HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 17, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use and
Circulation Elements (LUCE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report;
City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Gary
Kaiser)
Focus for this meeting: Provide recommendation to City Council for updated
Policies and Programs in Chapters 6-10 and 12-16 of the draft Circulation Element;
and review and provide recommendation to City Council for draft Financial Report
information associated with the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements
of the General Plan.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
3. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Gary Kaiser
2222
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review and recommendation of the LUCE Update Financial Report and
Circulation Element Chapters 6-10 & 12-16; and Land Use Element diagram and Zoning
updates. PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Gary Kaiser, contract planner Phone Number: 781-7097 E-mail: gkaiser@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: GPI/ER 15-12 FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council take the following actions: (1)
Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element Chapters 6-10 & 12-16; and (2)
Approve changes to the Land Use Element diagram and associated Zoning updates.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Gary Kaiser, Contract Planner
Zoning Multiple
General Plan Multiple
Site Area ~13 square miles
Application
Complete February 1, 2012
Environmental
Status
Environmental Impact Report
FEIR released on 9-3-14
1.0 BACKGROUND
For a summary of previous review including outreach efforts, public review, goals of the
update, and previous Planning Commission review, please see the previous staff reports from
the continued 8-27-14 Planning Commission hearing & 9-10-14 & 9-11-14 Planning
Commission Hearings. Previous staff reports are available at:
http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/plancom/stfrprts.asp
Meeting Date: 9-17-14
Item Number: 1
Meeting Date: 9-18-14
Item Number: 1
PC1 - 1
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-17-2014 & 9-18-2014
Financial information & CE Chapters 6-1
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the General Plan
and for making recommendations to the City Council under Government Code section §65353.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The meetings of September 17th and 18th have been scheduled to address financial information,
remaining Circulation Element Chapter review, and Land Use Element diagram and zoning
updates. Review is anticipated to occur as follows:
September 17th:
Review Financial Information; and
Circulation Element Chapters 6-10 & 12-16
September 18th:
Carryover of items not yet completed from Planning Commission meetings of
September 11th & September 17th.
Land Use Element Diagram and Zoning changes
3.1 FINANCIAL REPORT
The fiscal impact analysis of the LUCE update (Attachment 1) provides information about the
fiscal balance of the land uses and the cost of the infrastructure to support those uses. This
information will be used to inform the Commission and the Council regarding the mix of uses
being proposed through the update and will set the stage for future efforts to define the fee
program and facilities financing approaches that will support implementation.
Development supported by the LUCE update will generate demands for local government
services such as police, fire, utilities, community development, as well as increased demands
on facilities such as parks and government buildings. This same development will also
generate revenue to help support these demands through taxes and fees. The analysis of how
the cost of the demand balances with the off-setting revenue associated with the types of uses
supported by the LUCE update is addressed in the fiscal impact report. In general, residential
development generate less income than it costs the community to serve; and non-residential
development (especially those generating transient occupancy tax and retail sales tax) generate
more income than it costs the community to serve. “This effect frequently is exacerbated over
time. Thus, community plans should strive to develop a balance of land use that includes
sufficient net revenue generators to offset financial drains and/or to avoid diminishing service
levels.”1
The findings from the report indicate the new development associated with the LUCE would
generate a net neutral to slightly net positive fiscal impact. This understanding of the relative
balance of demand for public services and cost to respond is important to ensure the City of
San Luis Obispo is able to meet the expectations of its citizens, both current and future. It is an
important component, though not the only factor, in creating a plan that meets the desired
1 Multari, Coleman, Hampian, and Statler. Guide to Local Government Finance in California, Solano Press
Books, 2012.
PC1 - 2
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-17-2014 & 9-18-2014
Financial information & CE Chapters 6-1
vision of the community.
The information is provided to the Planning Commission as context for the LUCE update but
no further action or recommendation is required. This report is intended to inform the
Commission and Council regarding the fiscal impacts of land uses supported by the LUCE and
will provide valuable information for the public facility fee update that will follow LUCE
adoption.
3.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW
The Circulation Element is shown in legislative draft format to indicate where additions and
deletions to existing policies and programs are proposed. Descriptions under the chapter
headings below summarize the draft changes that were reviewed by Commission and endorsed
by City Council for review through the EIR process – no changes have been made to the
documents.
Please note that the Table of Contents, figures and tables are will be updated and all references
will be corrected in the final version. The Commission should review the legislative draft
documents and be prepared to pause for discussion of those policies or programs for which
Commissioners wish to make adjustments for Council consideration.
3.2.1 Circulation Element – Chapter 6: Multi-Modal Circulation
This is a new chapter which responds to Assembly Bill 1358 (2008), The Complete Streets Act,
which requires all cities updating a Circulation Element to plan for development of multi-
modal transportation networks. Policies in this chapter establish the Complete Streets and
Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Standards, and Significance Criteria. Policies
for Modal priorities for Level of Service are also established along with thresholds of
significance and mitigation policies for review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
3.2.2 Circulation Element – Chapter 7: Traffic Management
Chapter 7 establishes policies that would manage expansion of roadways to only accommodate
increased vehicular traffic associated with development under the Land Use Element and
regional transportation plans. Policies also would increase support for non-automobile travel by
allocating transportation funding across various modes of transportation and to reduce vehicle
speeds in residential neighborhoods where possible. A key policy in this chapter directs the city
to adopt funding guidelines to align with modal split objectives. Staff recommends additions to
7.0.2 and 9.1.6 that indicate roundabouts are a preferred intersection control for reasons of
vehicle speed reduction, safety, and operational benefits. This direction may be found on page
3-22 of the FEIR.
3.2.3 Circulation Element – Chapter 8: Neighborhood Traffic Management
Chapter 8 contains policies to protect residential neighborhoods from deteriorating traffic
conditions by minimizing cut through traffic and incorporating traffic calming features.
PC1 - 3
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-17-2014 & 9-18-2014
Financial information & CE Chapters 6-1
3.2.4 Circulation Element – Chapter 9: Street Network Changes
Chapter 9 provides policy modification to require public participation in the planning and
design of major changes to the street network and modified implementation policy to sequence
street projects so development does not precede needed infrastructure improvements.
3.2.5 Circulation Element – Chapter 10: Truck Transportation
Truck transportation policy modifications include policies to require use of established truck
routes and include a new policy that the City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement
of heavy vehicles.
3.2.6 Circulation Element – Chapter 12: Rail Transportation
Modifications to Chapter 12 includes policies encouraging increased availability of passenger
rail service and to enhance City transit service to transit station and to work with the train
station management to upgrade the facility and visitor services.
3.2.7 Circulation Element – Chapter 13: Parking Management
Chapter 13 includes updated policies which clarify and update language related to short term
parking, establishment of park and ride lots, curb parking evaluation, and the approval and
construction of public parking structures.
3.2.8 Circulation Element – Chapter 14: Neighborhood and Parking Management
This Chapter includes additional policies to protect residential neighborhoods from parking
demand generated by adjacent high-intensity uses and for the City to update the review criteria
and clarify the process for establishing neighborhood parking districts.
3.2.4 Circulation Element – Chapter 15: Scenic Roadways
This Chapter addresses policy direction for development along scenic roadways including
signage, lighting, and other public equipment and facilities.
3.2.4 Circulation Element - Chapter 16: Circulation Element Implementation, Program
Funding and Management
Chapter 16 policies provide additional emphasis on how the City’s financial decisions should
support and align with the circulation policies and programs, and encourages the City to
continue to actively participate in regional transportation issues.
September 18, 2014
General Plan Diagram and Zoning changes
Physical changes to land uses have been discussed and endorsed through policy direction and
as part of the FEIR for the LUCE. While some of the larger areas supporting changed land
uses will require subsequent planning efforts to locate revised designations and zoning, there
are several smaller areas for which revisions to the General Plan and zoning designations are
envisioned and have been evaluated. These include: Foothill/Santa Rosa area; Sunset-Prado
PC1 - 4
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-17-2014 & 9-18-2014
Financial information & CE Chapters 6-1
area, Tank Farm/Broad, South Broad Street Area, General Hospital, Madonna Inn area, Alrita,
Bishop Knoll, Cal Poly/CalFire, Bella Vista, and Creekside (LOVR). The table below
indicates the recommended designation changes and associated zoning:
Area General Plan Designation Associated Zoning
Alrita area: Change from Interim Open Space to
Low Density Residential
R-1 Low Density Residential
Bella Montana area: Change from Interim Open Space to
Medium Density Residential
R-2 Medium Density
Residential
Bishop Knoll /
Foothill area:
Change from Interim Open Space to
Low Density Residential
R-1 Low Density Residential
Cal Poly/Calfire area: Change from Interim Open Space to
Public Facilities
PF Public Facilities
Creekside/LOVR
area:
Change from Interim Open Space to
Low (south side) and Medium (north
side) Density Residential and Open
Space
R-1 and R-2 Low (south side)
and Medium (north side)
Density Residential
Foothill/Santa Rosa
area:
Change from Neighborhood
Commercial to Community
Commercial on both sides of
Foothill between Chorro and Santa
Rosa. Retain existing General Retail.
C-C Community Commercial.
General Hospital
area:
Change from Low Density
Residential to Low and Medium
density Residential and Public
Facilities
R-1 Low Density Residential,
R-2 Medium Density
Residential, and
PF Public Facilities
Madonna Inn area: Change from Interim Open Space to
Tourist Commercial, Agriculture
and Open Space
C-T Tourist Commercial and
C/OS Conservation/Open
Space
South Broad Street
area:
Change from Services and
Manufacturing to Community
Commercial and Services and
Manufacturing
C-C Community Commercial
and
C-S Service Commercial
Sunset Drive-
in/Prado area:
Change Office, Interim Open Space
and Services and Manufacturing to
Office* and Community
Commercial
O Office and
C-C Community Commercial
Tank Farm/Broad
area:
Change from Business Park to
Community Commercial
C-C Community Commercial
* Staff recommends keeping a portion of the area in an Office designation to accommodate the
RTA and Homeless Services Center developments.
With Planning Commission recommendation, staff will prepare the Land Use Element diagram
and the Zoning Map for Council consideration. The General Plan Land Use Diagram shown
in Figure 3 on page 19 of the Draft Land Use Element has minor errors for which corrections
need to be made. Corrections needed are shown in Attachment 5. This attachment contains
PC1 - 5
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-17-2014 & 9-18-2014
Financial information & CE Chapters 6-1
enlarged graphics for each area needing correction and displays the incorrect image on the left
and the corrected image on the right. Updated diagrams will be distributed to the Commission
prior to next week’s meeting.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The Commission should review the Financial Report and draft Circulation Element chapters
along with updates provided by staff during the hearing and provide input and direction as
appropriate. Staff will forward the Planning Commission’s recommendation for consideration
by the City Council.
