775,000 11%
Public Safety Tax (Prop 172)State 350,400 1%
Property Tax County 8,933,600 15%
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 3,721,600 6%
Transient Occupancy Tax Local 6,289,800 11%
Utility User Tax Local 5,500,000 9%
Franchise Fees Local 2,540,200 4%
Business Tax & Licenses Local 2,184,500 4%
Real Property Transfer Tax Local 180,000 0%
Service Charges
Development Review Fees 3,396,300 6%
Recreation Fees 1,547,700 3%
Other Service Charges 1,743,000 3%
Subventions & Grants 327,000 1%
Fines & Forfeitures 156,000 0%
Historical Trends in Revenue Sources
Fiscal Year
Ending
Major Tax
Revenues % Change
All General
Fund Revenue %Change
2000 25,609,500 10.5%29,906,000 5.3%
2001 27,298,600 6.6%30,977,000 3.6%
2002 28,722,000 5.2%35,769,300 15.5%
2003 29,541,400 2.9%35,522,000 -0.7%
2004 31,285,600 5.9%37,777,500 6.3%
2005 32,712,500 4.6%37,953,900 0.5%
2006 35,702,900 6.2%44,376,900 16.9%
2007 40,202,800 14.8%45,165,700 1.8%
2008*45,752,800 14.2%54,152,000 19.9%
2009 44,324,500 -3.1%53,745,600 -0.8%
2010 42,631,300 -3.8%49,265,700 -8.3%
2011 44,618,800 4.5%50,382,200 2.3%
2012 46,862,300 5.2%54,976,800 9.1%
2013 49,743,300 6.6%58,953,000 7.5%
2014 52,465,500 6.6%63,027,300 7.5%
2 Year Avg 6.6%7.5%
5 Year Avg 3.8%3.6%
10 Year Avg 5.6%5.6%
15 Year Avg 5.8%5.8%
* 2008 reflects first full year of Measure Y funding
The City receives income from two major revenue sources, taxes and service fees. The tables below
reflect a breakout of the individual revenues comprising these revenue streams. An in depth review of
revenue allocations is included on the following pages.
24
Major Tax Revenues - 15 Year Data
Fiscal Year
Ending Sales Tax
%
Change
Measure Y
Sales Tax
%
Change
Property
Tax
%
Change
Property
Tax in Lieu
of VLF
%
Change
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
%
Change
Utility
Users Tax
%
Change
2000 9,283,400 - 4,501,300 - 3,582,700 3,079,100
2001 9,516,400 3%- NA 4,799,800 7%- NA 3,920,200 9%3,425,200 11%
2002 10,099,200 6%- NA 5,219,000 9%- NA 3,790,300 -3%3,532,300 3%
2003 10,179,300 1%- NA 5,584,200 7%- NA 3,840,800 1%3,666,200 4%
2004 11,294,300 11%- NA 6,069,600 9%- NA 3,922,200 2%3,669,200 0%
2005 11,745,400 4%- NA 6,630,600 9%- NA 4,079,800 4%3,670,200 0%
2006 12,675,900 8%- NA 7,519,600 13%1,530,800 NA 4,539,200 11%3,947,300 8%
2007 13,993,800 10%1,000,000 NA 8,255,000 10%3,061,500 100%4,786,000 5%4,096,100 4%
2008 13,581,700 -3%5,996,600 500%8,374,200 1%3,280,100 7%5,054,700 6%4,177,700 2%
2009 12,070,700 -11%5,641,400 -6%8,788,400 5%3,504,700 7%4,679,500 -7%4,358,500 4%
2010 10,723,900 -11%5,252,500 -7%8,579,300 -2%3,565,100 2%4,496,100 -4%4,862,400 12%
2011 12,098,600 13%5,616,300 7%8,441,100 -2%3,551,100 0%4,844,200 8%4,592,300 -6%
2012 13,290,000 10%6,237,500 11%8,367,000 -1%3,492,400 -2%5,222,000 8%4,584,100 0%
2013 14,242,200 7%6,493,800 4%9,176,600 10%3,533,200 1%5,572,400 7%4,916,100 7%
2014 15,405,800 8%6,774,400 4%8,960,000 -2%3,645,700 3%6,063,200 9%5,345,300 9%
2 Year Avg 7.7%4.2%3.7%2.2%7.8%8.0%
5 Year Avg 5.4%3.9%0.5%0.8%5.4%4.4%
10 Year Avg 3.5%73.3%4.1%14.8%4.6%3.9%
15 Year Avg 4.0%73.3%5.2%14.8%4.0%4.1%
Fiscal Year
Ending
Business
Tax
%
Change
Franchise
Fees
%
Change
Gas Tax
& TDA
%
Change
VLF in
Excess
%
Change
Sum of
Major Tax
Revenues
%
Change
All Revenue
Sources
%
Change
2000 1,107,800 1,089,600 834,700 2,130,900 25,609,500 29,906,000
2001 1,275,200 15%1,211,800 11%852,300 2%2,297,700 8%27,298,600 7%30,977,000 4%
2002 1,355,900 6%1,388,100 15%869,800 2%2,467,400 7%28,722,000 5%35,769,300 15%
2003 1,429,900 5%1,356,200 -2%863,200 -1%2,621,600 6%29,541,400 3%35,522,000 -1%
2004 1,475,100 3%1,967,800 45%874,100 1%2,013,300 -23%31,285,600 6%37,777,500 6%
2005 1,518,800 3%2,005,600 2%875,100 0%2,187,000 9%32,712,500 5%37,953,900 0%
2006 1,578,000 4%2,101,300 5%855,200 -2%955,600 -56%35,702,900 9%44,376,900 17%
2007 1,706,700 8%2,153,700 2%853,300 0%296,700 -69%40,202,800 13%45,165,700 2%
2008 1,866,400 9%2,361,700 10%869,400 2%190,300 -36%45,752,800 14%54,152,000 20%
2009 1,878,500 1%2,439,400 3%796,900 -8%166,500 -13%44,324,500 -3%53,745,600 -1%
2010 1,830,100 -3%2,396,700 -2%790,200 -1%135,000 -19%42,631,300 -4%49,265,700 -8%
2011 1,797,800 -2%2,352,100 -2%1,119,700 42%205,600 52%44,618,800 5%50,382,200 2%
2012 1,815,400 1%2,462,300 5%1,346,000 20%45,600 -78%46,862,300 5%55,094,500 9%
2013 2,038,900 12%2,552,300 4%1,198,500 -11%19,300 -58%49,743,300 6%58,953,300 7%
2014 2,124,600 4%2,637,000 3%1,509,500 26%- -100%52,465,500 5%63,027,300 7%
2 Year Avg 8.3%3.5%7.5%-78.8%5.8%7.0%
5 Year Avg 2.6%1.6%15.2%-40.4%3.5%3.4%
10 Year Avg 3.8%3.0%6.7%-36.7%5.4%5.6%
15 Year Avg 4.9%7.1%5.1%-26.3%5.4%5.7%
25
Sales Taxes by Industry Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
% of Total
2013-14
Autos & Transport 1,826,041 2,025,718 2,172,351 2,604,966 2,967,061 21%
Building & Construction 969,473 1,025,685 1,076,986 1,103,594 1,336,479 10%
Business & Industry 724,884 722,163 823,276 959,562 1,007,181 7%
Food and Drugs 708,609 704,867 734,380 725,238 717,948 5%
Fuel & Service Stations 883,851 1,173,539 1,419,194 1,361,234 1,336,184 10%
General Consumer Goods 4,010,555 4,076,226 4,483,070 4,554,066 4,826,021 35%
Restaurants & Hotels 1,293,069 1,301,032 1,398,553 1,579,122 1,651,185 12%
Transfers & Unidentified (922) - (108) (1) 2
TOTAL 10,415,560 11,029,230 12,107,702 12,887,781 13,842,061
Sales Tax Revenues by Industry
The City's Sales Tax revenues come from several different business categories, each of which performs very differently in
responses to economic conditions. The chart below shows the City's Sales Tax revenues by major business category for the
previous five years. It also shows the percent of total revenue generated by each category in 2013-14. The line graph chart
shows that the largest and most volatile business category is general consumer goods. In making Sales Tax projections, the
historical performance of each of the categories and various economic factors influencing them are taken into consideration.
Note that the following tables do not include sales tax "pool" revenues which are discussed in more detail on the following
page.
Quarterly Sales Tax by Industry Group: 2011-2014
26
Sales Tax "Pool" Revenues
As mentioned earlier, several major revenue sources have unique characteristics or have undergone changes during
prior years that must be considered when making five-year projections. These include Sales Tax and Property Tax,
Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) and Development Review Fees.
While sales taxes are usually generated on a "situs" basis (city or county unincorporated area where the sale takes
place), there are a variety of retail transactions that are allocated on a “pool" basis because the State Board of
Equalization believes that it would be too difficult to do otherwise. These are generally known as "use taxes." A
significant portion of the City's sales tax revenues come from the "pool" - between 10% and 15%. Allocations from the
pool are made in proportion to a city's or county's share of situs revenues; as such, the City receives about 28% of
County pool revenues. While used car sales between private parties are a large component of the pool for all cities in
the State, there is a unique situation in San Luis Obispo due to the Diablo Canyon power plant: it is a large sales tax
generator, and all of these revenues go into the County pool. These revenues are especially pronounced during reactor
refueling, which occurs about every 14 to 16 months.
However, beginning in 1997, the State Board of Equalization changed its allocation procedures. Now, any individual
transaction in excess of $500,000 that would otherwise be distributed through the pool is allocated on a situs basis.
Staff initially estimated that this change would result in a loss to the City of about $180,000 on an annualized basis.
However, it turns out that this is more difficult to project than we originally thought because we did not lose all Diablo
Canyon revenues - just those with a value greater than $500,000 per transaction. Cumulatively, it appears that sales
activity at Diablo Canyon for individual transactions under $500,000 remains high. This is reflected in pool revenues
from 1998-2006, when they either increased or remained relatively constant rather than decreased sharply as we would
have otherwise expected. After declining between 2006 and 2010, these pool revenues are on the rise again.