Upcoming Council Review of LUCE recommendations from the Planning Commission
include:
September 30th
Land Use Element Chapter 7 (Airport), Airport Overlay Zone, Land Use
Element Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas), and Circulation Element Chapter 11
(Air Transportation)
October 7th
Financial Report
Land Use Element Chapters 1-6 & 9-12
Circulation Element Chapters 1-10 & 12-16
October 21st
LUCE adoption
Potential Airport Overrule determination
Airport Overlay Zone (dependent on item above)
Fiscal/PFFP
EIR Addendum, as required
Land Use Element diagram and Zoning Map
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Public Works staff has been directly involved and assisting in the update of the Circulation
Element. All departments have contributed to the background reports and the review of
technical information.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
Continue the project with specific direction to staff.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. LUCE Update financial report
2. Matrix of policy comments received during EIR comment period
3. Resolution recommending updates to Circulation Element Chapters 6-10 and 12-16
4. Resolution recommending updates to the Land Use Element diagram and Zoning Map
5. Graphic of areas of change
PC1 - 6
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis 1
August 2014
PC1 - 7
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 2 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Major Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 3
LUCE Projected Development ........................................................................................................... 5
Discussion of Fiscal Impacts ............................................................................................................... 9
Public Facilities Financing .................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A: Methodology for the Fiscal Analysis .............................................................. 28
Appendix B: Development Impact Fee Estimates ............................................................... 37
PC1 - 8
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis 3
August 2014
Introduction
This report evaluates the fiscal impact of proposed land uses in the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The report calculates the projected City revenues and costs that would
be generated by new development included in the LUCE, as well as new infrastructure and program elements
included in the Circulation Element. The first section of the report focuses primarily on the annual operating
costs and revenues for the City’s General Fund, while the second section discusses capital improvements,
such as street improvements and the new fire station that would also be needed to support planned
development. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the methodology used in the analysis while
Appendix B provides detailed calculations of development impact fees from LUCE development. The LUCE
Background Report Chapter 2.2, Fiscal-Financial, provides a context for this analysis in terms of recent trends
in City finances and the City’s policy framework for budgetary actions. In addition, Chapter 2.3, Economic
Development, includes a retail market analysis and a discussion of the tourism market in San Luis Obispo that
provides a basis for parts of the fiscal analysis in this report. The DEIR also provides a more detailed
description of key City services, such as police and fire protection, than is provided here in the fiscal analysis.
The General Fund collects all general tax revenues and pays for most of the operating expenses to fund City
government. The City budget includes other funds besides the General Fund but these represent monies
collected from a variety of revenue sources that are limited to specific uses. For example, the City Enterprise
Funds are used to operate the water and wastewater systems as well as City-owned parking facilities and
transit services. The revenues used to operate these systems are mainly user charges billed to customers for
service. The City has the ability to adjust service charges over time to ensure that the revenues meet
operating costs. Therefore, it is less likely that new development would create adverse fiscal impacts on the
Enterprise Fund provided the City is able to project changes in systems demands and operating costs.
However, with the General Fund, the City has less control over its major tax sources such as the property tax,
sales tax and transient occupancy tax, because the tax rates are largely constrained by the state constitution
and other regulatory limits and the revenues themselves may decline with changes in economic conditions,
as happened during the recent recession. Therefore, it is especially important to analyze how the future land
use mix will affect General Fund costs and revenues rather than other portions of the City budget.
The fiscal analysis is structured to show the marginal impact of new development included in the LUCE and
does not represent a projection of the total City budget at buildout of the General Plan. Other economic and
state policy factors may affect the cost of services and the revenues generated by existing land uses in the
City, which would change the City’s overall budget picture.
Major Findings
The new development associated with the LUCE would generate a net positive fiscal impact of $3.1
million per year for the San Luis Obispo General Fund. This result is driven largely by the amount of
commercial and hospitality uses included in the LUCE.
The circulation improvements and transportation programs included in the LUCE, as well as other new
facilities such as a fifth fire station, would also benefit existing development in the City. The share of
annual operating and maintenance costs allocated to existing development equal about $2.67 million
per year, reducing the overall fiscal benefit of the LUCE program to about $452,700 per year.
The costs included in the analysis reflect a higher than current level of City expenditure for facilities
maintenance and IT investments, addressing the fact that current expenditure levels have resulted in
PC1 - 9
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 4 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
deferred maintenance for many City facilities. These higher service standards result in higher costs for
LUCE development and lower net revenues. However, despite absorbing these higher maintenance
costs, the development would be able to contribute nearly an additional $3.1 million per year to
capital improvement plan projects, including payments for debt service related to these projects
One source of capital improvements expenditures for the City is Measure Y sales tax receipts (1/2 cent
Essential Services Measure). The LUCE development is projected to generate $2.7 million in Essential
Services Measure revenues per year. Measure Y is due to expire in 2014 unless renewed by the
voters. If the Measure is not renewed, the City would not receive the projected additional sales tax
revenues from LUCE development and related expenditures would need to be reduced accordingly.
In terms of service costs, one significant service impact is the need for a new fire station in the south
part of town, which is estimated to cost $3 million to build and equip and $1.8 million per year to
operate. Four main projects included in the LUCE would benefit from this facility, including Sunset
Drive-in, Avila Ranch and the Airport & Margarita Area Specific Plans. However, some existing
residential units as well as a number of businesses located in the southern part of town would also
benefit from the new fire station. In the fiscal analysis, the operating costs for the station have been
allocated to these projects plus the existing development within the new service area.
Within the LUCE there are three major project sites plus 28 acres of other vacant land that is currently
outside the City boundaries and would have to be annexed in order to develop. The City receives a
lower share of property tax on annexed property than it does for properties within the historical core
of the City (i.e., within the City prior to 1996 when the City/County tax sharing agreement was
adopted). However, due to the planned commercial development in the Dalidio/San Luis Ranch site,
the Airport Area and the Madonna site on LOVR, these future annexation areas would generate a net
positive fiscal impact of $1.8 million per year.
Circulation improvements in the LUCE are estimated to cost $192.2 million, and in addition circulation
improvements from the ancillary Bicycle Transportation Plan are estimated to cost $48 million. Some
funding is included in the City’s existing Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. LUCE development
is projected to pay $99 million into the existing TIF, but many of these funds are earmarked for other
facilities in the Citywide TIF. Overall there is a gap of at least $40 million between LUCE circulation
costs and existing projected TIF revenues, not including the costs in the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Other estimated facilities costs associated with the LUCE include a share of both new fire and police
stations at $2.2 million and $8.1 million, respectively. Also, certain LUCE development would dedicate
parkland and others would pay an in-lieu parkland fee, but the City does not have a fee for park
development and there is an estimated $17.3 million gap between the estimated cost of park
acquisition and development and the fees and park land dedications that would be provided by the
LUCE under existing City programs.
Altogether, there is an infrastructure funding gap of at least $71.5 million, and the analysis indicates
that new development in the LUCE may be able to absorb some additional fee burden. When the
LUCE is adopted, it will be essential for the City to develop a detailed plan for funding critical
infrastructure improvements, including a new development impact fee nexus study.
PC1 - 10
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis 5
August 2014
LUCE Project ed Development
The proposed Land Use and Circulation Element includes a number of future development projects and sites.
Table 1 summarizes housing unit, population, non-residential square footage, and employment capacity in
the Planning Subarea. The table is divided into capacity from alternative sites, specific plans, planned
projects, and other vacant land. Under the proposed General Plan, San Luis Obispo has a capacity for 4,904
new residential units and 5,168,908 square feet of non-residential floor area.
Alternatives Sites
There are 12 active alternatives sites within the Planning Subarea that were identified through the
alternatives process as opportunity areas. Units and non-residential square footage are calculated based on
proposed general plan designations and input from the City. Some of these sites have existing development
that will likely be adapted to facilitate new development. Alternatives sites are anticipated to result in 2,316
new units and 1,900,443 square feet of new non-residential floor area.
Specific Plans
There are three key specific plans that provide capacity within the Planning Subarea: The Margarita Area
Specific Plan (MASP), the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). After
capacity from the Avila Ranch and Broad Street at Tank Farm Road alternatives sites were removed to avoid
double counting, the three specific plan areas account for 1,847 units and 3,244,642 square feet of new non-
residential floor area.
Planned Projects
Some capacity is determined by sites with projects approved by the City of San Luis Obispo. Planned projects
include developments with approved land use entitlements, preparing for building permits, in plan check, or
under construction. There are eight planned and approved projects that are outside the alternatives sites,
including three residential and five mixed use developments. Together, these on-going projects would result
in an estimated 289 new housing units and 126,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.
Other Vacant Land
Other vacant land indicates what could realistically be developed on remaining vacant land in San Luis Obispo
based on actual constraints and historical development practice. Table 1 shows the breakdown of vacant land
by land use designations in 2013, excluding approved projects, vacant land in specific plan areas, and vacant
land within alternatives sites. Excluding these areas, the city has 87 acres of vacant land. Services and
Manufacturing and Low Density Residential areas have the greatest number of vacant, developable acres. All
vacant land potential is within the Planning Subarea, although 28 acres is outside the current City boundary.
Based on allowed density, anticipated infrastructure, and development history, vacant land in San Luis
Obispo can support an additional 452 units. Most of these units would be in low, medium, and high density
residential areas. Based on allowed FAR, anticipated infrastructure, and development history, vacant land in
San Luis Obispo can support an additional 230,433 square feet of non-residential development.
PC1 - 11
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 6 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table 1: Total Capacity within Planning Subarea, San Luis Obispo 2014
Acres
Typical Density¹ Capacity
Resin-
dential
(Units/
Acre)
Non-
Resi-
dential
(FAR)
Units²
Popula-
tion3
Non-Residential Square Footage4
Employ-
ment5 Single
Family
Multi-
family Total Office Commer-
cial
Indust-
rial Hotel Park
(Acres)
Total
(includes
hotels)
ALTERNATIVES SITES⁶
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area 0 80 80 183 0 -1,814 0 0 - -1,814 -3
Caltrans Site 0 53 53 121 -3,792 -14,265 0 200 3.5 101,943 6
General Hospital Site 9 32 41 94 48,788 0 0 0 - 48,788 163
Broad Street Area 0 589 589 1,349 0 229,068 0 0 - 229,068 416
Sunset Drive-In Site 0 0 0 0 260,706 222,962 0 0 - 483,668 1,274
Dalidio / Madonna Area 320 180 500 1,145 150,000 200,000 0 200 8.3 470,000 968
Pacific Beach Site 0 38 38 87 -94,851 57,499 0 0 - -37,352 -212
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales
Area 0 0 0 0 0 128,066 0 120 - 200,066 295
Madonna Site on LOVR 0 115 115 263 16,770 145,000 0 139 - 336,170 392
LOVR Creekside Area 0 159 159 364 0 0 0 0 2.7 0 0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site 0 41 41 94 73,180 62,726 0 0 - 135,906 358
Avila Ranch 405 295 700 1,603 0 25,000 0 0 - 25,000 45
SUBTOTAL 734 1,582 2,316 5,303 450,801 1,054,242 0 659 14.5 1,900,443 3,762
SPECIFIC PLANS7
Margarita Area Specific Plan 741 127 868 1,988 959,017 10,000 0 0 25.9 969,017 3,215
Airport Area Specific Plan⁸ 0 0 0 0 900,000 616,983 747,642 0 - 2,264,625 6,420
Orcutt Area Specific Plan 540 439 979 2,242 0 11,000 0 0 12.0 11,000 20
SUBTOTAL 1,281 566 1,847 4,230 1,859,017 637,983 747,642 0 37.9 3,244,642 9,475
PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS⁹
Chinatown Project 0 32 32 73 0 46,000 0 78 - 92,800 124
Pacific Courtyards 0 12 12 27 10,000 0 0 0 - 10,000 33
Mission Estates 10 0 10 23 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
Four Creeks (Creekston and
Laurel Creek) 0 166 166 380 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
Garden Street Terrace 0 8 8 18 0 25,000 0 64 - 63,400 83
PC1 - 12
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 7
August 2014
Acres
Typical Density¹ Capacity
Resin-
dential
(Units/
Acre)
Non-
Resi-
dential
(FAR)
Units²
Popula-
tion3
Non-Residential Square Footage4
Employ-
ment5 Single
Family
Multi-
family Total Office Commer-
cial
Indust-
rial Hotel Park
(Acres)
Total
(includes
hotels)
313 South Street Apartments 0 43 43 98 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
Marsh Street Commons 0 11 11 25 0 3,000 0 0 - 3,000 5
ICON project (1340 Taft) 0 7 7 16 0 4,000 0 0 - 4,000 7
SUBTOTAL 10 279 289 660 10,000 78,000 - 150 - 126,400 252
OTHER VACANT LAND (BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION)10
Suburban Residential4 4.0 1 4 4 9 - - - -
Low Density Residential 53.4 6 320 320 733 - - - -
Medium Density Residential 7.1 10 71 71 163 - - - -
Medium-High Density
Residential 0.4 16 - 6 6 14 - - - -
High Density Residential 2.7 19 - 51 51 117 - - - -
Neighborhood Commercial5 0.2 0.30 - 2,614 - - 2,614 5
Community Commercial5 3.2 0.30 - 41,818 - - 41,818 76
Tourist Commercial5 1.0 0.35 - 15,246 - - 15,246 28
Office4 1.3 0.35 - 19,820 - - 19,820 36
Services and Manufacturing 13.3 0.25 - 144,837 - - 144,837 193
Public 0.4 0.35 - 6,098 - - 6,098 20
SUBTOTAL 87 395 57 452 1,036 25,918 59,678 144,837 - - 230,433 388
TOTAL CAPACITY 2,420 11,229 2,345,736 1,829,903 892,479 803 52.4 5,166,908 13,877
1 Typical density and FAR is based on a net acre assumption accounting for necessary infrastructure and facilities. To get the typical density, the maximum
density was recalculated based on a development percent assumption on what is average for new development.
2 Unit capacity for other vacant land is calculated by multiplying acres and the typical density.
3 Population based on 2010 Census estimate of 2.29 persons per household.
4Non-residential square footage for specific plan area and planned projects is based on assumptions in specific plans and Community Development Project
Status Report (December 31, 2012). Non-residential square footage for vacant land is calculated by multiplying acres and the typical FAR. Hotels were
assumed to have 600 square feet per room.
5 Employment is estimated using 300 square feet per employee for office uses, 550 square feet per employee for commercial uses, 750 square feet per
employee for industrial uses, and 1,150 square feet per employee for hotels/motels.
PC1 - 13
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 8 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
6Alternatives Sites estimate the net new residential and non-residential development in opportunity areas identified as a part of the alternatives process.
Units and non-residential square footage are calculated based on proposed general plan designations and input from the City. Some of these sites have
existing development that will likely be adapted to facilitate new development. As a result, some sites have a negative number for net new non-residential
square footage, even though new development is anticipated.
7Non-Residential square footage includes land designated neighborhood commercial, services commercial, business park, and manufacturing.
8The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) does not include capacity from the Avila Ranch or Broad St. @ Tank Farm Alternatives Sites. These sites are counted
in the Alternatives Sites section. Non-residential square footage in the AASP includes 605,293 square feet from underutilized land that is likely to
redevelop. Remaining capacity in the AASP based on analysis conducted by the City of San Luis Obispo Planning and GIS staff.
9Does not include projects that fall within the boundaries of the Specific Plan Areas or the Alternatives Sites. Only those projects that provided specific
unit/square footage numbers were included.
10Does not include parcels that fall within the boundaries of the Specific Plan Areas, Alternatives Sites, or Planned and Approved Projects. Acreages are
taken from the vacant land category in the existing land use inventory.
Sources: Community Development Department Project Status Report (December 31, 2012), San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use Element, 2010; City of
San Luis Obispo, 2014; Matrix, 2014; Mintier Harnish, 2014.
PC1 - 14
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 9
August 2014
Discussion of Fiscal Impacts
Introduction
Overall, the new land use development under the LUCE would result in a net positive fiscal impact of $3.1
million per year for the San Luis Obispo General Fund (Table 2). However, other costs associated with the
new circulation improvements and transportation programs, as well as added fire protection costs to existing
development in the south part of the City would reduce the total net revenues to $452,700 per year (Table
3). The positive fiscal impact is driven largely by a favorable balance of commercial and hospitality uses to
residential development. Retail development would create a net positive revenue balance of $6.4 million per
year and the added hotel development would increase net revenues by $2.6 million per year. Residential
development, on the other hand, would require an estimated $4.0 million more per year in service costs than
it would generate in City revenues. Office and industrial development also would have more minor negative
fiscal impacts on the City General Fund.
Table 2 shows the detailed impacts of LUCE development on City revenue categories and service
departments. Most of the property tax is generated by residential development while most of the sales tax is
generated by commercial development, although household spending from residential units has been
credited to the new single family and multi-family units. The transient occupancy tax is a major source of
revenue from the hospitality sector.
The Net Revenue shown in Table 2 represents about 15.5 percent of the total projected revenues of nearly
$20.0 million. The City has a fiscal policy to maintain a 20 percent reserve and the LUCE land use mix would
allow the City to maintain its reserves over time. As discussed in the analysis below, the fiscal analysis uses a
higher service standard for infrastructure and facilities maintenance than the City currently is able to budget,
addressing the fact that current expenditure levels have resulted in deferred maintenance for many City
facilities. These higher service standards result in higher costs for LUCE development and lower net revenues
in the bottom line in Table 2. However, despite absorbing these higher maintenance costs, the development
would be able to contribute nearly an additional $3.0 million per year to capital improvement plan projects,
including payments for debt service related to these projects (shown in Table 2 as Transfers Out). This
allocation reflects the current General Fund budget for capital expenditures. In the future, the City Council
may choose to allocate these funds differently to augment other service departments as needed.
Much of the General Fund contribution to capital expenditures is currently funded by Measure Y sales tax
revenues (1/2 cent Essential Services Sales Tax), the renewal of which is due to be voted on in November
2014. The LUCE development is projected to generate nearly $2.7 million per year in Essential Services sales
tax revenues. If the measure is not renewed, the City would not gain the revenues shown for the LUCE
development and would also likely have to reduce expenditures by a commensurate amount.
City Services
The following sections discuss the projected impacts to each governmental function funded by the General
Fund.
General Government. The General Government function includes a number of City Departments that provide
management and support services, including the Administration Department, City Attorney, Human
Resources, Finance and Information Technology, Public Works Administration, and Building and Fleet
Maintenance (City Council costs are not projected to increase as a result of the LUCE). These costs total $10.3
million in the General Fund Budget, but some of the costs would not reasonably be expected to increase as
PC1 - 15
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 10 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
the City grows. For example, the City would not have two City Managers or two Finance Directors, but rather
would hire additional support personnel to meet additional workloads. Therefore, some of the General
Government costs have been excluded from the analysis (see Table A-6 in Appendix A). In contrast, the City
also estimates that it is not currently spending enough to maintain important infrastructure and systems. In
terms of General Government functions, the City estimates it should be allocating an additional $160,000 per
year to maintain and expand information technology systems, as well as an additional $867,000 per year for
building maintenance.1 These amounts have been added to the General Government expenditures to reflect
the service level the City projects for future growth. The adjustments to General Government expenditures
results in a total cost basis for the fiscal analysis of $8.8 million, which represents 18.2 percent of the total
service cost basis in the fiscal analysis. The General Government service costs are allocated to each land use
using this percentage of the other line department costs discussed above.
Police Department. In terms of service costs, the largest impact is for additional police officers, at nearly $4.1
million per year. As of 2014, the City has 59 sworn officers, a ratio of about 1.24 officers per 1,000
population. Residential development envisioned in the LUCE will add about 11,200 residents, creating a need
for 14 new sworn officers in order to maintain the same per capita ratio. The City currently spends about
$101,800 plus $1,500 in equipment for new police officer hires. However, as the police department expands,
additional non-sworn support personnel are also needed as well as additional operating and management
expenditures. The financial impact of the LUCE on a residential population basis would be about $2.5 million
per year. However, the LUCE also includes a substantial increase in commercial and hospitality uses, which
have significant fiscal benefits but also require added police protection services. This added service demand
is estimated to cost an additional $1.6 million per year.
Fire Department. For fire protection, there is a need for a new fire station in the south part of town. The
annual cost of operating the fire station is estimated to be $1.8 million, derived from figures in the Fire
Master Plan, escalated to 2014 dollars.2 Based on the DEIR analysis, it is anticipated that four new projects
would benefit from this facility: Sunset Drive-in, Avila Ranch and the Airport & Margarita Area Specific Plans
in addition to certain existing development in the City. The three new projects include 1,568 dwelling units
and an estimated 10,754 new jobs when fully built out. The existing developed areas in San Luis Obispo that
would also be served by the new fire station include an estimated 2,200 dwelling units and businesses with
about 4,000 jobs.
The fiscal analysis estimates that approximately $1,121,700 of the operating cost for the station (62 percent
of the total $1.8 million) would be due to the new development projects, based on a combination of
population, employment and projected assessed value, which is an indicator of the level of fire protection
they would require. These projects would cover this cost, and other City service costs, through payment of
property taxes and sales taxes, along with other General Fund revenues shown in Table 2. The remaining
$678,300 would be a cost to the City to meets its service standards for the existing development in the south
part of the City.
For LUCE development projects in other parts of the City within adequate response times of current stations,
no additional fire protection costs are included in the analysis. However, all projects would generate
increased costs for emergency medical response on a per capita basis, which accounts for about two-thirds of
1 IT costs provided by Wayne Padilla, Finance/IT Director; Building maintenance costs provided by Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director, in a
memorandum to the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee, January 13, 2014. The stated cost reflects the alternative investment level.
2 This estimate also accounts for projected reductions in PERS costs for new firefighters, based on information provided by Wayne Padilla,
Finance/IT Director, August 14, 2014.
PC1 - 16
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 11
August 2014
the Fire Department Budget. The projected additional cost for fire services from existing stations is estimated
at 759,250 per year.
Transportation. The LUCE proposes a number of new street and highway improvements, as well as a
significant expansion of the City’s Transportation Planning and Engineering program to increase bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit mode share. Also the City recently adopted an ancillary document, the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, which includes a number of bicycle specific improvements. Over 25 new transportation
policies and programs are proposed which include new monitoring programs, new budgeting and
prioritization processes, development of new plans such as the downtown pedestrian plan and access
management standards, expansion of existing programs such as the Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Traffic
Operations Programs, and new Multimodal Service Standards. It’s estimated that the proposed expansion of
the City’s Transportation Planning & Engineering program represents an additional 5,000 to 8,000 annual
staff hours & approximately $200,000 in annual consultant services depending on the implementation
schedule for these projects and programs and the level of the development applicants in a given year.
The City currently averages about $15,000 in maintenance costs per mile of roadway, including sidewalks,
bike paths, and related storm drain facilities. The LUCE includes approximately 13 miles of new road surfaces,
which would increase current maintenance costs about $195,000 on an annual average basis. Also the Bicycle
Transportation Plan includes new bike paths, boulevards, and lanes which would increase current
maintenance cost by another $1.06 million on an annual average basis. However, the City has determined
that current expenditures levels fail to meet City Council goals regarding optimal maintenance and
replacement schedules and the City is accumulating a significant deferred maintenance need. Maintenance
levels would need to increase between 3 and 5 times current levels to avoid this deferred maintenance.3 At
even the lower level, this would increase the LUCE street/storm maintenance costs to about $585,000 per
year.
The combination of an expanded Transportation Planning & Engineering program and additional street
maintenance on new roads and bikeways, adds a total of $2,213,500 to the fiscal costs for the LUCE. In
addition, the analysis estimates that the increased use of existing City transportation facilities and programs
by the new population and employment would increase City Transportation function costs by another
$1,586,600.