Increasing pool taxes are largely due to online sales which are included in the pool and have been growing significantly
in recent years. As a result of this online sales factor, pool taxes are expected to continue to increase at a higher level
than the rate that is projected for any industry. This anticipated increase in pool revenues is reflected in the fiscal
forecast.
Because the pool is such a large portion of the City’s total sales revenues and is volatile based on factors unrelated to
the City's retail base, a better indicator of trends is sales tax revenue excluding pool allocations. The following chart
summarizes City pool sales tax revenues for the past fifteen fiscal years.
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
$1,400,000
$1,500,000
$1,600,000
"Pool" Sales Tax Revenues: Last 15 Years
27
Property Tax
Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF)
Property Tax Supplemental Information
Property Tax has been the revenue most affected by voter initiatives and legislative actions over the years.
With approval of Proposition 13 in 1978, Property Tax revenues were reduced by two-thirds and thereafter
limited to 2% annual increases or changes to the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. When properties
change hands or are improved, the base for assessing the tax (the "assessed value") is increased or decreased to
reflect the current market value.
Although the Property Tax is strictly a local revenue and is shared by cities, counties, school districts and
special districts, it is collected and allocated in accordance with State law. In the early 1990s, the State
legislature permanently shifted a larger portion of the Property Tax to schools. This shift was made to the
State's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to backfill a portion of the State's obligation for
school funding. This original "ERAF shift" resulted in an ongoing annual loss to the City of approximately $2
million that could be used for property-related basic services. In 2006-07 the state made one more revenue
shift and then built into their budget a permanent 2/3 reduction in the Vehicle License Fee and began
substituting this revenue stream with property tax in-lieu payments to cities and counties.
Included in the State budget deal with local governments in 2004-05 was a permanent redistribution of two of
the City's revenue sources. Under this agreement, the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) rate for cities was
permanently reduced from 2% to 0.65%. In 2005-06 the City began receiving monthly payments at the lower
rate while the remaining amount which is now known as VLF in-lieu revenue, was added to the property tax
base and is paid to the City in semi-annual installments. The rate of increase in the VLF in-lieu monies is tied
to the growth rate of the City's property tax assessed valuation base. Effective July 1, 2011, as part of the
Legislature's efforts to solve the state's budget problems, the monthly payment of VLF revenue to cities was
eliminated and permanently shifted to fund law enforcement grants. As a result, the City has received no VLF
revenues after the 2012-13 Fiscal Year.
28
Development Review Fees: Last Five Years
Fiscal Year Planning Building Fire Engineering Total
2009-10 429,600 829,000 103,700 959,700 2,322,000
2010-11 500,400 724,800 122,900 319,900 1,668,000
2011-12 392,000 924,600 149,600 987,600 2,453,800
2012-13 587,500 1,266,100 219,300 522,311 2,595,211
2014-15 1,023,984 2,043,217 308,756 831,130 4,207,086
Development review fees are a General Fund revenue source that are particularly sensitive to economic
conditions. In 2013-14 these fees increased by 62% above 2012-13 levels. All development review fee
types - Planning, Building, Fire, and Engineering - experienced growth in the past year, as shown in the
chart below. This trend has continued into 2014-15 and the fiscal forecast projects that there will continue
to be significant growth in development review fees.
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2014-15
Development Review Fees: Last 5 Years
Planning
Building
Engineering
Fire
29
General Fund Operating Program Expenses by Function
Fiscal Year
Ending
Public
Safety: Police
%
Change
Public
Safety:
Fire
%
Change
2000 6,901,900 7.5%4,581,900 -3.1%
2001 7,340,700 6.4%4,841,200 5.7%
2002 7,990,700 8.9%5,906,500 22.0%
2003 8,822,800 10.4%6,505,200 10.1%
2004 9,758,100 10.6%7,495,900 15.2%
2005 10,121,500 3.7%7,702,700 2.8%
2006 10,948,000 8.2%8,299,000 7.7%
2007 11,240,400 2.7%9,419,200 13.5%
2008*14,901,300 32.6%10,154,600 7.8%
2009 15,194,200 2.0%10,808,200 6.4%
2010 14,525,400 -4.4%9,678,400 -10.5%
2011 14,019,900 -3.5%9,486,200 -2.0%
2012 14,029,600 0.1%9,923,600 4.6%
2013 14,276,200 1.8%9,697,200 -2.3%
2014 14,215,500 -0.4%9,648,010 -0.5%
2 Year Avg 0.7%-1.4%
5 Year Avg -1.3%-2.1%
10 Year Avg 4.3%2.8%
15 Year Avg 5.8%5.2%
*reflects binding arbitration
Fiscal Year
Ending
Transport-
ation
%
Change
Leisure,
Cultural,
Social Svc
%
Change
Community
Developemnt
%
Change
General
Gov't
%
Change Total *
%
Change
2000 1,501,100 0.2%3,822,100 15.5%3,102,100 -1.9%6,429,300 8.3%26,338,400 5.6%
2001 1,659,700 10.6%4,113,300 7.6%3,501,200 12.9%6,525,800 1.5%25,324,200 -3.9%
2002 1,954,100 17.7%4,540,000 10.4%3,852,000 10.0%6,811,300 4.4%28,158,700 11.2%
2003 2,015,900 3.2%4,753,800 4.7%3,925,000 1.9%7,364,600 8.1%30,404,800 8.0%
2004 1,854,200 -8.0%4,896,400 3.0%4,420,600 12.6%8,194,600 11.3%33,245,900 9.3%
2005 2,020,300 9.0%5,145,500 5.1%4,360,000 -1.4%8,263,200 0.8%34,182,800 2.8%
2006 1,967,800 -2.6%5,280,500 2.6%4,308,400 -1.2%8,557,400 3.6%35,771,100 4.6%
2007 2,173,500 10.5%5,705,000 8.0%4,897,800 13.7%9,866,100 15.3%39,515,300 10.5%
2008 2,539,800 16.9%6,398,600 12.2%5,510,900 12.5%10,381,000 5.2%45,810,900 15.9%
2009 3,224,200 26.9%6,598,900 3.1%5,576,200 1.2%11,002,000 6.0%48,192,900 5.2%
2010 3,019,700 -6.3%6,279,900 -4.8%5,394,000 -3.3%11,517,500 4.7%46,150,900 -4.2%
2011 2,901,900 -3.9%6,268,700 -0.2%5,309,000 -1.6%11,178,100 -2.9%44,713,900 -3.1%
2012 2,865,100 -1.3%6,704,200 6.9%5,514,400 3.9%11,950,100 6.9%47,212,100 5.6%
2013 2,798,200 -2.3%6,790,300 1.3%6,297,600 14.2%12,498,200 4.6%48,582,900 2.9%
2014 2,882,200 3.0%7,155,619 5.4%6,748,300 7.2%13,228,326 5.8%49,980,555 2.9%
2 Year Avg 0.3%3.3%10.7%5.2%2.9%
5 Year Avg -2.2%1.7%4.1%3.8%0.8%
10 Year Avg 5.0%4.0%4.5%5.0%4.3%
15 Year Avg 4.9%5.4%5.4%5.6%4.9%
* Total amount shown is net of reimbursement transfer (Enterprise funded costs)
Public Safety
44%
Transportation
5%
Leisure,
Cultural,
Social Svc
13%
Community
Development
13%
General Gov't
25%
2013-14 Operating Expenses by Function
30
Staffing Expenditures
Fiscal Year Ending Total Staffing Costs Percent of Operating
2000 18,580,100 71%
2001 19,894,200 71%
2002 22,265,100 71%
2003 23,979,300 72%
2004 26,875,000 72%
2005 28,093,700 73%
2006 29,591,000 75%
2007 32,053,800 75%
2008 38,226,300 74%
2009 41,144,300 77%
2010 40,288,600 79%
2011 39,295,100 80%
2012 40,105,500 79%
2013 39,823,100 76%
2014 39,738,300 74%
As a service organization, the City’s largest and most important asset is the people providing the services. The following
charts provide an overview of the cost of staffing compared to overall operating expenditures.
66%
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
Staffing Expenditures: Total Cost and % of Operating Expenses
Total Staffing Costs Percent of Operating
31
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Fiscal Year
Capital
Outlay
Equipment
Replacement
Open
Space
Transportation
Impact Fee
IT
Replacement
Major Facility
Replacement Public Art
Debt
Service Total
Total Excl
Debt Svc
1999-2000 5,301,400 400,000 220,000 - - - - 1,209,000 7,130,400 5,921,400
2000-2001 5,728,700 436,700 402,500 - - - - 2,075,600 8,643,500 6,567,900
2001-2002 4,574,400 461,700 250,000 - - - - 1,715,200 7,001,300 5,286,100
2002-2003 2,646,500 486,700 200,000 - - - - 1,696,100 5,029,300 3,333,200
2003-2004 3,388,700 433,700 - - - - - 1,760,200 5,582,600 3,822,400
2004-2005 1,707,100 458,700 100,000 - - - - 1,672,600 3,938,400 2,265,800
2005-2006 2,381,100 483,800 25,000 - - - - 1,620,300 4,510,200 2,889,900
2006-2007 2,934,400 498,300 25,000 - - - - 2,083,500 5,541,200 3,457,700
2007-2008 9,365,600 1,109,000 323,000 701,900 - - - 2,078,000 13,577,500 11,499,500
2008-2009 3,849,100 550,000 234,000 - - - - 2,075,800 6,708,900 4,633,100
2009-2010 3,542,500 79,100 260,400 74,000 - - - 2,908,700 6,864,700 3,956,000
2010-2011 2,136,900 - - - - - - 3,023,200 5,160,100 2,136,900
2011-2012 3,417,800 500,000 305,000 - - - - 2,437,200 6,660,000 4,222,800
2012-2013 3,473,924 500,000 22,500 - 200,000 - - 2,772,600 6,969,024 4,196,424
2013-2014*5,535,900 411,400 200,000 - 565,500 852,700 18,100 2,615,900 10,199,500 7,583,600
* Debt service total shown in 2013-14 excludes $935k payment towards unfunded liability which was charged to debt service fund (non CIP cost)
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
General Fund Transfers for the Capital Improvement Program
Every year, the City establishes a capital improvement program to maintain and improve its infrastructure. The following data provides
the investment levels over the past 15 years, including the General Fund support for debt service payments on debt issued for
equipment and facility construction.