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services. A number of the LUCE development projects include new parks, adding
52.4 acres to the City’s inventory in aggregate. While this is a benefit to residents of the City, the additional
parks will increase maintenance costs for the parks and recreation department. In addition, the new
residential population will use existing parks and the increased wear and tear will add maintenance costs for
those parks as well. The total impacts to park maintenance cost is estimated at about $578,400 and is
allocated to the new residential units in the LUCE.
In addition to parks and landscape maintenance, new development associated with the LUCE would increase
demand for recreation programs and other City leisure, cultural and social services, including potentially the
City-County Library, the Swim Center, Youth and general Community Services. It is estimated that the total
cost of such services would increase $1.2 million at full buildout of the LUCE. Portions of these costs would be
offset by recreation program fees and general tax revenues generated by the LUCE development.
Community Development. The Community Development function for the City includes a wide range of
services, from long range planning to development review and entitlements, carried out by the Community
Development Department. It also includes economic development, community promotions, tourism and
3 Grigsby, Daryl, Public Works Director, memorandum to the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee, January 13, 2014.
PC1 - 17
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 12 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
natural resource protection through the City Administration Department, neighborhood services and code
enforcement through the Building and Safety Division, as well as engineering review and CIP engineering
from the Public Works Department. In the fiscal analysis, we have not included the portions of the
development review process for which the City charges fees directly to development. Fees for plan review,
plan check, building permits and the like are paid during the entitlement and project approval phase but then
are not paid by development on an ongoing basis except for occasional remodels or building expansions.
Much like the Enterprise Funds, the City has the ability to set fees for entitlement services to cover City costs;
however, other community development functions are supported by general tax revenues and are included
in the fiscal cost analysis for the LUCE, estimated at $719,170 per year at full buildout.
Enterprise Funds. Parking and transit services which are part of the transportation function are funded by
separate enterprise funds and are not included in Table 2. Similarly, utilities such as water and sewer service
are funded by enterprise funds rather than through general tax revenues in the General Fund. For water,
sewer and parking services, user fees and service charges fund 97-99 percent of the costs for these functions.
Therefore, as demand for the services increases from LUCE development, the City will receive increased
service charge revenues to cover those costs, In addition, the City has the authority to increase service charge
rates if necessary to maintain pace with cost escalations.
For transit, however, only 20 percent of operating costs are covered by user revenues and 80 percent are
covered from subventions and grants that are based on population, ridership and other factors. The LUCE
would increase the City’s population by about 25 percent, potentially increasing transit costs by as much as
$800,000 if existing system capacity cannot handle the increase. If such cost increases do occur, the City
would need to obtain additional grant funds to operate the expanded services.
Impacts by LUCE Development Area
The fiscal analysis evaluates each development project/area and land use type individually. Table 4 shows the
bottom-line fiscal impact of each individual project site or area, grouped by LUCE category. Due to the
balance of commercial and residential development, each category of LUCE project has a positive fiscal
impact.
Several of the projects would involve redeveloping existing non-residential uses and the fiscal impact analysis
accounts for the loss of these uses. For example, the site at Foothill and Santa Rosa would demolish an 1,800
sq.ft. commercial building while the Caltrans site would lose 18,000 sq.ft. of office and commercial uses. In
addition, the Pacific Beach site would replace 94,951 sq.ft. of office space with $57,499 sq.ft. of retail space
plus 38 multi-family units. The analysis assumes the existing uses are functioning as new and shows a
negative impact from replacing retail uses but a positive impact from replacing the office uses. In reality the
fiscal effect of the existing uses is likely lower due to obsolescence of the existing buildings. In any case, both
Caltrans site and the Pacific Beach site have net positive fiscal impacts due to the planned mix of uses in each
project.
In most cases, projects that have a mix of both residential and commercial uses show a positive fiscal benefit,
depending on the amount of retail uses in each case. There are a number of positive attributes associated
with mixed use development in terms of creating vibrant neighborhood environments, allowing more
pedestrian oriented shopping and entertainment activities and reducing vehicle miles traveled to more
centralized commercial centers. The fiscal analysis does not explicitly value these benefits in terms of
increased revenues or reduced service costs, but it does make the assumption that commercial spaces in
neighborhood locations will be fully patronized by local residents and therefore contribute positively to City
revenues, mainly through the sales tax. Some neighborhood sales dollars will likely come from existing
PC1 - 18
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 13
August 2014
residents and not just residents in the new housing. This would represent shifts in sales away from existing,
more centralized retail centers in the City and a more detailed market analysis of each individual project
would be needed to calculate the true net effect of this shopping activity. However, the fiscal success of the
City is largely dependent on its ability to continue to attract regional retail spending from residents
throughout the County and from business and tourist visitors. This may occur both through sales expansion
of existing retail and hospitality businesses (increased sales capture) and also through the development of
new retail and hotels that attract future county and outside visitor shoppers as the regional population
continues to grow. The LUCE includes potential expansion of regional retail centers in the Madonna Rd. and
LOVR areas, and therefore would help to maintain a solid tax base for the City as older retail centers
transition to new mixed use developments.
Tables 5 to 8 show detailed costs and revenues for each LUCE category plus the annexation areas. The
Alternatives Sites include a substantial portion of the new commercial development included in the LUCE but
less than half of the new housing units. This group of sites provides the largest net revenue gain for the City.
Among the Specific Plans, the residential development in the Margarita and Orcutt areas is balanced by the
commercial in the Airport Area to create a net positive fiscal impact overall. The other planned and approved
projects, as well as the remaining vacant land with development potential, have mixed fiscal impacts
depending on the nature of the proposed project, but as a group result in a net positive fiscal benefit for the
City.
Within the LUCE there are three major project sites plus 28 acres of other vacant land that are currently
outside the City boundaries and would have to be annexed in order to develop. These sites include
Dalidio/San Luis Ranch, portions of the Airport Area Specific Plan and the Madonna site on LOVR. They are
spread among the various LUCE project categories but are extracted for separate analysis in Table 3 and 7.
The City receives a lower share of property tax on annexed property than it does for properties within the
historical core of the City (i.e., within the City prior to 1996 when the City/County tax sharing agreement was
adopted). However, due to the planned commercial development in the Dalidio/San Luis Ranch site, the
Airport Area and the Madonna site on LOVR, these future annexation areas would generate a net positive
fiscal impact of $1.8 million per year.
PC1 - 19
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 2: Detailed Fiscal Impacts of Total New LUCE Development
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $2,310,082 $1,088,465 $713,256 $91,634 $309,921 $22,587 $84,219
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $1,781,322 $795,457 $384,503 $248,092 $246,538 $54,253 $52,479
Sales Tax: General $6,150,569 $512,576 $396,753 $77,364 $4,473,247 $61,871 $628,760
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $2,666,431 $222,215 $172,002 $33,539 $1,939,268 $26,823 $272,584
Sales Tax: Public Safety $135,399 $11,284 $8,734 $1,703 $98,474 $1,362 $13,842
Transient Occupancy Tax $2,283,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,280,447
Utility Users Tax $1,521,497 $454,799 $466,827 $320,846 $136,523 $48,829 $93,673
Franchise Fees $717,541 $214,484 $220,157 $151,312 $64,384 $23,028 $44,177
Business Tax Certificates $1,011,023 $0 $0 $619,825 $263,740 $94,330 $33,128
Real Property Transfer Tax $52,735 $24,848 $16,282 $2,092 $7,075 $516 $1,923
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $389,560 $192,238 $197,322 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $466,264 $139,374 $143,059 $98,324 $41,837 $14,964 $28,706
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $44,315 $13,247 $13,597 $9,345 $3,976 $1,422 $2,728
Interest Earnings and Rents $65,346 $12,616 $9,554 $5,457 $24,934 $1,153 $11,623
Other Revenues $27,441 $8,109 $8,324 $6,748 $2,872 $1,027 $361
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $328,782 $162,246 $166,536 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $19,951,573 $3,851,957 $2,916,906 $1,666,281 $7,612,789 $352,164 $3,548,648
EXPENDITURES
General Government $2,549,489 $813,329 $821,112 $454,429 $239,595 $69,596 $151,427
Police $4,188,315 $1,218,254 $1,250,472 $689,699 $548,547 $104,964 $376,379
Fire $1,880,919 $595,480 $534,342 $406,239 $176,733 $64,274 $103,850
Transportation $2,544,883 $760,705 $780,823 $536,653 $228,350 $81,672 $156,680
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $1,232,271 $551,991 $566,589 $0 $0 $0 $113,692
Park and Landscape Maintenance $578,381 $285,416 $292,964 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $178,344 $0 $0 $105,868 $45,047 $16,112 $11,317
Development Review $183,061 $56,942 $58,448 $40,171 $17,093 $6,113 $4,294
Other Community Development $399,943 $124,404 $127,694 $87,763 $37,344 $13,356 $9,381
Transfers Out $3,093,957 $962,390 $987,841 $678,935 $288,892 $103,325 $72,575
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $16,829,562 $5,326,048 $5,366,799 $2,368,925 $1,715,467 $483,965 $981,685
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $3,122,011 ($1,567,568) ($2,449,893) ($1,012,593) $6,372,458 ($131,801) $2,566,964
Source: ADE, Inc.
Table 3: Detailed Fiscal Impacts of Total New LUCE Development Plus Costs Allocated to Existing Development
PC1 - 20
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 15
August 2014
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $2,310,082 $1,088,465 $713,256 $91,634 $309,921 $22,587 $84,219
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $1,781,322 $795,457 $384,503 $248,092 $246,538 $54,253 $52,479
Sales Tax: General $6,150,569 $512,576 $396,753 $77,364 $4,473,247 $61,871 $628,760
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $2,666,431 $222,215 $172,002 $33,539 $1,939,268 $26,823 $272,584
Sales Tax: Public Safety $135,399 $11,284 $8,734 $1,703 $98,474 $1,362 $13,842
Transient Occupancy Tax $2,283,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,280,447
Utility Users Tax $1,521,497 $454,799 $466,827 $320,846 $136,523 $48,829 $93,673
Franchise Fees $717,541 $214,484 $220,157 $151,312 $64,384 $23,028 $44,177
Business Tax Certificates $1,011,023 $0 $0 $619,825 $263,740 $94,330 $33,128
Real Property Transfer Tax $52,735 $24,848 $16,282 $2,092 $7,075 $516 $1,923
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $389,560 $192,238 $197,322 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $466,264 $139,374 $143,059 $98,324 $41,837 $14,964 $28,706
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $44,315 $13,247 $13,597 $9,345 $3,976 $1,422 $2,728
Interest Earnings and Rents $65,346 $12,616 $9,554 $5,457 $24,934 $1,153 $11,623
Other Revenues $27,441 $8,109 $8,324 $6,748 $2,872 $1,027 $361
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $328,782 $162,246 $166,536 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $19,951,573 $3,851,957 $2,916,906 $1,666,281 $7,612,789 $352,164 $3,548,648
EXPENDITURES
General Government1 $2,953,854 $813,329 $821,112 $454,429 $239,595 $69,596 $151,427
Police $4,188,315 $1,218,254 $1,250,472 $689,699 $548,547 $104,964 $376,379
Fire1 $2,559,250 $595,480 $534,342 $406,239 $176,733 $64,274 $103,850
Transportation1 $4,131,467 $760,705 $780,823 $536,653 $228,350 $81,672 $156,680
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $1,232,271 $551,991 $566,589 $0 $0 $0 $113,692
Park and Landscape Maintenance $578,381 $285,416 $292,964 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $178,344 $0 $0 $105,868 $45,047 $16,112 $11,317
Development Review $183,061 $56,942 $58,448 $40,171 $17,093 $6,113 $4,294
Other Community Development $399,943 $124,404 $127,694 $87,763 $37,344 $13,356 $9,381
Transfers Out $3,093,957 $962,390 $987,841 $678,935 $288,892 $103,325 $72,575
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $19,498,843 $5,326,048 $5,366,799 $2,368,925 $1,715,467 $483,965 $981,685
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $452,730 ($1,567,568) ($2,449,893) ($1,012,593) $6,372,458 ($131,801) $2,566,964
1 The total expenditures for General Government, Fire Protection and Transportation include costs allocated to existing development as well as LUCE development.
PC1 - 21
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 4: Summary of Impacts by Area
Area Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
ALTERNATIVES SITES $4,555,809 ($469,983) ($1,538,826) ($182,496) $4,649,900 $0 $2,094,888
Foothill @ Santa Rosa ($98,887) $0 ($90,617) $0 ($8,271) $0 $0
Caltrans Site $545,236 $0 ($43,761) $1,016 ($65,038) $0 $652,313
General Hospital Site ($42,182) ($1,568) ($27,545) ($13,068) $0 $0 $0
Broad St. Area $483,000 $0 ($542,623) $0 $1,025,623 $0 $0
Sunset Drive In $923,109 $0 $0 ($81,191) $1,004,300 $0 $0
Dalidio/Madonna $954,666 ($207,497) ($196,154) ($87,126) $830,384 $0 $614,352
Pacific Beach Site $256,186 $0 ($31,376) $25,406 $262,155 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales $966,657 $0 $0 $0 $579,369 $0 $386,865
Madonna Site on LOVR $948,649 $0 ($119,457) ($6,905) $633,163 $0 $441,358
LOVR Creekside ($131,282) $0 ($131,282) $0 $0 $0 $0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd. $229,450 $0 ($34,880) ($20,629) $284,959 $0 $0
Avila Ranch ($478,793) ($260,918) ($321,131) $0 $103,256 $0 $0
SPECIFIC PLANS ($2,030,280) ($904,027) ($641,827) ($1,139,335) $766,706 ($111,797) $0
Margarita Area ($1,177,349) ($498,548) ($140,701) ($579,402) $41,302 $0 $0
Airport Area $8,214 $0 $0 ($559,933) $679,944 ($111,797) $0
Orcutt Area ($861,145) ($405,478) ($501,126) $0 $45,460 $0 $0
PLANNED/APPROVED PROJ. $517,762 ($4,280) ($273,895) ($3,732) $345,002 $0 $454,166
Chinatown $421,795 $0 ($31,415) $0 $203,463 $0 $249,471
Pacific Courtyards ($15,513) $0 ($11,780) ($3,732) $0 $0 $0
Mission Estates ($4,280) ($4,280) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks ($162,963) $0 ($162,963) $0 $0 $0 $0
Garden St. Terrace $307,645 $0 ($7,854) $0 $110,578 $0 $204,694
313 South St Apts. ($42,213) $0 ($42,213) $0 $0 $0 $0
Marsh St. Commons $2,471 $0 ($10,799) $0 $13,269 $0 $0
ICON (1340 Taft) $10,821 $0 ($6,872) $0 $17,692 $0 $0
OTHER VACANT LAND $78,720 ($138,665) ($48,832) ($7,912) $269,580 $4,548 $0
GRAND TOTAL1 $3,122,011 ($1,516,954) ($2,503,380) ($1,333,475) $6,031,188 ($107,249) $2,549,053
ANNEXATION AREAS $1,819,280 ($299,746) ($315,611) ($653,963) $2,143,492 ($111,797) $1,055,709
1Grand Total does not include $2.67 million in costs allocated to existing development. Source: ADE, Inc.
PC1 - 22
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 17
August 2014
Table 5: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Alternatives Sites
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $1,230,863 $317,140 $498,541 $82,551 $267,066 $0 $65,566
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $756,877 $251,066 $256,372 $51,542 $153,179 $0 $44,717
Sales Tax: General $4,247,481 $155,467 $252,682 $14,868 $3,307,170 $0 $517,294
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $1,841,393 $67,399 $109,544 $6,446 $1,433,743 $0 $224,260
Sales Tax: Public Safety $93,504 $3,422 $5,563 $327 $72,804 $0 $11,388
Transient Occupancy Tax $1,878,492 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,876,173
Utility Users Tax $652,634 $137,943 $297,311 $61,660 $78,653 $0 $77,067
Franchise Fees $307,784 $65,054 $140,212 $29,079 $37,093 $0 $36,345
Business Tax Certificates $298,318 $0 $0 $119,117 $151,946 $0 $27,255
Real Property Transfer Tax $28,098 $7,240 $11,381 $1,884 $6,097 $0 $1,497
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $183,976 $58,307 $125,670 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $200,000 $42,273 $91,111 $18,896 $24,103 $0 $23,617
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $19,009 $4,018 $8,660 $1,796 $2,291 $0 $2,245
Interest Earnings and Rents $39,119 $3,815 $6,271 $1,280 $18,191 $0 $9,555
Other Revenues $11,009 $2,460 $5,301 $1,297 $1,654 $0 $297
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $155,273 $49,210 $106,063 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $11,943,832 $1,164,815 $1,914,682 $390,743 $5,553,990 $0 $2,917,276
EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,119,202 $247,653 $523,167 $86,839 $136,959 $0 $124,583
Police $1,924,128 $369,503 $796,396 $132,546 $316,028 $0 $309,655
Fire $784,115 $186,023 $341,546 $75,312 $95,795 $0 $85,440
Transportation $1,091,608 $230,726 $497,288 $103,133 $131,557 $0 $128,904
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $621,805 $167,422 $360,847 $0 $0 $0 $93,537
Park and Landscape Maintenance $273,150 $86,568 $186,582 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $55,609 $0 $0 $20,346 $25,953 $0 $9,311
Development Review $75,595 $17,271 $37,224 $7,720 $9,848 $0 $3,533
Other Community Development $165,157 $37,732 $81,325 $16,866 $21,515 $0 $7,718
Transfers Out $1,277,653 $291,898 $629,132 $130,477 $166,436 $0 $59,709
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,388,023 $1,634,798 $3,453,507 $573,239 $904,090 $0 $822,388
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $4,555,809 ($469,983) ($1,538,826) ($182,496) $4,649,900 $0 $2,094,888
Source: ADE, Inc.
PC1 - 23
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 6: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Specific Plan Areas
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $606,038 $505,201 $100,838 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $798,420 $404,527 $80,743 $192,770 $75,526 $44,854 $0
Sales Tax: General $1,209,051 $271,326 $90,403 $61,311 $734,180 $51,830 $0
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $524,155 $117,627 $39,192 $26,580 $318,286 $22,470 $0
Sales Tax: Public Safety $26,616 $5,973 $1,990 $1,350 $16,162 $1,141 $0
Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utility Users Tax $689,889 $240,743 $106,370 $254,273 $47,598 $40,905 $0
Franchise Fees $325,353 $113,535 $50,164 $119,916 $22,447 $19,291 $0
Business Tax Certificates $662,189 $0 $0 $491,217 $91,951 $79,021 $0
Real Property Transfer Tax $13,835 $11,533 $2,302 $0 $0 $0 $0
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $146,720 $101,759 $44,961 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $211,417 $73,776 $32,597 $77,922 $14,586 $12,535 $0
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $20,094 $7,012 $3,098 $7,406 $1,386 $1,191 $0
Interest Earnings and Rents $17,649 $6,385 $1,947 $4,068 $4,348 $901 $0
Other Revenues $13,399 $4,293 $1,897 $5,348 $1,001 $860 $0
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $123,830 $85,883 $37,947 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $5,388,655 $1,949,572 $594,451 $1,242,162 $1,327,471 $274,999 $0
EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,123,885 $432,288 $187,282 $360,770 $84,950 $58,595 $0
Police $1,755,569 $644,869 $284,930 $546,593 $191,247 $87,929 $0
Fire $898,386 $325,075 $122,790 $325,480 $69,551 $55,489 $0
Transportation $1,153,921 $402,671 $177,917 $425,302 $79,613 $68,418 $0
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $421,292 $292,190 $129,102 $0 $0 $0 $0
Park and Landscape Maintenance $217,836 $151,082 $66,754 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $113,104 $0 $0 $83,901 $15,705 $13,497 $0
Development Review $86,376 $30,142 $13,318 $31,836 $5,959 $5,121 $0
Other Community Development $188,710 $65,852 $29,096 $69,553 $13,020 $11,189 $0
Transfers Out $1,459,857 $509,430 $225,088 $538,062 $100,720 $86,557 $0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,418,935 $2,853,599 $1,236,278 $2,381,497 $560,765 $386,796 $0
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS ($2,030,280) ($904,027) ($641,827) ($1,139,335) $766,706 ($111,797) $0
Source: ADE, Inc.
PC1 - 24
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 19
August 2014
Table 7: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Planned/Approved Projects and Other Vacant Land
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $473,181 $266,124 $113,878 $9,083 $42,855 $22,587 $18,653
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $226,025 $139,863 $47,387 $3,780 $17,833 $9,399 $7,762
Sales Tax: General $694,038 $85,782 $53,667 $1,185 $431,898 $10,041 $111,466
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $300,883 $37,189 $23,266 $514 $187,239 $4,353 $48,323
Sales Tax: Public Safety $15,279 $1,888 $1,181 $26 $9,508 $221 $2,454
Transient Occupancy Tax $404,774 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $404,274
Utility Users Tax $178,974 $76,113 $63,146 $4,913 $10,272 $7,924 $16,606
Franchise Fees $84,404 $35,895 $29,780 $2,317 $4,844 $3,737 $7,832
Business Tax Certificates $50,515 $0 $0 $9,491 $19,843 $15,308 $5,873
Real Property Transfer Tax $10,802 $6,075 $2,600 $207 $978 $516 $426
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $58,863 $32,172 $26,691 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $54,847 $23,325 $19,351 $1,506 $3,148 $2,428 $5,089
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $5,213 $2,217 $1,839 $143 $299 $231 $484
Interest Earnings and Rents $8,578 $2,416 $1,336 $109 $2,395 $253 $2,068
Other Revenues $3,033 $1,357 $1,126 $103 $216 $167 $64
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $49,679 $27,153 $22,527 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $2,619,087 $737,570 $407,773 $33,376 $731,328 $77,165 $631,372
EXPENDITURES
General Government $306,402 $133,388 $110,663 $6,820 $17,686 $11,001 $26,845
Police $508,618 $203,881 $169,146 $10,561 $41,271 $17,034 $66,724
Fire $198,417 $84,382 $70,006 $5,447 $11,388 $8,785 $18,410
Transportation $299,355 $127,308 $105,619 $8,217 $17,181 $13,254 $27,776
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $189,174 $92,379 $76,640 $0 $0 $0 $20,155
Park and Landscape Maintenance $87,394 $47,766 $39,628 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $9,631 $0 $0 $1,621 $3,389 $2,615 $2,006
Development Review $21,090 $9,530 $7,906 $615 $1,286 $992 $761
Other Community Development $46,077 $20,820 $17,273 $1,344 $2,810 $2,168 $1,663
Transfers Out $356,448 $161,061 $133,621 $10,396 $21,736 $16,768 $12,866
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,022,605 $880,514 $730,501 $45,020 $116,746 $72,617 $177,207
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $596,482 ($142,944) ($322,727) ($11,644) $614,582 $4,548 $454,166
Source: ADE, Inc.