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
General Fund Transfers to CIP
Debt Service
Public Art
Major Facility Replacement
IT Replacement
Transportation Impact Fee
Open
Space
Equipment Replacement
Capital Outlay
* New Public Safety
Communications Center in 2007-08
32
Debt Service Obligations: General Fund
Fiscal Year
Ending
Debt Service
Transfer
Operating
Revenues*
% Operating
Revenues
2000 1,209,000 33,130,800 3.6%
2001 2,075,600 34,077,500 6.1%
2002 1,715,200 34,834,600 4.9%
2003 1,696,100 34,415,600 4.9%
2004 1,760,200 36,872,400 4.8%
2005 1,672,600 38,325,500 4.4%
2006 1,620,300 43,164,400 3.8%
2007 2,083,500 49,649,600 4.2%
2008 2,078,000 54,152,000 3.8%
2009 2,075,800 53,354,700 3.9%
2010 2,908,700 49,265,700 5.9%
2011 3,023,200 50,382,200 6.0%
2012 2,437,200 53,686,900 4.5%
2013 2,772,600 57,587,900 4.8%
2014 3,551,000 61,407,100 5.8%
*excludes Transfers In from Gas Tax, TDA, and other funds
Debt service obligations have remained a small part of the General Fund over the last 15 years. The
City continues to exercise a conservative approach to debt financing, as well as a constant review of
payments and possible term improvements whenever practical.
The City's debt management policies state that: "In evaluating debt capacity, general purpose annual
debt service payments should generally not exceeed 10% of General Fund revenues; in no case should
they exceed 15%." The following data and chart illustrates the City's performance as to the ratio of
debt service to operating revenues which is consistently below policy.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Ratio of Debt Service to Operating Revenues
33
Retirement Tier 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Miscellaneous 28.3%30.2%31.4%32.6%33.8%
Safety Tier I 20.2%21.3%21.3%21.3%21.3%
Safety Police Tier II 15.37%16.30%16.30%16.30%16.30%
Safety Police Tier III 12.25%12.25%12.25%12.25%12.25%
Safety Fire Tier II 17.30%18.20%18.20%18.20%18.20%
Safety Fire Tier III 12.25%12.25%12.25%12.25%12.25%
Unfunded Liability
Employer Payment 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Safety Tier I 3,056,723 3,402,670 3,766,621 4,149,349 4,551,651
Notes
• Miscellaneous rate reflects a blended rate for Tier I, II, and III
• The rates shown above reflect the full cost of the employer rate. POA members in Tier I & II are now paying 3% of
the employer share and this was factored into the forecast.
PERS Rates
Projected PERS Employer Rates
Beginning in 2015-16, the Safety Tier I valuation report identifies a fixed payment amount to be made
towards the unfunded liability. This information is shown below. Similar to the PERS rate information,
2015-16 represents the actual amount owed while the amounts shown for 2016-17 and beyond are based on
a projection provided by PERS, which is subject to change annually based on the amounts indicated in the
annual valuation reports. Payments made for the miscellaneous plan continue to be based on the PERS
rate applied against the City's payroll cost.
The table below shows the PERS employer rate assumptions which were factored into the fiscal forecast.
2015-16 reflects the new PERS rates for the upcoming fiscal year. 2016-17 and beyond is based on
projections provided by PERS in their actuarial valuation reports. At the time that the fiscal forecast was
prepared, updated rates for Safety Tier III plans have not been provided. However, CalPERS indicated that
Tier III rates will not be changing and the forecast assumes 2014-15 rates will remain flat for this tier. It
should also be noted that members of the Police Officers Association in Tier I & II are now paying 2% to
3% of the employer contribution rate and this was factored into the forecast.
34
Revenue Compared to Expenditures: 15 Years
Excludes bond proceeds
*2012 excludes bond related revenue and expenditures
The graph below compares General Fund total revenues with total expenditures over the past 15
years. When the revenue line is equal to expenditures, the budget is balanced. If revenues are
above, the City has a budget surplus. If the opposite occurs, the City faces a budget gap. The data
shows how the earlier years were balanced bdt in 2008 a significant budget gap developed. This
necessitated drastic expenditure cuts in order to balance the budget. In 2011, City revenues
slightly exceeded expenditures for the first time since 2006 and this trend has continued. It
should be noted that bthe sharp increases in both revenues and expenditures in 2008 were
related to the passage of Measure Y which provided approxinmately $6 million in annual
revenue.
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
55,000,000
60,000,000
65,000,000
Revenues vs Expenditures: Last 15 Years
Revenues Expenditures
35
Section 10
Background Materials
PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH
December 2-5, 2013
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
AND BALLOT MEASURE ISSUES SURVEY
220-3723
WT N=402
Hello, I'm ___________ from F-M Three, a public opinion research company. I am definitely NOT trying to
sell you anything or ask for a donation. We are conducting an opinion survey about issues that interest people
living in San Luis Obispo, and we would like to include your opinions. May I speak to______________? YOU
MUST SPEAK TO THE VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS
LISTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE.
A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place
where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE,
ASK: Do you own a cell phone?)
Yes, cell and can talk safely ---------------------------------------- 30%
Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ------------------------ TERMINATE
No, not on cell, but own one ---------------------------------------- 52%
No, not on cell and do not own one -------------------------------- 18%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---------------- TERMINATE
(ASK QB ONLY IF CODES 1 OR 2 “OWN A CELL PHONE” IN QA)
B. Would you say you use your cell phone to make and receive all of your phone calls, most of your phone
calls, do you use your cell phone and home landline phone equally, or do you mostly use your home
landline phone to make and receive calls?
All cell phone ------------------------------ 26%
Mostly cell phone -------------------------- 23%
Cell and landline equally ----------------- 31%
Mostly landline ---------------------------- 20%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 1%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
1. (T) Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of San Luis Obispo as a place to live? Would you
say it is an excellent place to live, a pretty good place, just fair, or a poor place to live?
Excellent ------------------------------------ 71%
Pretty good --------------------------------- 24%
Just fair ---------------------------------------- 3%
Poor ------------------------------------------- 1%
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 2
2. (T) Thinking about the next five years, do you think the quality of life in the City of San Luis Obispo
will get better, stay the same, or get worse? (IF BETTER/WORSE, ASK: “Is that much
BETTER/WORSE or somewhat?”)
Much better ----------------------------------- 9%
Somewhat better --------------------------- 22%
Stay the same ------------------------------ 48%
Somewhat worse --------------------------- 14%
Much worse ---------------------------------- 4%
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 4%
3. (T) How would you rate the overall job being done by San Luis Obispo city government in providing
services to the City’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an…? (READ RESPONSES AND
RECORD)
Excellent ------------------------------------ 13%
Good ---------------------------------------- 54%
Only fair, or -------------------------------- 25%
Poor job --------------------------------------- 3%
(DON'T READ) Don't know -------------- 5%
4. Next, let me ask you specifically, how would you rate the job being done by City officials in (READ
ITEM)? Would you say City officials are doing an excellent, good, fair or poor job?
(DON’T
READ) EXC/
EXC GOOD FAIR POOR DK GOOD
(RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (T) Managing City funds ------------------------------ 6% ----- 42% ----- 28% ----- 7% ------ 17% 48%
[ ]b. (T) Planning for the future in an era
of reduced City revenues ------------------------------ 5% ----- 39% ----- 31% ----- 9% ------ 15% 45%
[ ]c. (T) Negotiating fair and affordable
pay and benefits for local public
employees ----------------------------------------------- 5% ----- 29% ----- 28% ----- 10% ----- 28% 34%
[ ]d. Being open and transparent with
residents about the City’s fiscal
condition ------------------------------------------------ 10% ---- 42% ----- 28% ----- 9% ------ 12% 52%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 3
5. Next, I am going to mention issues some people say might be problems for residents of the City of San
Luis Obispo. After I mention each one, please tell me whether you consider it to be a very serious
problem, a somewhat serious problem, not too serious a problem or not a problem at all for San Luis
Obispo residents. (RANDOMIZE)
NOT NOT (DON’T VERY/
VERY SMWT TOO A READ) SMWT
SER. SER. SER. PROB DK/NA SER
(SPLIT SAMPLE A)
[ ]a. (T) Crime in general -------------------------- 9% --------- 31% -------- 46% ------- 14% ------ 1% 40%
[ ]b. (T) Inefficient storm drainage that leads
to flooding -------------------------------------- 9% --------- 19% -------- 35% ------- 34% ------ 3% 28%
[ ]c. (T) City streets in need of repair ----------- 14% -------- 29% -------- 43% ------- 14% ------ 0% 43%
[ ]d. (T) State budget cuts that reduce the
money available to cities for essential
services such as police and fire
protection -------------------------------------- 24% -------- 36% -------- 20% ------- 12% ------ 8% 60%
[ ]e. (T) Alcohol-related crimes and problems - 18% -------- 45% -------- 23% ------- 10% ------ 4% 63%
[ ]f. (T) The availability of senior services ------ 6% --------- 16% -------- 25% ------- 30% ----- 24% 22%
[ ]g. (T) Maintaining a good quality of life in
local neighborhoods -------------------------- 10% -------- 19% -------- 28% ------- 42% ------ 2% 29%
[ ]h. (T) Waste and inefficiency in City
government ------------------------------------ 13% -------- 33% -------- 24% ------- 18% ----- 13% 45%
[ ]i. (T) The availability of recreation
programs ---------------------------------------- 5% --------- 18% -------- 29% ------- 45% ------ 4% 23%
[ ]j. (T) The time it takes for police to
respond to service calls ----------------------- 7% --------- 15% -------- 24% ------- 39% ----- 15% 22%
[ ]k. (T) The number of transients in the area -- 34% -------- 43% -------- 15% ------- 7% ------- 1% 77%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B)
[ ]l. (T) The time it takes for firefighters to
respond to service calls ----------------------- 2% ----------6% --------- 21% ------- 55% ----- 16% 8%
[ ]m. (T) Access to quality health care ----------- 13% -------- 29% -------- 23% ------- 28% ------ 7% 42%
[ ]n. (T) Too much growth and development -- 12% -------- 23% -------- 23% ------- 41% ------ 1% 35%
[ ]o. (T) The quality of public schools ----------- 9% --------- 14% -------- 20% ------- 41% ----- 16% 23%
[ ]p. (T) The availability of stable, good
paying jobs in the local area ---------------- 30% -------- 37% -------- 16% ------- 12% ------ 5% 66%
[ ]q. (T) Traffic congestion ----------------------- 17% -------- 35% -------- 32% ------- 15% ------ 1% 52%
[ ]r. (T) Homelessness ---------------------------- 41% -------- 45% --------- 9% -------- 3% ------- 2% 87%
[ ]s. (T) The amount of taxes and fees people
have to pay for city services ---------------- 18% -------- 24% -------- 29% ------- 22% ------ 7% 42%
[ ]t. (T) Loss of open space ---------------------- 11% -------- 21% -------- 25% ------- 41% ------ 2% 32%
[ ]u. (T) The availability of affordable
housing for middle-class families ---------- 44% -------- 37% -------- 11% ------- 6% ------- 3% 81%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 4
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
LET ME CHANGE THE FOCUS OF MY QUESTIONS.