PC1 - 25
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 8: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Annexation Areas
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $306,945 $202,583 $61,260 $2,544 $27,906 $0 $12,652
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $501,454 $162,213 $49,052 $100,242 $122,393 $44,854 $22,699
Sales Tax: General $2,254,169 $103,362 $47,118 $35,183 $1,750,572 $51,830 $266,104
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $977,241 $44,810 $20,427 $15,253 $758,918 $22,470 $115,363
Sales Tax: Public Safety $49,623 $2,275 $1,037 $775 $38,537 $1,141 $5,858
Transient Occupancy Tax $966,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $965,133
Utility Users Tax $445,382 $91,712 $55,440 $145,911 $71,770 $40,905 $39,645
Franchise Fees $210,043 $43,251 $26,146 $68,812 $33,847 $19,291 $18,696
Business Tax Certificates $513,568 $0 $0 $281,878 $138,649 $79,021 $14,021
Real Property Transfer Tax $7,007 $4,625 $1,398 $58 $637 $0 $289
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $62,199 $38,765 $23,434 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $136,488 $28,105 $16,990 $44,715 $21,994 $12,535 $12,149
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $12,972 $2,671 $1,615 $4,250 $2,090 $1,191 $1,155
Interest Earnings and Rents $21,373 $2,493 $1,067 $2,309 $9,756 $901 $4,843
Other Revenues $8,215 $1,635 $989 $3,069 $1,510 $860 $153
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $52,495 $32,717 $19,778 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $6,525,501 $761,219 $325,751 $704,997 $2,978,579 $274,999 $1,478,759
EXPENDITURES
General Government $712,939 $160,724 $97,159 $205,867 $126,506 $58,595 $64,087
Police $1,243,418 $245,664 $148,506 $313,655 $288,372 $87,929 $159,292
Fire $538,874 $101,675 $61,463 $180,300 $95,995 $55,489 $43,951
Transportation $744,954 $153,398 $92,731 $244,054 $120,044 $68,418 $66,310
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $226,715 $111,311 $67,288 $0 $0 $0 $48,117
Park and Landscape Maintenance $92,347 $57,555 $34,792 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $90,113 $0 $0 $48,145 $23,682 $13,497 $4,789
Development Review $52,617 $11,483 $6,941 $18,268 $8,986 $5,121 $1,817
Other Community Development $114,954 $25,086 $15,165 $39,912 $19,632 $11,189 $3,970
Transfers Out $889,287 $194,069 $117,316 $308,759 $151,871 $86,557 $30,715
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,706,220 $1,060,965 $641,362 $1,358,960 $835,087 $386,796 $423,050
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $1,819,280 ($299,746) ($315,611) ($653,963) $2,143,492 ($111,797) $1,055,709
Source: ADE, Inc.
PC1 - 26
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 21
August 2014
Public Facilities Financing
The LUCE includes a number of circulation improvements and would require expansion of other City facilities
to accommodate planned growth. This section addresses options to finance the construction of these
facilities, which include road, bikeways and highway improvements, a new fire station, expanded police
facilities, new parks and water and sewer facility expansions.
Facilities Costs
Transportation. The City has a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program, which was updated most recently in
2006. The existing TIF includes $51.5 million ($2006) in improvements plus $24.6 million in financing costs
for a total of $76.1 million. Major projects in the existing citywide TIF include the Prado Rd./Hwy 101
interchange, the Orcutt Rd./UPRR Grade separation and the Hwy 101/LOVR interchange improvements
among others.
In addition, the major specific plan areas included in the LUCE have project specific transportation
improvement obligations that are funded through separate impact fees or developer exactions.
Margarita Area Specific Plan (in addition to a share of the Prado Rd. Interchange)
Prado Road Extension - $18,967,700
Prado & Higuera Intersection - $1,600,000
Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP Share): Total equals $4.2 million, selected projects include:
Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road - $927,978
Broad Street/South St-Santa Barbara Road - $381,000
Broad Street/Tank Farm Road - $222,404
Orcutt Rd/Johnson Avenue - $300,004
Orcutt Road Widening - $310,685
Bridges - $1,610,000
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP Share): Total equals $19.3 million, selected projects include:
Tank Farm Rd./Higuera Intersection Improvements - $1,310,000
Tank Farm Rd. Widening - $5,641,557
Prado Rd./Higuera Intersection Improvements - $1,640,000
Table 8 lists the some of the major circulation improvements included in the LUCE, with planning level cost
estimates and notes regarding additional analysis needed in some case to further define the projects. In
addition to these projects, the Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in 2013 includes an estimated $48 million
in facilities costs.
The Prado Rd. interchange is partially included in the TIF ($6,587,000), with a total cost in 2006 dollars of $22
million plus $9.3 million in bond financing costs. Part of the Prado Interchange is also contained in the MASP
PC1 - 27
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 22 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
financing program. A full project funding plan for the remainder of costs for the interchange will be needed
as major projects move forward – such as the San Luis Ranch project. The current cost estimate is a minimum
of $29 million or more, due to higher construction and right of way (ROW) acquisition costs. This project has
been tied in part to the development of the Dalidio project and also benefits the Margarita Area Specific Plan,
both of which have been assigned specific funding responsibility for the Prado Rd. Interchange. The Citywide
TIF includes 29.9 percent of the cost of this project, plus financing costs.
Table 8: LUCE Circulation Projects
Projects Cost
($mil) Notes
Prado Road Interchange $29.0 Included partially in existing TIF, needs full funding plan.
Orcutt Overpass $26.0 Partially included in TIF/PUC funding potential
Tank Farm to Buckley Connector $6.7 Will be built by development as they occur.
Victoria Connection $2.5 Would require new localized fee
Broad St. Consolidated Access $1.7 Would require new localized fee
Marsh/Higuera 2-way $3.5 Not in TIF. Potential General Fund Project
HWY 1/Hwy 101 (Santa Rosa) &
Broad St. Ramp Closures
$43.0 Not in TIF. Statewide/Regional Project
Boysen & Santa Rosa $4.0 Not in TIF, Statewide/Regional Project
DT Transit Center NA
Mission Plaza Expansion $3.5 Grants/General Fund (Not transportation)
Projects to Include in New/Expanded Citywide TIF
Bishop Extension $29.0 Requires further study/ Previously excluded from TIF
LOVR By-pass $15.0 Explore options with property redevelopment
Bianchi/Pismo/Higuera Realignment $2.7 Explore options with property redevelopment
Madonna/Higuera Realignment $7.5 Explore options with property redevelopment
Chorro & Broad Realignment $8.8 Explore options with property redevelopment
Subtotal $63.0
GRAND TOTAL $192.2
Source: Kittleson & Associates, using the planning level costing procedure developed and approved by Caltrans as part of the
SLOCOG US 101 Mobility Master Plan. Not for Programming Purposes.
The Orcutt Overpass and the Bishop Extension were also included in the 2006 TIF analysis. It is anticipated
that 80 percent of the Orcutt Overpass would be funded from grants and 65 percent of the Bishop St.
Extension would be funded by other sources.
It is estimated that LUCE development would generate $97.6 million under the existing TIF fee structure (see
Appendix Table B-1). However, the lower portion of Table 8 indicates that as much as $63 million in
additional projects may need to be included in the TIF, or other financing sources found, in order to fully
implement the LUCE Circulation Plan.
The City has yet to determine how best to fund all projects necessary to serve new development and will be
conducting a fee study once the LUCE project is complete to determine how best to fund needed
infrastructure projects. The City has already begun considering how to complete this impact fee update and a
number of recommendations have been developed, which are presented below at the conclusion of this
section of the Fiscal Report, that are based on these early discussions. It is critical once the LUCE is approved,
PC1 - 28
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 23
August 2014
the City that the City move forward with the updated financing program in order to implement the needed
transportation improvements.
Police. The current police station is at capacity and the City has identified $42.5 million in the CIP as the
potential cost to build a new police station. The LUCE development would add the need for 14 sworn officers
to the existing complement of 59 sworn officers. If the City builds a single new expanded police station to
serve the entire City, rather than a police substation to serve the expansion areas, the LUCE development
would generate a service burden equal to about 19 percent of this facility, or $8.1 million.
Fire. The City has budgeted $3.5 million for the new Station 5 plus a pumper truck, not including land cost for
the Station. Based on the analysis of operating cost impacts in the previous section of the fiscal analysis, the
LUCE development would represent 62 percent of the service area for the new station. Pending a formal
nexus study for this facility, we estimate the LUCE share of the fire station cost at $2.2 million, plus a similar
share of the eventual land cost for the facility.
Water and Wastewater. The City updated its water and wastewater master plans in 2013 and adopted new
impact fees to fund water supply and system capacity expansions. The cost allocations between future and
existing development are shown in Table 9. LUCE development would be expected to fund the Future
Development components of these costs through payment of development impact fees. It should be noted
that Cal Poly has an MOU with the City for capacity in both the water and wastewater systems and has made
payments to the City to maintain its capacity allocations.
Table 9: Water and Wastewater Facilities Costs ($millions)
Projects
Cost Responsibility
Existing
Development Future Development Total
Water Supply $98.2 $63.2 $161.4
Water Facilities $45.2 $11.4 $56.7
Total Water $143.4 $74.6 $218.1
Water Reclamation Facility $100.4 $25.8 $126.2
Catchment Areas Margarita $0.5 $0.5 $1.0
Calle Joaquin $1.1 $0.4 $1.5
Silver City $0.7 $0.3 $1.0
Laguna $2.4 $0.7 $3.1
Tank Farm $8.0 $11.1 $19.1
Subtotal $12.8 $12.9 $25.7
Total Wastewater $113.2 $38.7 $151.9
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees.
Parks. The City has a park standard of 10 acres per 1,000 population, which would equate to 113.4 acres for
the LUCE development. Several of the projects in the LUCE are planned to provide park land within the
development. The Caltrans site and the MASP would provide more park land that is warranted by their own
population, while the Dalidio and LOVR Creekside projects would meet only part of their own park needs. The
PC1 - 29
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 24 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Orcutt area (OASP) would meet its own parkland requirements through a combination of active and passive
park space plus anticipated joint use of a new elementary school planned for the area.4
In order to meet the standard for park space, the City would need to obtain another 49.2 acres. If this land
were to be purchased at a cost of $300,000 per acre, the total cost would be $14.8 million. Development cost
are estimated at about $235,000 per acre, based on similar costs for the MASP.5 This cost would potentially
apply to 91 acres of new parkland outside the OASP, for a total development cost of $21.4 million. Thus, the
combined cost of acquisition and development of parks for the LUCE would be $36.2 million.
Financing Sources
The City relies on a variety of funding sources for capital improvements, including development impact fees,
utility and other enterprise user charges, state and federal grants, regional transportation funds, debt
financing and general fund revenues. In general, though, the City expects new development to pay for
facilities it needs through development impact fees or direct developer exactions.
Development Impact Fees. ADE estimates that the LUCE development would pay about $279 million in
existing development impact fees to the City of San Luis Obispo (Table 10 and Appendix B). For water,
wastewater, affordable housing and public art, these fees appear to cover the identified impacts.6 For
affordable housing and public art, it is assumed the level of impact is defined by the fees paid. There are a
number of ways for developers to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance without necessarily paying
a fee. The analysis in Table 10 assumes no residential developers will pay a fee while all non-residential
developers will pay the fee. In reality, this may be different for both types of developers, particularly for
smaller residential subdivisions or for mixed use projects. For transportation and parks, the fees do not cover
the full cost of LUCE improvements. In addition, additional facilities costs have been identified for police and
fire facilities for which the City does not have development impact fees.
Table 10: Estimated Existing Development Impact Fees to be Paid by LUCE Development and
Corresponding Facilities Costs ($millions)
Land Use
Trans-
portation Water
Waste-
water
Parks/ Open
Space
Affordable
Housing [a]
Public
Art Total
Single Family $22.8 $26.1 $14.7 $11.2 $74.8
Multi-Family $14.1 $18.7 $10.7 $7.1 $50.7
Office $37.7 $7.6 $4.6 $0.2 $17.9 $1.7 $69.9
Retail $20.0 $8.3 $4.5 $0.3 $20.7 $2.2 $56.4
Industrial $2.6 $3.5 $2.2 $0.4 $3.8 $0.4 $13.0
Hotels $2.1 $5.2 $2.2 $4.0 $0.4 $14.0
TOTAL $99.3 $69.5 $39.0 $19.3 $46.4 $4.8 $279.0
Facilities Costs $139.1 $74.6 $38.7 $36.6 $46.4 $4.8 $340.2
Source: ADE and City staff, based on City fee schedules. See Appendix B for additional detail. Transportation Facilities costs
include only existing TIF projects plus $63 million in LUCE project that may be included in a future TIF update.
4 Walter Kieser, Economic and Planning Systems, Memorandum to Michael Codron and Lee Johnson regarding Review of City’s Current
Development Impact Fee Programs, January 6, 2014, pp. 27-28.
5 Kieser, ibid.
6 For the water facilities costs, the minor discrepancies from the projected fee revenues are likely due to incidental variations in fee revenue
estimates.
PC1 - 30
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 25
August 2014
The City has recently reviewed its development impact fee program and considered other infrastructure
financing mechanisms that might be available. Considerations with impact fees include not only their ability
to fund needed infrastructure but also their effect on the feasibility of development in the City. This latter
concern, expressed in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, has prompted closer consideration of
the City’s impact fee program and its potential effects on commercial and job generating land uses.
One set of guidelines suggests that impact fees should not exceed 15 percent of the value of residential
development or 10 percent of the value of non-residential development.7 Table 11 provides a measure of the
City’s impact fees as calculated in aggregate for the LUCE land use categories. The first column shows the
impact fees calculated in Table 10, followed by the estimated market value from the fiscal analysis. The
estimated fees range from 5.0 percent of value for single family development to 15.3 percent for office
development. It is clear that the fees for non-residential development exceed the optimal thresholds shown
in the next column. However, the EPS analysis indicates that this feasibility issue is not a citywide concern but
rather is focused in the special fee areas, primarily for the TIF, such as the MASP, the LOVR area and the triple
fee zone. In addition, for non-residential development 5 percent of value is included for the inclusionary
housing program. Retail projects in mixed use developments that meet the affordable housing requirements
directly rather than through the fee, would see their total fee burden fall below the 10 percent threshold.
Moreover, the thresholds themselves are guidelines and actual feasibility levels for specific projects may be
different. The Public Facilities Financing Plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan shows comprehensive cost
burdens ranging from 10.1 percent for business park uses to 11.2 percent for service commercial and 16.1
percent for manufacturing. The plan also notes that these burdens could be reduced through the use of
Community Facilities District Financing.
Table 11: LUCE Impact Fee Funding Capacity
Land Use
Calculated
Impact
Fees ($mil.)
[b]
Market Value
($mil.) [a]
Impact
Fees as
Percent
of Value
Optimal
Impact Fee
Burden
Ratios
Impact Fee
Thresholds Based
on Optimal Burden
Ratios ($mil.)
Potential
Additional
Gross Fee
Capacity
Single Family $74.8 $1,484.4 5.0% 15.0% $222.7 $147.8
Multi-Family $50.7 $754.1 6.7% 15.0% $113.1 $62.4
Office $70.3 $460.6 15.3% 10.0% $46.1 ($24.3)
Retail $56.2 $457.7 12.3% 10.0% $45.8 ($10.4)
Industrial $13.0 $120.5 10.8% 10.0% $12.0 ($1.0)
Hotels $14.0 $98.5 14.2% 10.0% $9.8 ($4.1)
TOTAL $279.1 $3,375.8 8.3% 13.3% $449.5 $170.4
Source: ADE. Totals may not add due to rounding.
[a] ADE projections of initial assessed value.
[b] From Table 10. Does not include school fees.
However, in general, Table 11 indicates that residential uses could probably absorb higher impact fees but
non-residential uses have a lower capacity for additional fee burdens. Through a nexus analysis for the
additional LUCE circulation improvements, the City could determine how much of the estimated $40 million
shortfall in the TIF could be ascribed to new residential development. In addition, other impact fees could be
7 Walter Kieser, Economic and Planning Systems, Infrastructure Financing Analysis Session #3, presentation to the San Luis Obispo City Council,
March 18, 2014. Slides 9-11.
PC1 - 31
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 26 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
developed to help fund the police and fire facilities as well as the park development costs identified above.
The estimated shortfall in fees for all LUCE facilities is about $71.5 million, not including bikeway facilities that
may be funded with impact fees.
In its March 2014 workshop on Infrastructure Financing related to the Economic Development Strategic Plan,
the City reviewed a number of findings from the analysis of the existing development impact fee program.
1. Incremental evolution in the City’s existing development impact fee programs have resulted in a
complex system of base fees, sub area fees, and geographic fee variation that warrants re-
consideration in the next fee update process.
2. There are geographic “overlaps” in the City’s fees that cause significant difference in fee levels in
various parts of the City.
3. At the Citywide level, aggregate fee levels are consistent with fees levied by other cities, though
some specific fees appear to be high by industry standards.
4. There is an inconsistency between land use categories used to compute fees between fee programs.
5. Fees do not contain a cost component for administration and updating.
6. The fees are currently escalated using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but the Engineering New
Record (ENR) may be a more appropriate index to track changes in construction costs.
7. The City does not charge fee for all municipal infrastructure categories, though this may be
appropriately considered in the context of other concerns about the overall fee program.
8. The various fee programs should be integrated into the City’s overall capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Addressing these concerns would help the City close the gap in funding for LUCE related facilities costs.
Other Funding Sources and Financing Mechanisms
Under the current development impact fee program, new development would not pay for all of the
infrastructure and facilities needed to support implementation of the LUCE. Part of the issue is that City does
not have development impact for all the types of facilities that are needed, but part of the issue is that some
of the facilities are needed to correct existing service deficiencies, such as the fire station in the south part of
town. Similarly, the City may not be able to simply expand the police station to accommodate future growth,
but would need to build a new facility, which could only partially be funded by an impact fee if it were
adopted.
The City may be able to secure other funding sources for certain costs and would have the option of
establishing other kinds of financing mechanisms besides impact fees to facilitate private development
paying a greater share of the costs. For example, some of the transportation costs may be funded with
regional transportation funds or state and federal grants. Several of the LUCE improvements are under
consideration in the US 101 Mobility Study underway by SLOCOG and may eventually qualify for some
regional funding. A number of the facilities may qualify for other state or federal grant funding.
The City can also using bond financing to acquire the capital needed to build facilities, which can then be paid
off over a longer period of time. The City has used this approach for utility infrastructure projects and
anticipates that some of the major transportation projects will need bond financing in order to be completed.
This approach makes funding large projects more manageable by reducing initial cash requirements, but it
PC1 - 32
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 27
August 2014
does increase the overall cost of the project by adding financing costs to the actual construction cost of the
facilities. In addition, the City must have a revenue source, such as utility service charges, to service the debt
or use General Fund revenues for this purpose.
The City may also consider land based financing to facilitate developers and land owners paying a greater
share of the cost of new facilities. There are a number of types of land based financing mechanisms including
Community Facilities Districts and other forms of assessment districts. Such financing mechanisms also
provide the opportunity to use bond financing, which not only allows the needed facilities to be built in a
timely manner but also can reduce cash requirements for new development and improve the feasibility of
desired economic development projects. Land based financing programs can be used within defined
development areas, such as specific plans, with landowner/developer approval, or they can be set up on a
citywide basis with voter approval. However, they are best used as part of a comprehensive capital
improvements program strategy that includes a variety of funding source options.
PC1 - 33
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 28 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Appendix A: Methodology for the Fiscal Analysis
The analysis addresses the impact of each type of land use on the City General Fund, both in terms of annual
revenues generated and the demand for increased public services. The present report uses the current Fiscal
Year 2013-2014 City budget as a basis for the cost of revenue analysis, which is updated from the Background
Report Chapter 2.2.
General Fund Budget
The City’s General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2014 includes $60.8 million in revenue and about
$65.5 million in current expenditures (Table A-1). The budget anticipates additional expense reductions of
about $914,000 based on actual payouts of salaries and benefits. The additional net costs of $3.6 million are
covered through prior year encumbrances and reimbursements from other funds.
The general sales tax is the single largest revenue source, at $15.4 million. The City voters have also approved
an additional sales tax measure called Measure Y, which supplements the general sales tax with another 50%
of local sales tax revenues. Measure Y was approved in 2006 but will need to be re-approved by the voters by
2014. State Proposition 174 created the Public Safety sales tax, which is allocated to local jurisdictions by the
state and is projected to yield $338,900 for San Luis Obispo in the current year.
The general property tax is the second largest revenue source, at about $8.8 million per year. The City’s total
assessed value is $6.3 billion and the base property tax rate of one percent produces a total tax from
properties within the City of $63.3 million. However, the City receives only about 14 percent of this total and
the remainder is distributed to local school districts and other taxing agencies. The City also receives another
form of property tax from the state to replace vehicle license fees formerly allocated to the City, which adds
$3.6 million to the City General Fund.
The transient occupancy tax (TOT) is charged at the rate of ten percent on room revenues for all lodging in
the City. This is a relatively large revenue, at $5.9 million, and reflects San Luis Obispo’s strong position as a
visitor attraction in the region.
The utility users tax and the franchise fees are the next two largest General Fund revenues, at $5.3 and $2.5
million, respectively. Both revenues are generated by residential and business use of the various private
utilities operating in the City, including electric and gas service, telephone, and cable TV.
The City also charges businesses for annual business licenses and a gross receipts tax, which together
generate about $2.1 million per year.
Most of the other revenues in the General Fund are direct charges for services, the largest of which is
development related fees such as building permits, planning entitlement fees or plan check fees ($3.6 million
total, of which $300,000 is carried over from the prior year). Also, fees for recreation programs generate $1.6
million per year, which defrays about 40 percent of the cost for recreation programs.
Several revenue sources are transferred into the General Fund from other Budget Funds. The Gas Tax
revenues are allocated to the City by the state based on a formula that includes miles of roadway in the City
as well as the City’s population. These funds can only be used for street maintenance. The other revenue
source in this category includes Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, which may be used only for
alternative transportation modes and not for street maintenance under City policy.
PC1 - 34
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 29
August 2014
Table A-1: San Luis Obispo General Fund Budget, 2013-2014
Budget Category Annual Budget
REVENUES
Taxes
Property Tax $8,761,100
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $3,645,700
Sales Tax: General $15,394,700
Sales Tax: Measure Y $6,674,000
Sales Tax: Public Safety $338,900
Transient Occupancy Tax $5,990,300
Utility Users Tax $5,356,000
Franchise Fees $2,525,900
Business Tax Certificates $2,116,600
Real Property Transfer Tax $200,000
Subventions and Grants $1,200,600
Service Charges
Development Review Fees $3,571,600
Recreation Fees $1,577,400
Other Charges for Services $1,641,300
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $156,000
Interest Earnings and Rents $179,000
Other Revenues $95,500
Transfers In
Gas Tax/TDA $1,331,300
Transfers, Other $49,000
TOTAL REVENUES $60,804,950
EXPENDITURES
General Government $10,314,900
Police $14,977,313
Fire $9,884,758
Transportation $3,363,700
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $5,085,830
Parks and Landscape Maintenance $2,341,970
Budget Category Annual Budget
Community Development $7,988,300
Economic Health $691,944
Development Review $1,471,666
Construction Regulation $3,443,119
Other Community Development $2,381,571
Transfers Out $11,333,700
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 65,467,941
Other Expenditure Savings (914,700)
TOTAL NET REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES ($3,570,821)
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2013-2015 Financial Plan and 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget Review.