6. (T) Have you heard about Measure Y, the City of San Luis Obispo ballot measure that voters approved
in 2006 to raise the local city sales tax one half cent per dollar of expenditures? (IF YES, ASK: “Have
you heard a lot about it or just a little?”)
Yes, heard a lot (ASK Q7) --------------------------------- 34%
Yes, heard a little (ASK Q7)------------------------------- 37%
No, haven’t heard about it (SKIP TO Q8) -------------- 27%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA (SKIP TO Q8) ----------------- 2%
(ASK Q7 IF YES ON Q6)
7. (T) Do you recall whether you voted on Measure Y? (IF YES, ASK: “Did you vote Yes, in favor of
the local sales tax or No to oppose it?”)
Voted Yes in favor ------------------------------------------ 57%
Voted No to oppose ----------------------------------------- 15%
(DON'T READ) Voted, can’t recall how/refused ------ 15%
Did not vote/can’t recall if voted -------------------------- 13%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
8. (T) Next, Measure Y, the local half cent sales tax measure, is scheduled to expire in 2015. To continue a
local sales tax, voters would have to approve it at an election in November. I know that the election is a
year into the future, but if a renewal of this tax were on the ballot today, would you vote Yes in favor of
renewing the local half cent sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely
or just probably?”)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------ 64%
Definitely yes (ASK Q9) ----------------- 43%
Probably yes (ASK Q9) ------------------ 22%
TOTAL NO ------------------------------- 25%
Probably no (ASK Q9) --------------------- 9%
Definitely no (ASK Q9) ------------------ 16%
(DON'T READ) Need more info --------- 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 2%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 5
(ASK Q9 ONLY IF CODED 1-4 ‘YES/NO’ IN Q8)
9. In a few words of your own, what are the main reasons why you would vote (YES/NO) to renew the
city’s half cent sales tax? (OPEN-END; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE; PROBE FOR
SPECIFICS BEYOND “SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD/BAD IDEA”.)
a. YES
General mention/keep/improve/fund/city services/maintain standard of living------------------ 33%
Not that great of a cost/services cost money/everyone pays ---------------------------------------- 21%
City needs money ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14%
Improvements/upkeep of infrastructure/street/roads/bike paths/open spaces -------------------- 13%
General positive mentions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13%
City does a good job with funds/being spent well/in the right places ------------------------------- 6%
Seen improvements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4%
Fire/police --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Homeless problem ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Needed due to population growth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2%
Other mention ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
DK/NA/Unsure/Undecided/Need more information -------------------------------------------------- 1%
b. NO
Taxes are too high/opposed to additional/new taxes ------------------------------------------------ 36%
Tax money is wasted/mismanaged/not spent wisely ------------------------------------------------ 36%
General negative mentions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11%
No need/not necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9%
Public employees/unions are overpaid ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4%
Other mention -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10%
DK/NA/Unsure/Undecided/Need more information -------------------------------------------------- 3%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 6
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
LET ME GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT MEASURE Y, THE CITY’S
ONE HALF CENT SALES TAX THAT WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS IN 2006. ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS, MEASURE Y RAISES ABOUT SIX MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE CITY’S GENERAL
FUND. MEASURE Y FUNDS HELP PAY FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING POLICE, FIRE
PREVENTION, TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF, REPAIRS TO CITY ROADS AND STORM
DRAINS, SENIOR SERVICES, NEIGHBORHOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT, CITY PARKS
MAINTENANCE AND PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACE.
10. Having heard this information, let me ask you again. If the election were held today, would you vote
Yes in favor of renewing the local half cent sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is
that definitely or just probably?”)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------ 72%
Definitely yes ------------------------------ 51%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 21%
TOTAL NO ------------------------------- 23%
Probably no ----------------------------------- 9%
Definitely no ------------------------------- 14%
(DON'T READ) Need more info --------- 3%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 2%
11. In addition to the sales tax renewal measure we have been discussing, the City may also place a non-
binding advisory measure on the ballot. The advisory measure would let San Luis Obispo voters express
their priorities to the City Council for using half cent sales tax revenue. If an advisory measure were on
the ballot along with the measure to renew the half cent sales tax, would you be more likely or less likely
to vote Yes to renew the local half cent sales tax? (IF MORE OR LESS LIKELY, ASK: “Is that much
(MORE/LESS) likely or just somewhat?”)
Much more likely -------------------------- 34%
Somewhat more likely -------------------- 23%
Somewhat less likely ------------------------ 4%
Much less likely ----------------------------- 8%
(DON'T READ) No effect -------------- 27%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 4%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 7
12. Next, in the past, the City of San Luis Obispo has had to cut spending on city services to balance its
budget. Let’s assume Measure Y is not renewed in 2014 and that further city spending cuts will be
needed over the next few years. With these assumptions in mind, for each of the City’s services and
programs I mention, please tell me whether it should be cut back substantially, cut back just a little,
not cut back at all or whether it should be increased? The first one is…. (READ AND ROTATE
ITEMS)
CUT NOT (DON’T
CUT A CUT READ)
SUBSTA’LLY LITTLE BACK INCREASED DK/NA
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]a. Street repairs and maintenance ----------------------- 5% ---------- 32% ----- 45%---------- 18% -------- 1%
[ ]b. Fire and emergency medical services
response time ------------------------------------------- 4% ---------- 13% ----- 67%---------- 15% -------- 1%
[ ]c. Downtown police patrols ------------------------------ 7% ---------- 21% ----- 53%---------- 17% -------- 3%
[ ]d. City economic development
programs ------------------------------------------------ 15% --------- 31% ----- 37%---------- 8% -------- 10%
[ ]e. Maintenance of public parks or open
space ----------------------------------------------------- 8% ---------- 36% ----- 47%---------- 6% --------- 3%
[ ]f. Senior citizen services --------------------------------- 3% ---------- 28% ----- 53%---------- 11% -------- 5%
[ ]g. Programs to improve neighborhood
quality of life ------------------------------------------- 13% --------- 33% ----- 39%---------- 8% --------- 5%
[ ]h. Flood protection and storm drain
maintenance --------------------------------------------- 3% ---------- 32% ----- 55%---------- 6% --------- 4%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]i. Repair of broken sidewalks --------------------------- 8% ---------- 35% ----- 43%---------- 12% -------- 1%
[ ]j. Police protection in local
neighborhoods ------------------------------------------ 4% ---------- 19% ----- 62%---------- 14% -------- 1%
[ ]k. Fire prevention and protection ------------------------ 4% ---------- 22% ----- 62%---------- 11% -------- 1%
[ ]l. Downtown improvement programs ----------------- 21% --------- 33% ----- 34%---------- 7% --------- 4%
[ ]m. Acquisition of open space ---------------------------- 22% --------- 29% ----- 35%---------- 9% --------- 5%
[ ]n. Recreation opportunities and
programs at city parks -------------------------------- 10% --------- 37% ----- 46%---------- 5% --------- 2%
[ ]o. Open Space protection -------------------------------- 12% --------- 32% ----- 42%---------- 11% -------- 4%
[ ]p. Traffic management to reduce
congestion ----------------------------------------------- 7% ---------- 29% ----- 45%---------- 16% -------- 3%
[ ]q. Building and safety code
enforcement --------------------------------------------- 9% ---------- 29% ----- 51%---------- 6% --------- 6%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 8
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: ASK Q13 THEN Q14 THEN Q15)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D: ASK Q15 THEN Q14 THEN Q13)
13. Next, I am going to give you some statements that could be made by people who support renewing the
local half cent sales tax for an additional period. After hearing each statement, please tell me if it would
make you more inclined to vote Yes to support renewal of the local half cent sales tax. If you do not
believe the statement, or if it has no effect on your thinking one way or the other, please tell me that too.
(IF MORE INCLINED, ASK: "Is that much more or just somewhat?")
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NO MORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECT OPIN) INCL
(RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (T-LOCAL CONTROL) Renewal
of the local sales tax gives San Luis
Obispo more local control and keeps
local tax dollars here to pay for
essential services, such as police and
fire protection, senior programs, park
maintenance, street repair and open
space acquisiton. ----------------------------- 36% ---- 21% ----- 2% ----- 9% ------- 31% ------- 1% 57%
[ ]b. (T-FIRE PREVENTION) Fire
prevention services in San Luis
Obispo have expanded since voters
adopted the local sales tax. If the
local sales tax is not renewed, we
may have to cut back fire prevention
programs. -------------------------------------- 35% ---- 16% ----- 4% ----- 12% ------ 32% ------- 1% 51%
[ ]c. (T-ROADS) Renewing the local
sales tax will provide the funds
needed to fill potholes and keep city
streets from becoming more and
more uncomfortable and dangerous
to drive. ---------------------------------------- 31% ---- 21% ----- 4% ----- 10% ------ 35% ------- 0% 51%
[ ]d. (T-PUBLIC SAFETY) Crime
continues to be an issue in San Luis
Obispo and calls to the police
continue at a high volume. Without
renewal of the local sales tax, rather
than have an adequate police force,
we would be forced to cut back the
police force. ----------------------------------- 32% ---- 17% ----- 4% ----- 19% ------ 28% ------- 0% 49%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 9
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NO MORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECT OPIN) INCL
[ ]e. (NO INCREASE) This measure
does not create a new tax or increase
taxes. It simply continues an
existing tax – one previously adopted
by San Luis Obispo city voters – to
maintain essential city services. ------------ 38% ---- 17% ----- 3% ----- 5% ------- 35% ------- 1% 55%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]f. (T-CAPITAL) Two-thirds of the
funds provided by the local sales tax
go into capital improvements such as
storm drains, street repairs, new
traffic signals, open space
acquisistion and a paved skateboard
park. But the task is not finished.
Renewing the local sales tax will
allow the City to continue making
necessary capital improvements to
enhance the safety and quality of life
in San Luis Obispo. -------------------------- 30% ---- 24% ----- 6% ----- 6% ------- 33% ------- 2% 53%
[ ]g. (STABILITY) The local sales tax
has brought fiscal stability to San
Luis Obispo. Passing this renewal
measure will maintain a balanced
budget so that the City can continue
to provide quality essential services
and maintain its emergency reserve
fund for use in the event of a major
crisis, such as an earthquake. --------------- 34% ---- 23% ----- 4% ----- 6% ------- 32% ------- 0% 57%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]h. (T-AVOID CUTS) In these difficult
economic times, the local sales tax
has allowed the City to avoid even
deeper cuts in essential services
while still making progress in high
priority areas such as street paving,
traffic congestion relief, flood
protection, public safety, senior
services and open space
preservation. ---------------------------------- 39% ---- 22% ----- 1% ----- 9% ------- 29% ------- 1% 60%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 10
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NO MORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECT OPIN) INCL
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY CON’T)
[ ]i. (DELIVERED) The sales tax has
made it possible for the City to
deliver better services to residents.
This includes hiring additional police
officers and a fire marshal, adding
bike lanes, fixing potholes and city
streets, and acquiring open space for
new public parks. Passing this
renewal measure will keep our city
moving in the right direction. --------------- 47% ---- 16% ----- 2% ----- 8% ------- 26% ------- 1% 63%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
14. Having heard statements from people who favor renewing the local half cent sales tax, let me ask you
once more. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes in favor of renewing the local half cent
sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D TOTAL
TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 75% ----------- 70% ----------- 73%
Definitely yes --------------------------------------- 59% ----------- 48% ----------- 53%
Probably yes ---------------------------------------- 16% ----------- 23% ----------- 20%
TOTAL NO ---------------------------------------- 19% ----------- 24% ----------- 22%
Probably no ------------------------------------------- 5% ------------- 8% ------------- 6%
Definitely no ---------------------------------------- 15% ----------- 16% ----------- 15%
(DON'T READ) Need more info ------------------ 3% ------------- 5% ------------- 4%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 2% ------------- 1% ------------- 2%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 11
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: ASK Q13 THEN Q14 THEN Q15)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D: ASK Q15 THEN Q14 THEN Q13)
15. Next, I am going to give you some statements that could be made by people who oppose renewing a
local half cent sales tax for an additional period. After hearing each statement, please tell me if it would
make you more inclined to vote No in opposition to renewal of the local half cent sales tax. If you do
not believe the statement, or if it has no effect on your thinking one way or the other, please tell me that
too. (IF MORE INCLINED, ASK: "Is that much more or just somewhat?")
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NO MORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECT OPIN) INCL (RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (T-SCARE) City government is
trying to scare us into renewing this
tax increase. In reality, the City has
plenty of money and just needs to
manage it better and stop wasting the
money it already has. ------------------------ 15% ---- 12% ----- 4% ----- 29% ------ 37% ------- 3% 27%
[ ]b. (PENSIONS/CUTS) The City wants
to pass this renewal measure so City
employees can continue to receive
their excessive salaries and pension
benefits. Voting no will force the
City to reduce spending on personnel
and reform pensions. ------------------------- 15% ---- 13% ----- 5% ----- 24% ------ 40% ------- 3% 28%
[ ]c. (ECONOMY/TAXES) This tax
renewal measure should be rejected
because local families, seniors and
students are having trouble making
ends meet in this tough economy.
With recent increases in the state
sales and income taxes, we need to
reduce local taxes. ---------------------------- 12% ---- 12% ----- 5% ----- 20% ------ 48% ------- 2% 24%
[ ]d. (ARBITRATION) In the past, binding
arbitration on police pay caused big
salary increases costing taxpayers
additional millions of dollars. But now
voters have passed Measure B putting an
end to high cost binding arbitration.
Without binding arbitration, we don’t
need to renew the half cent increase in the
local sales tax. -------------------------------- 12% ---- 12% ----- 5% ----- 20% ------ 44% ------- 7% 24%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 12
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NO MORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECT OPIN) INCL
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]e. (PROMISES NOT KEPT) City
government failed to keep its
promises about how sales tax funds
would be used. Renewing the local
sales tax just lets politicians and
bureaucrats continue to ignore their
promises. -------------------------------------- 17% ---- 13% ----- 6% ----- 21% ------ 40% ------- 4% 30%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]f. (STATUS QUO) The City admits
that renewing the local sales tax will
just maintain the status quo and not
improve City services. We should
not continue to pay higher taxes and
get no additional benefit. -------------------- 11% ----- 9% ------ 3% ----- 29% ------ 43% ------- 4% 20%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
16. Having heard statements from people who oppose renewal of the local half cent sales tax, let me ask you
one more time. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes in favor of renewing the local half
cent sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D TOTAL
TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 76% ----------- 65% ----------- 71%
Definitely yes --------------------------------------- 56% ----------- 42% ----------- 49%
Probably yes ---------------------------------------- 20% ----------- 24% ----------- 22%
TOTAL NO ---------------------------------------- 20% ----------- 27% ----------- 24%
Probably no ------------------------------------------- 7% ----------- 10% ------------- 8%
Definitely no ---------------------------------------- 14% ----------- 18% ----------- 16%
(DON'T READ) Need more info ------------------ 2% ------------- 7% ------------- 4%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 1% ------------- 0% ------------- 1%
17. (T) Next, when voters approved Measure Y in 2006, it was for a term of eight years ending in 2014.
Whether you favor or oppose renewing Measure Y, let me ask you to assume for a moment that a
majority of voters want to renew the local sales tax measure. In your opinion, should the local sales tax
be made permanent, or should it be approved for a fixed period of time?
Made permanent --------------------------- 18%
For fixed period of time (ASK Q18) --- 75%
(DON'T READ) Don’t renew ------------- 3%
(DON'T READ) Need more info --------- 2%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 2%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 13
(IF “FIXED PERIOD OF TIME” IN Q17, ASK Q18; ALL OTHERS SKIP TO Q19)
18. What if the renewal of Measure Y were for _____ years? Would you be more inclined or less inclined to
vote Yes on renewal of Measure Y? (IF MORE INCLINED/LESS INCLINED, ASK: “Is that much
(more/less) inclined or just somewhat?”)
(DON’T (DON’T
MUCH SMWT SMWT MUCH READ) READ)
MORE MORE LESS LESS NO NO
INCL INCL INCL INCL EFFECT OPIN
(SPLIT SAMPLE A)
a. Eight years -------------------------------------- 33% ------- 23% ------- 10% ------- 14% ------- 18% ----- 2%
b. 15 years ------------------------------------------- 8% --------- 5% ------- 31% ------- 35% ------- 18% ----- 4%
c. 20 years ------------------------------------------- 5% --------- 5% ------- 14% ------- 60% ------- 13% ----- 3%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B)
c. 20 years ------------------------------------------- 3% --------- 7% ------- 24% ------- 54% -------- 7% ------ 5%
b. 15 years ------------------------------------------ 4% -------- 14% ------- 31% ------- 41% -------- 7% ------ 2%
a. Eight years -------------------------------------- 34% ------- 28% ------- 11% ------- 15% -------- 9% ------ 2%
(TOTAL)
a. Eight years -------------------------------------- 34% ------- 26% ------- 10% ------- 14% ------- 14% ----- 2%
b. 15 years ------------------------------------------- 6% --------- 9% ------- 31% ------- 38% ------- 13% ----- 3%
c. 20 years ------------------------------------------- 4% --------- 6% ------- 19% ------- 57% ------- 11% ----- 4%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 14
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
19. Next, here is my last question about the City government. In your opinion, what is the most important
thing the City of San Luis Obispo can do to improve city services? (OPEN-END; RECORD
ANSWER BELOW)
Cut government waste/be accountable/balance the budget/be efficient/unions public
employees are overpaid --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17%
Homeless -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10%
City is doing well/no major problems/keep doing as is being done --------------------------------- 9%
Need more police/fire/public safety --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7%
Improve roads/streets -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5%
Listen to voters/focus on the wants and needs of the public ------------------------------------------ 4%
Affordable housing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3%
Infrastructure improvements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2%
Control growth --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Encourage business to invest in community/downtown ---------------------------------------------- 2%
Traffic congestion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2%
More open spaces/parks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Healthcare accessibility ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Reduce crime ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Senior services ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Need more public services (non-specific) --------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
General negative comment of students/youth ---------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Need more youth activities/education ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Prioritize spending better ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Parking issues ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
More bike lanes/paths ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
None/nothing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4%
Other mention -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11%
DK/NA/Unsure/Undecided/Need more information -------------------------------------------------- 9%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 15
HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY
20. (T) About how long have you lived in the City of San Luis Obispo? (READ LIST)
Less than three years ------------------------ 7%
Three to five years ------------------------- 12%
Six to 10 years ----------------------------- 14%
11 to 20 years ------------------------------ 21%
21 years or more --------------------------- 46%
(DON'T READ) Don't know/Refused --- 1%
21. (T) Do you own or rent your home or apartment?
Own ----------------------------------------- 68%
Rent ----------------------------------------- 31%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 1%
22. (T) Are there children under the age of 19 living at home with you?
Yes ------------------------------------------ 23%
No ------------------------------------------- 77%
(REFUSED/NA) ---------------------------- 0%
23. (T) Are you a full-time student at Cuesta College or Cal Poly?
Yes ------------------------------------------ 12%
No ------------------------------------------- 87%
(REFUSED/NA) ---------------------------- 1%
24. (T) In what year were you born?
1995-1989 (18-24) ------------------------ 13%
1988-1984 (25-29) -------------------------- 6%
1983-1979 (30-34) -------------------------- 5%
1978-1974 (35-39) -------------------------- 5%
1973-1969 (40-44) -------------------------- 6%
1968-1964 (45-49) -------------------------- 5%
1963-1959 (50-54) ------------------------ 11%
1958-1954 (55-59) -------------------------- 8%
1953-1949 (60-64) ------------------------ 10%
1948-1939 (65-74) ------------------------ 15%
1938 or earlier (75 & over) --------------- 13%
(DON'T READ) Don’t Know/Refused -- 3%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 16
25. (T) With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself? (READ RESPONSES)
Hispanic or Latino --------------------------- 6%
African-American --------------------------- 1%
Asian ------------------------------------------ 2%
Caucasian/White --------------------------- 86%
Some other group ---------------------------- 3%
(DON’T READ) DK/Refused ------------- 2%
26. (T) How would you describe your political outlook? Would you say that you are very conservative,
somewhat conservative, a moderate, somewhat liberal, or very liberal?
Very conservative ------------------------- 10%
Somewhat conservative ------------------- 18%
Moderate ------------------------------------ 29%
Somewhat liberal -------------------------- 20%
Very liberal --------------------------------- 17%
(DON'T READ) Refused/DK/NA -------- 5%
27. (T) What was the last level of school you completed?
Grades 1-8 ------------------------------------ 1%
Grades 9-11 ---------------------------------- 1%
High school graduate (12) ------------------ 9%
Community college, some college/
Business/vocational school --------------- 26%
College graduate (4) ----------------------- 36%
Post-graduate work/professional school 27%
(DON’T READ) Refused ------------------ 0%
28. (T) I don't need to know the exact amount but I'm going to read you some categories for household
income. Would you please stop me when I have read the category indicating the total combined income
for all the people in your household before taxes in 2012?
$30,000 and under ------------------------- 16%
$30,001 - $50,000 ------------------------- 13%
$50,001 - $75,000 ------------------------- 14%
$75,001 - $100,000 ------------------------ 13%
More than $100,000 ----------------------- 20%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 24%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 17
THANK AND TERMINATE
Gender: By observation Male ----------------------------------------- 49%
Female -------------------------------------- 51%
Party: From file Democrat ----------------------------------- 44%
Republican --------------------------------- 32%
No Party Preference ----------------------- 20%
Other party ----------------------------------- 4%
FLAGS
P06 ---------------------------------- 50%
G06 ---------------------------------- 67%
F08 ---------------------------------- 66%
P08 ---------------------------------- 54%
G08 ---------------------------------- 82%
S09 ---------------------------------- 48%
P10 ---------------------------------- 59%
G10 ---------------------------------- 88%
P12 ---------------------------------- 66%
G12 ---------------------------------- 93%
BLANK ----------------------------- 5%
VOTE BY MAIL
1 ------------------------------------- 10%
2 -------------------------------------- 9%
3+ ------------------------------------ 40%
Blank -------------------------------- 40%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes --------------------------------- 54%
No ---------------------------------- 46%
ZIP CODES
93401 ------------------------------- 62%
93405 ------------------------------- 38%
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2 ------------------------------------- 21%
3 ------------------------------------- 61%
5 ------------------------------------- 18%
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1
Survey Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo conducted a survey of its residents and businesses to gauge their opinions on overall quality of
life and future development as part of the update of the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements.
The survey was distributed to more than 25,000 residents and businesses via utility bill inserts and direct mail. It was also
made available online. The survey was completed by 2,029 people via return mail and 169 people online, for a total of
2,198 respondents.
Mail and online surveys are not considered statistically valid as they are “self‐selected” – meaning that people choose to
participate based on their own desire to share their opinions. The City Council opted for this course of action so that any
and all residents and businesses would have an opportunity to participate in the effort. In comparison, the 1988
community survey was done as a random phone survey and included 585 respondents. The random nature of the 1988
survey allowed it to be treated statistically, with the ability to state that answers were accurate within a specified range
(plus or minus). While not the same type of survey mechanism, given the high number of responses for the 2012
community survey, we believe the findings from this survey are a good representation of the opinions of San Luis Obispo
residents and business owners.
Survey Questions
The questions were based on a survey conducted by the City in 1988 and included five major topic areas:
1. Overall Quality of Life
2. City Growth and Relationship to the Region
3. Form of Development
4. Public Facilities and Services
5. Basic Demographic Information
Summary
An overview of the final result from the 2012 survey is provided on the following pages. For questions that are similar to
those in the community survey conducted in 1988, a comparison of the results is also provided.
For questions in the 2012 survey that allowed respondents to write in a response, these are summarized in the main
report. A complete listing of responses is provided in the appendix.
Several of the questions asked respondents to rate their feeling towards a certain topic on a scale of 1 to 5. For these
questions, a weighted average was calculated for each topic to determine its overall level. The weighted averages were
calculated by multiplying the number of responses by each rating number (1 through 5), adding up each of the sums, and
then dividing them by the total number of responses. For questions that this applies, weighted averages are shown in the
“Weighted Average” column of the respective tables.
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 2 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
Quality of Life
How would you rate the overall Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? Approximately 81% of respondents rated the quality of
life as “high” with less than 2% rating it as “low”. That’s a higher number than the 1988 survey, which had 76% of
respondents choosing “high” and less than 1% choosing “low” (see Figure 1).
How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo?
Figure 1. Quality of Life, San Luis Obispo 2012
When asked to identify San Luis Obispo’s greatest problem, respondent’s top choices were the homeless (19%), traffic
(10%), lack of jobs (9%), and affordable housing (9%). Downtown parking and congestion was cited by 8%. Many
expressed concerns about future growth and development (see Table 1).
This shows a shift from 1988 responses more than doubling the percentage of people who cited homeless issues
as the City’s greatest problem. Concerns about traffic actually went down from 1988 though it remains one of
the top concerns. The survey also shows the shift in the job market with concerns about available jobs more
than doubling.
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 3
Greatest Problems Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 1.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
Homeless 19% 347
Traffic 10% 180
Jobs 9% 166
Housing 9% 166
Downtown 8% 144
Growth 4% 85
Business 3% 70
Cost of Living 3% 68
Streets 3% 67
Development 2% 44
Neighborhoods 2% 40
Quality 2% 39
Government 2% 38
Water 2% 36
Police 1% 33
Cal Poly 1% 23
City Council 1% 19
Big Box Stores 1% 19
Planning 1% 19
Shopping 1% 19
Regulation 1% 18
When asked about the City’s greatest strength, the natural setting took most of the top spots as it had in the 1988 survey
(see Table 2).
Greatest Strengths Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 2.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
Weather 12% 221
Beauty 12% 220
Location 8% 147
Community 8% 144
Open Space 7% 133
Downtown 7% 133
Climate 6% 106
Small Town 5% 87
Quality of Life 3% 61
Cal Poly 3% 58
Culture 1% 31
Clean Air 1% 30
Natural Environment 1% 29
SLO 1% 23
Citizens 1% 23
Low Crime 1% 2
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 4 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
Listed below are several aspects of "quality of life" in San Luis Obispo. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being LEAST important
and 5 being MOST important, respondents rated natural environment and crime as having the highest impact on quality
of life (see Table 3) – echoing the sentiments expressed by 1988 respondents.
Quality of Life Aspects Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 3.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Natural environment (air quality,
open space)
2.1%
(42)
1.4%
(29)
5.5%
(110)
19.9%
(401)
71.1%
(1,429)
4.56 2,011
Job opportunities 4.2%
(83)
7.7%
(153)
19.4%
(387)
30.7%
(613)
38.2%
(763)
3.91 1,999
Recreation opportunities 1.8%
(36)
4.6%
(93)
20.0%
(402)
40.6%
(815)
32.9%
(660)
3.98 2,006
Entertainment opportunities 2.1%
(43)
9.0%
(181)
33.5%
(673)
38.5%
(773)
16.9%
(340)
3.59 2,010
Educational opportunities 2.7%
(54)
5.8%
(116)
16.6%
(334)
32.1%
(646)
42.8%
(860)
4.07 2,010
Shopping opportunities 4.6%
(92)
13.9%
(280)
35.8%
(720)
30.0%
(603)
15.7%
(316)
3.38 2,011
Pace of life 2.7%
(53)
4.1%
(82)
18.0%
(360)
33.2%
(664)
42.0%
(840)
4.08 1,999
Crime levels 2.5%
(51)
3.1%
(62)
9.2%
(184)
22.3%
(448)
62.9%
(1,265)
4.40 2,010
Opportunities to participate in
government decisions
3.2%
(65)
8.0%
(160)
27.7%
(554)
35.3%
(707)
25.8%
(517)
3.72 2,003
Traffic Safety and Congestion
Management (local travel and
parking)
2.4%
(47)
5.1%
(102)
18.4%
(368)
33.5%
(670)
40.7%
(813)
4.05 2,000
Transportation choices – bus service,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities
2.4%
(49)
8.9%
(178)
22.1%
(443)
31.5%
(632)
35.2%
(706)
3.88 2,008
Housing opportunities (cost and
choice of types)
3.2%
(65)
7.9%
(159)
24.2%
(485)
29.3%
(588)
35.3%
(708)
3.86 2,005
Cultural diversity (people with
different backgrounds and interests)
5.3%
(106)
16.3%
(327)
31.3%
(628)
28.0%
(561)
19.1%
(382)
3.39 2,004
Downtown character and activities 3.2%
(64)
6.9%
(139)
19.4%
(390)
33.6%
(674)
36.9%
(741)
3.94 2,008
Property maintenance (upkeep,
junk/litter control)
2.5%
(51)
6.3%
(126)
20.0%
(402)
34.8%
(698)
36.4%
(731)
3.96 2,008
Access to healthy foods – fresh
produce and supermarkets
2.2%
(44)
5.9%
(119)
16.8%
(337)
29.5%
(590)
45.5%
(911)
4.10 2,001
Next, respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the current conditions of each area with 5 being
MOST satisfied (see Table 4). Overall satisfaction was high but respondents indicated concern with job opportunities,
housing, and cultural diversity. Jobs and housing were also cited as areas with “dissatisfaction” in the 1988 survey.
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 5
Current Conditions Satisfaction, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 4.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Natural environment (air
quality, open space)
1.8% (35) 2.8% (56) 6.8% (136) 38.4% (764) 50.2%
(1,000)
4.32 1,991
Job opportunities 9.0% (178) 21.3% (421) 43.3% (855) 21.4% (422) 5.1% (100) 2.92 1,976
Recreation opportunities 1.4% (27) 3.7% (74) 22.5% (447) 43.9% (873) 28.5% (566) 3.94 1,987
Entertainment
opportunities
1.5% (30) 6.2% (124) 28.7% (572) 43.1% (859) 20.5% (408) 3.75 1,993
Educational opportunities 1.4% (27) 4.9% (97) 20.1% (399) 42.2% (840) 31.5% (627) 3.98 1,990
Shopping opportunities 4.7% (93) 11.5% (228) 27.1% (538) 38.5% (765) 18.3% (364) 3.54 1,988
Pace of life 1.8% (36) 3.4% (68) 15.8% (313) 39.4% (783) 39.6% (786) 4.12 1,986
Crime levels 2.2% (43) 9.1% (180) 23.1% (459) 42.2% (838) 23.4% (464) 3.76 1,984
Opportunities to
participate in government
decisions
3.1% (61) 8.2% (161) 37.0% (729) 36.2% (713) 15.5% (305) 3.53 1,969
Traffic Safety and
Congestion Management
(local travel and parking)
7.0% (140) 21.3% (424) 28.2% (561) 33.8% (671) 9.7% (192) 3.18 1,988
Transportation choices –
bus service, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities
2.9% (58) 12.4% (246) 31.2% (620) 37.1% (737) 16.3% (324) 3.52 1,985
Housing opportunities
(cost and choice of types)
8.7% (173) 23.2% (460) 40.0% (793) 20.5% (407) 7.5% (148) 2.95 1,981
Cultural diversity (people
with different
backgrounds and
interests)
5.5% (109) 13.2% (261) 41.5% (824) 25.8% (511) 14.1% (279) 3.30 1,984
Downtown character and
activities
2.5% (50) 7.4% (146) 20.8% (411) 43.1% (852) 26.2% (518) 3.83 1,977
Property maintenance
(upkeep, junk/litter
control)
3.3% (66) 9.9% (196) 27.4% (544) 44.5% (882) 14.9% (296) 3.58 1,984
Access to healthy foods –
fresh produce and
supermarkets
1.7% (34) 4.1% (80) 18.4% (363) 40.4% (798) 35.4% (700) 4.04 1,975
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 6 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
When asked to name a place they particularly enjoy, people continued to name San Luis Obispo’s Downtown, Mission,
open spaces, and parks (see Table 5) just as they did in the 1988 survey.
Particular Place of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 5.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
Downtown 37% 584
Park 11% 179
Mission 7% 122
Laguna Lake 4% 69
Open Space 4% 68
Creek 4% 66
Bishop Peak 3% 48
Walking 2% 40
Hiking Trails 2% 33
Railroad 2% 33
Irish Hills 1% 27
Madonna 1% 26
They were less enthusiastic about Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), which topped the list of “least” liked places (see Table 6).
This question yielded different responses from the 1988 survey as LOVR had not been expanded at that time. Both
surveys identified areas associated with traffic and higher ratios of rental housing.
Least Liked Places of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 6.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
LOVR 14% 195
Downtown 13% 172
Madonna Road 8% 114
Parking 7% 97
Homeless 7% 93
Foothill Boulevard 4% 62
Streets (in general) 4% 53
Broad Street 3% 51
South Higuera Street 3% 46
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 7
City Growth and Relationship to the Region
When asked which of the following approaches to determining allowable growth in the City they supported, respondents
continued, but to a lesser degree, to support preservation of the natural environment (see Figure 2). Sixty–six percent
want to keep growth in existing areas and 60% support avoiding harm to the natural environment. That’s a change from
the 1988 survey where over 85% of respondents sought to keep growth in existing areas and 79% supported avoiding
hard to the natural environment.
Figure 2. Approaches to Allowable Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 8 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
Nearly 55% of respondents support “No Change” in residential growth rate, with over 14% supporting some increases but
none greater than the County or the State as a whole (see Figure 3). Just 10% supported no growth limits. This question
also saw a shift in responses from the 1988 survey. Previously 35% supported “no or very little” increase to the City’s
population with 39% supporting modest increases and 17% supporting “no growth limits”.
Figure 3. Preferences to Change Current Residential Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
San Luis Obispo has worked to balance development and conservation to preserve the City’s natural beauty and unique
character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities and a vibrant economy. People were asked if the City has
not enough, enough, or too much of the various types of development. Respondents indicated the City has “enough” of
each category; however, housing and manufacturing were cited as low by some (see Table 7).
This is substantially different than the 1988 survey. Respondents then sought more housing (70%), tourist/visitor serving
activities (53%), shopping (58%), and cultural activities (70%).
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 9
Types of Development, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 7.
Not enough Enough Too much Response
Count
Housing 33.0% (637) 58.9% (1,135)8.1% (156) 1,928
Tourist/visitor serving 9.5% (184) 79.5% (1,538)11.0% (213) 1,935
Manufacturing 43.9% (827) 51.3% (967)4.8% (91) 1,885
Business Park 23.5% (443) 65.2% (1,232)11.3% (214) 1,889
Shopping/stores 21.3% (412) 59.5% (1,151)19.1% (370) 1,933
Cultural/entertainment 21.5% (416) 73.4% (1,423)5.2% (100) 1,939
Medical, legal, financial
services 14.7% (284) 77.0% (1,484) 8.3% (159) 1,927
Government
agencies/institutions 4.4% (84) 69.4% (1,338) 26.3% (507) 1,929
What influences Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? According the respondents, air quality, traffic, aircraft noise, and the
preservation of farmland were cited as the factors that MOST influence quality of life in San Luis Obispo (see Table 8),
mirroring the 1988 survey results.
Quality of Life Influences, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 8.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Air pollution 15.3% (301) 14.4% (283) 19.0% (373) 16.6% (325) 34.7% (680) 3.41 1,962
Car/truck traffic noise 6.2% (122) 14.2% (279) 25.1% (493) 25.8% (506) 28.6% (561) 3.56 1,961
Aircraft noise 16.9% (331) 22.4% (439) 29.5% (580) 17.1% (336) 14.1% (277) 2.89 1,963
Crowding/delay on
streets & roads 6.8% (132) 15.9% (310) 25.9% (504) 25.3% (492) 26.1% (508) 3.48 1,946
Crowing/delay at
parking facilities 9.1% (175) 17.6% (340) 33.6% (648) 22.9% (442) 16.8% (323) 3.21 1,928
At parks or recreation
facilities 12.3% (235) 22.9% (440) 36.7% (703) 15.8% (304) 12.3% (236) 2.93 1,918
Development on
farmland, ranchland 7.5% (142) 11.8% (222) 26.7% (504) 20.8% (393) 33.1% (624) 3.60 1,885
Development on
creeks, marshes 6.8% (127) 10.1% (189) 25.7% (483) 19.1% (359) 38.3% (720) 3.72 1,878
Form of Development 5.0% (89) 10.0% (177) 32.5% (574) 22.3% (394) 30.2% (534) 3.63 1,768
Overall intensity of
development 4.6% (86) 10.4% (192) 30.1% (557) 22.8% (422) 32.1% (594) 3.67 1,851
Overall pace of life 5.3% (98) 9.7% (181) 27.8% (517) 22.5% (418) 34.7% (644) 3.72 1,858
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 10 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area includes about 34% of the jobs in the county, and about 18% of the houses and
apartments, which results in commuting. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being no effort and 5 being high effort, respondents
were asked how much effort they thought should go into each of the following approaches to reduce commuting impacts
(see Table 9).
Approaches to Reducing Commuting Impacts, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 9.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Expand roads and
parking facilities to
reduce congestion.
18.3% (344) 16.2% (304) 27.4% (516) 18.8% (354) 19.3% (364) 3.05 1,882
Discourage commuting
by individual drivers
and encourage use of
busses, van pools,
bicycles, and carpools.
13.5% (258) 11.1% (212) 20.5% (391) 20.4% (389) 34.5% (657) 3.51 1,907
Discourage additional
jobs in San Luis Obispo.
41.3% (775) 15.7% (294) 23.8% (447) 9.3% (174) 9.9% (186) 2.31 1,876
Encourage housing
development in San
Luis Obispo.
19.7% (371) 16.5% (310) 27.8% (523) 16.5% (310) 19.6% (368) 3.00 1,882
Respondents indicated they would like the City to focus the most effort in discouraging commuting and the least effort in
discouraging additional jobs here in San Luis Obispo. More local employment translated to fewer commuters.
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 11
Form of Development
To accommodate new growth in the City, 71% of respondents supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for
buildings like those that have been built in the neighborhood with over 63% supporting redeveloping underdeveloped
sites with buildings compatible with the neighborhood (see Figure 4). A little more than half supported mixed‐use infill
development in existing buildings. This was slightly less than responses in 1988 when 81% supported using vacant lots in
existing neighborhoods.
Figure 4. New Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 12 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
To accommodate new businesses, banks, and office buildings, the clear preference, with 80% of respondents choosing it,
was development in existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like ones that have been built
there (see Figure 5). In 1988 65% of respondents supported that idea with 37% supporting replacing existing buildings
with larger ones.
Figure 5. New Development Preferences, San Luis Obispo 2012
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 13
When asked about what changes they would like to see in certain land uses, only two land uses resulted in substantial
differences, with 59% seeking fewer bars downtown (choice 1 and 2) and 71% seeking additional small city parks in
residential areas (choice 4 and 5) (see Table 10). The City received similar responses in 1988 with 63% of people seeking
more small parks and 41% seeking fewer bars.
Land Use Changes, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 10.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Small second dwellings ("granny
units") in areas that are mostly
individual houses.
13.5%
(256)
7.6%
(144)
33.2%
(632)
24.6%
(468)
21.1%
(401)
3.32 1,901
Specialty stores (such as books or
clothing) in small neighborhood
shopping centers.
7.5%
(143)
6.0%
(115)
32.8%
(624)
31.7%
(603)
22.0%
(418)
3.55 1,903
Offices (doctors, lawyers) in small
neighborhood shopping centers.
8.8%
(166)
10.4%
(196)
45.1%
(852)
23.7%
(447)
12.1%
(229)
3.20 1,890
Nursing homes, churches, or schools
in areas that are mostly individual
houses.
17.6%
(336)
13.0%
(248)
47.1%
(896)
15.6%
(297)
6.7%
(127)
2.81 1,904
Bars and nightclubs downtown. 43.3%
(831)
15.8%
(303)
31.4%
(602)
4.3%
(83)
5.1%
(98)
2.12 1,917
Restaurants and movie theaters
downtown
11.1%
(214)
9.7%
(187)
54.6%
(1,050)
15.9%
(306)
8.7%
(167)
3.01 1,924
Retail stores downtown 7.2%
(139)
5.4%
(103)
48.0%
(921)
24.1%
(462)
15.3%
(293)
3.35 1,918
In residential areas, home businesses
with no employees other than
residents of the house or apartment
that may include small‐scale product
assembly or customer visits.
10.9%
(205)
8.1%
(152)
42.2%
(790)
22.7%
(426)
16.1%
(301)
3.25 1,874
Neighborhood markets or fresh
produce markets in residential areas.
4.1%
(79)
5.2%
(99)
26.1%
(497)
35.2%
(671)
29.3%
(559)
3.80 1,905
Auto repair downtown or in shopping
centers.
16.3%
(309)
14.7%
(280)
51.1%
(972)
12.2%
(231)
5.7%
(109)
2.76 1,901
Small city parks in residential areas. 3.0%
(57)
2.2%
(43)
23.9%
(459)
30.9%
(593)
40.0%
(768)
4.03 1,920
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 14 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
Public Facilities and Services
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being less and 5 being more, just four areas were supported by the majority of respondents
seeking additional facilities and services: 50% would like more bicycle lanes, 58% support acquiring open space peaks and
hillsides, 53% support more land for creeks and marshes, while 54% support more land for City’s Greenbelt (see Table 11).
These were the very same items selected by respondents in 1988 with slight variations in support; 44% bike lanes, 54%
peaks and hillside preservation, 50% creeks and marshes, and 43% preservation of farm land.
Additional Facilities and Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 11.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Bicycle infrastructure (bike
lanes, paths and parking)
10.8%
(200)
6.3%
(116)
30.4%
(562)
19.8%
(366)
32.8%
(606)
3.57 1,850
Bus service – more routes and
more frequent service
8.2%
(150)
6.9%
(127)
45.7%
(838)
20.2%
(371)
19.0%
(349)
3.35 1,835
Traffic congestion management 7.2%
(130)
6.5%
(118)
42.0%
(761)
25.2%
(457)
19.2%
(348)
3.43 1,814
Neighborhood traffic
management
10.4%
(188)
10.0%
(181)
49.0%
(888)
16.8%
(305)
13.8%
(251)
3.14 1,813
Emergency services/disaster
readiness
6.9%
(126)
7.1%
(130)
50.4%
(920)
21.0%
(383)
14.6%
(266)
3.29 1,825
Flood prevention/control 10.3%
(187)
11.3%
(205)
55.6%
(1,012)
14.2%
(259)
8.6%
(157)
3.00 1,820
Preserving historic buildings 7.2%
(133)
9.9%
(182)
41.8%
(767)
22.8%
(419)
18.3%
(336)
3.35 1,837
Housing for low‐income families 16.9%
(311)
11.3%
(208)
34.7%
(637)
20.5%
(376)
16.6%
(306)
3.09 1,838
Law enforcement:
Violence/thefts
5.3%
(96)
5.7%
(103)
47.1%
(856)
23.7%
(432)
18.3%
(332)
3.44 1,819
Law enforcement: Traffic safety 7.5%
(136)
8.5%
(155)
54.6%
(993)
17.4%
(316)
12.0%
(219)
3.18 1,819
Law enforcement:
Nuisances/zoning
13.4%
(242)
13.2%
(239)
46.2%
(835)
15.7%
(284)
11.5%
(207)
2.99 1,807
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for peaks & hillsides
7.4%
(137)
5.1%
(93)
29.5%
(543)
23.2%
(427)
34.8%
(640)
3.73 1,840
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for farm, ranchland
8.9%
(161)
9.5%
(172)
43.2%
(785)
18.7%
(340)
19.8%
(359)
3.31 1,817
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for creeks & marshes
5.9%
(108)
6.4%
(117)
34.7%
(635)
24.5%
(449)
28.4%
(520)
3.63 1,829
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for City greenbelt
6.9%
(125)
6.4%
(117)
32.7%
(596)
24.0%
(437)
30.0%
(547)
3.64 1,822
Parking and access choices
downtown
11.9%
(216)
9.5%
(172)
43.9%
(799)
19.9%
(361)
14.9%
(270)
3.16 1,818
Parks/playfields 6.2%
(113)
7.3%
(134)
46.9%
(859)
23.4%
(429)
16.1%
(295)
3.36 1,830
Performing arts 11.3%
(207)
10.8%
(199)
51.5%
(945)
16.3%
(300)
10.0%
(184)
3.03 1,835
Public art 17.0%
(311)
13.0%
(239)
46.0%
(843)
14.5%
(266)
9.4%
(173)
2.86 1,832
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 15
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Recreation programs 7.4%
(134)
9.2%
(167)
51.2%
(933)
21.7%
(395)
10.6%
(194)
3.19 1,823
Shelter for homeless 17.4%
(320)
8.2%
(151)
27.3%
(504)
23.6%
(436)
23.5%
(433)
3.28 1,844
Sidewalk improvements and
pedestrian connections
7.1%
(130)
7.5%
(138)
41.8%
(764)
24.0%
(438)
19.6%
(358)
3.41 1,828
Street maintenance 3.9%
(72)
5.7%
(105)
46.2%
(847)
25.8%
(473)
18.3%
(335)
3.49 1,832
Street trees, landscaping along
streets
6.7%
(122)
7.6%
(138)
44.0%
(803)
24.2%
(443)
17.6%
(321)
3.38 1,827
Street widening/signals 13.9%
(252)
13.4%
(243)
44.6%
(807)
17.2%
(312)
10.9%
(197)
2.98 1,811
Transit service – routes and
frequency
9.7%
(173)
10.2%
(182)
46.0%
(823)
19.2%
(344)
14.9%
(267)
3.20 1,789
Despite support for some services, only a slight majority of respondents said they would support paying more for just two:
54% for open space for peaks and hillsides, and 52% for acquiring space for the City’s Greenbelt (see Table 12).
Support for Paying for More Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 12.
Yes No Response Count
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and parking) 48.7% (853) 51.3% (900) 1,753
Bus service – more routes and more frequent service 38.6% (649) 61.4% (1,031) 1,680
Traffic congestion management 37.6% (631) 62.4% (1,049) 1,680
Neighborhood traffic management 28.0% (455) 72.0% (1,171) 1,626
Emergency services/disaster readiness 41.7% (689) 58.3% (965) 1,654
Flood prevention/control 25.7% (418) 74.3% (1,210) 1,628
Preserving historic buildings 35.6% (605) 64.4% (1,094) 1,699
Housing for low‐income families 35.9% (618) 64.1% (1,104) 1,722
Law enforcement: Violence/thefts 41.9% (701) 58.1% (972) 1,673
Law enforcement: Traffic safety 28.9% (479) 71.1% (1,180) 1,659
Law enforcement: Nuisances/zoning 24.1% (402) 75.9% (1,268) 1,670
Acquiring and maintaining open space for peaks & hillsides 54.1% (943) 45.9% (801) 1,744
Acquiring and maintaining open space for farm, ranchland 30.4% (508) 69.6% (1,163) 1,671
Acquiring and maintaining open space for creeks & marshes 49.3% (847) 50.7% (871) 1,718
Acquiring and maintaining open space for City greenbelt 51.6% (891) 48.4% (836) 1,727
Parking and access choices downtown 24.7% (417) 75.3% (1,268) 1,685
Parks/playfields 38.8% (655) 61.2% (1,033) 1,688
Performing arts 23.9% (397) 76.1% (1,266) 1,663
Public art 20.6% (345) 79.4% (1,329) 1,674
Recreation programs 33.0% (545) 67.0% (1,106) 1,651
Shelter for homeless 46.7% (820) 53.3% (935) 1,755
Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian connections 42.1% (709) 57.9% (977) 1,686
Street maintenance 42.4% (716) 57.6% (971) 1,687
Street trees, landscaping along streets 39.8% (666) 60.2% (1,008) 1,674
Street widening/signals 24.9% (411) 75.1% (1,237) 1,648
Transit service – routes and frequency 31.7% (520) 68.3% (1,121) 1,641
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 16 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
The 1988 survey showed support for paying more for bicycle paths, bus services, law enforcement, and performing arts
(63%). There was also support for public art, recreation, and parks and playfields.
Finally, we asked people to identify the services they would most like to see in the City. The responses were varied, but a
substantial number mentioned better services for homeless and increased transit options for air, bus, rail, and taxi
services.
2012 Community Survey
October 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 17
Demographic Data
The vast majority of respondents indicated they live in the City of San Luis Obispo with a little less than half working or
owning a business in the City (Figure 6). Seventy‐three percent of respondents own their dwelling with 27% renting.
Figure 6. Demographic Data, San Luis Obispo 2012
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 18 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey October 2012
Relative to work status, just over 50% of respondents marked themselves as currently employed, with slightly over 36%
marking themselves as retired (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Status, San Luis Obispo 2012