February 2014.
PC1 - 35
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 30 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
On the expenditure side, police services has the largest budget at $15.0 million. The public safety function
which includes the Fire Department is the largest function provided by the City General Fund with a budget of
$25.0 million.
The general government function shown in Table 2.3-2 represents a number of City programs combined,
including8:
City Council
General Administration
City Attorney
Human Resources
Finance and Information Technology
Public Works Administration
Building and Fleet Maintenance
The Transportation function includes planning, engineering, & street and storm drain maintenance. As
discussed in the fiscal analysis, costs for these services will increase not only indirectly due to population and
non-residential development, but also directly due to additional transportation management programs and
new road facilities in the LUCE. Other transportation related services such as parking and transit are
discussed in the analysis under Enterprise Funds.
Parks and recreation, cultural services and social services are all grouped under the Leisure, Cultural and
Social Services Function, with a total budget of $7.4 million, of which $2.3 million is for park and landscape
maintenance.
The Community Development Function includes planning and development review, as well as economic
development activities that are located in the City’s Administration Department. In addition, the Building and
Safety Division provides code enforcement and neighborhood services.
The expenditures figures under the heading Transfers Out in Table 2.3-2 also include contributions by the
General Fund to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and to the Debt Service Fund. For the current fiscal
year, the General Fund is projected to make $7.1 million in CIP expenditures, most of which is funded by
Measure Y sales tax revenues. In addition, the General Fund will contribute $2.76 million to debt service for
bonds to pay for a variety of public safety, transportation, leisure services and general City building capital
projects as well as $935,000 to pay down the City’s PERS liability.
Fiscal Impact Calculations
This section discusses in more detail how the major revenues and costs have been calculated for the future
growth included in LUCE.
Property Tax
The base property tax is one percent of the assessed value for real property. In order to estimate assessed
values for projected development in the LUCE, ADE compiled data on recent property transactions in San Luis
8 The General Fund expenditures shown in Table 2.3-1 are organized by functional category, as presented in the City budget. This is different
than the City’s departmental organization, but provides a clearer picture of the service activities provided by City government.
PC1 - 36
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 31
August 2014
Obispo. Typically, the initial assessed value for new homes is set at the market value, or the sales price of the
home when it is first sold. Table 13 shows data for 500 residential transactions and 31 non-residential
transactions since January 2013. Since there has been very little new construction through the recession,
most of these transactions are for existing properties. The non-residential transactions in particular are not
comprehensive enough to represent all of the types of future development included in the LUCE, so we have
supplemented the property sale data with other typical market factors to fill out estimates of average
property values to use in the fiscal analysis (Table A-3). Most of these values are close to the averages for the
properties shown in Table A-2, except for office and hotel uses, which we believe will be higher for new
construction than is reflected in the recent property sales data.
Table A-2: Recent Property Transactions in San Luis Obispo
Source: ADE based on Dataquick, Zillow and Loopnet.
Source: ADE based on Dataquick, Zillow and Loopnet.
Property Type
Aggregate Sales
Amounts
Number of Units/
Square Footage Sales/Units/SF
No. of
Transactions
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Residence $192,601,700 314 $613,381 314
Condominium, PUD $39,909,484 110 $362,813 110
Duplex $2,210,500 8 $276,313 4
Triplex $1,420,000 6 $236,667 2
Quadruplex $2,749,000 16 $171,813 4
Mobile Home Parks, Trailer Parks $3,945,000 24 $164,375 24
Multi-Family Dwelling (2-4 Unit) $18,654,000 53 $351,962 32
Multi-Family Res (5+ Units) $2,787,500 30 $92,917 4
Residential Miscellaneous $4,460,500 6 $743,417 6
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Food Store, Market $650,000 4,053 $160 2
Hotel/Motel $1,982,000 15,639 $127 1
Medical/Dental/Professional Bldg $1,445,000 7,045 $205 3
Office Building $6,578,500 33,015 $199 11
Store/Office Combo $4,525,000 22,132 $204 5
Stores, Retail Outlet $4,636,000 13,863 $334 4
Warehouse, Storage $3,868,500 35,272 $110 4
Industrial $2,495,000 12,585 $198 1
Table A-3: Assessed Value Factors Used in the Fiscal Analysis
Value per Unit
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family $613,400
Multi-Family $303,600
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Office $205
Retail $265
Industrial $135
Hotel $205
PC1 - 37
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 32 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Property Tax Allocation
As mentioned, the property tax paid by property owners is distributed to a wide range of local taxing
agencies including not only the City of San Luis Obispo, but also the County, the school districts and other
special taxing districts. On average, the City gets about 14 percent of the one percent tax for parcels within
the historic City boundaries. The County of San Luis Obispo receives an average of about 22 percent of the tax
and school district and other educational agencies, receive the majority of property tax revenues.
In 1996, San Luis Obispo and the other cities in the County executed a property tax sharing agreement with
the County for properties that would annex into the cities after that time. For those properties, the cities get
a lower share of property tax from residential development, calculated as one-third of the share that would
otherwise go to the County General Fund. That share is about 22 percent, so the cities’ share of residential
property tax in annexation areas is about 7.4 percent, rather than the 14 percent that San Luis Obispo
otherwise gets. In addition, the County continues to get the existing property tax generated by the properties
in their undeveloped state at the time of annexation. For properties that develop into non-residential uses,
such as retail, office or industrial business, the cities do not get any property tax. The City does collect any
sales taxes or other revenues generated by these properties, which help pay for City services that are
required to support these developments.
The property tax estimates shown in the fiscal analysis reflect these tax allocation factors, depending on
whether the property is within the historic City boundaries or would have been annexed after 1996. The
analysis also deducts the existing assessed value of each property, where available, to limit the analysis to
future new revenues that would be generated by the LUCE development.
Sales Tax Calculations
As part of the description of local economic conditions for the LUCE, ADE conducted a retail market analysis,
which is included in Chapter 2.3 of the LUCE Background Report. In general, commercial businesses in San
Luis Obispo capture more retail sales than is generated by the residents of the City alone. San Luis Obispo is a
regional retail hub that attracts shoppers from around the County. In addition, commuters who drive into the
City to work and tourists also make taxable retail purchases. Finally, business-to-business transactions
generate a certain amount of sales taxes when the items purchased are not for resale to customers.
Based on the retail market analysis and reviewing sales tax records for non-residential types of businesses,
ADE estimated the sales tax generation factors by land use shown in Table A-4. The City receives one percent
of taxable sales in the form of general sales taxes. The $92.00 in sales taxes per single family resident
represents taxable purchases of $9,200 per year, which does not include groceries, pharmaceuticals or other
non-taxable items. The dollar amounts shown for non-residential uses are presented in terms of revenues
generated per job for each land use type. These are not employee expenditures but are taxable business
transactions. They are expressed per job rather than per square foot of building space simply because our
data on existing jobs is more reliable than the building space data and provide a more accurate factor to
calculate potential future revenues from new development.
The factor for commercial uses reflects sales in retail businesses and is roughly equivalent to taxable sales of
$314 per square foot of retail space. Retail businesses serve as the point of sale for purchases from residents,
visitors and other businesses, so most of the sales tax collected by the City comes through accounts of retail
businesses. That means for the residential uses in particular we would be double counting revenues if we use
raw sales tax generation factors simultaneously for both residential and retail uses. Therefore, this factor for
commercial businesses has been lowered to net out sales from the other land uses.
PC1 - 38
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 33
August 2014
Table A-4: Per Capita Sales Tax Factors
Land Use General Sales Per Resident or Per Job
Single Family $92.00
Multi-Family $70.00
Office $10.00
Commercial $1,725.00
Industrial $52.00
Hotel Visitors $1.50
Source: ADE with data from MuniServices.
The City’s existing 2,120 hotel rooms attract some 1,100,000 visitors to San Luis Obispo. Each visitor spends
an estimated $150 on taxable restaurant and retail purchases, which generates $1.50 in sales taxes. The LUCE
includes plans for 803 additional hotel rooms (See Table 1), which would attract an average of nearly 416,700
new visitors to the City and generate about $628,800 in additional general sales taxes per year.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
The hotel rooms would also generate new TOT taxes. For this analysis, we have assumed an average room
rate of $120.00 per night and a 65 percent occupancy rate. These factors are comparable to recent
experience in San Luis Obispo. If economic conditions improve substantially, the City could expect to see even
higher revenues in the future.
Per Capita Revenues and Costs
Most other City revenues and costs are calculated on a per capita formula method based on employment and
population in each land use category. Generally, jobs in the City are assumed to exert one-half the service
demand as residential population. This is a standard assumption in fiscal impact analysis and reflects the fact
that employees working in the City occupy their positions 8 hours per day while residents are there a
minimum of 16 hours per day and more if they are not employed. In San Luis Obispo, there are 45,473
residents and 32,560 jobs. We also estimate there are the equivalent of 3,014 daily hotel visitors (1,100,000
total visitors/365 days), which are counted in this analysis the same as the residential population. With the
jobs counting 50% of the population impact, it works out that the residential population requires 70 percent
of the services that are allocated under this formula, while non-residential uses require 25 percent and hotel
uses 5 percent.
A similar logic is used to estimate revenues such as the utility users tax, franchise fees and miscellaneous
service charges, fines and forfeitures collected by the City (Table A-5). Other revenues are more clearly
associated with one type of land use or another, such as the business license taxes which are paid only by
non-residential land uses and recreation program fees which tend to be mostly paid by local residents. Also,
the gas tax revenues, which are shown as a transfer into the General Fund from the Gas Tax fund, are
allocated to residential uses since the state formula for allocating these revenues to cities is based mainly on
a per capita formula.
PC1 - 39
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 34 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table A-5: Per Capita Revenue and Cost Factors
Residential Business Visitors
Proportion
Per
Capita Proportion
Per
Employee Proportion
Per
Visitor
REVENUES
Utility Users Tax 70% $82.07 25% $ 41.03 5% $82.07
Franchise Fees 70% $38.70 25% $19.35 5% $38.70
Business Tax Certificates 0% $0.00 100% $79.27 Service Charges Recreation Fees 100% $34.69 0% $0.00 Other Charges for Services 70% $25.15 25% $12.57 5% $25.15
Other Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures 70% $2.39 25% $1.20 5% $2.39
Other Revenues 70% $1.46 30% $0.86
Transfers in Gas Tax/TDA 100% $29.28 0% $0.00 EXPENDITURES
Police 70% $219.83 25% $109.91 5% $219.83
Fire 70% $90.98 25% $45.49 5% $90.98
Transportation 70% $59.04 25% $29.52 5% $59.04
Leisure, Cultural and Social
Services
94% $99.60 0% $0.00 6% $99.60
Park and Landscape
Maintenance 100% $51.50 0% $0.00 0% $51.50
Community Development Economic Health 0% $0.00 85% $13.54 15% $0.00
Development Review 70% $10.28 25% $5.14 $10.28
Other Community Dev. 70% $22.45 25% $11.22 5% $22.45
Transfers Out 70% $173.66 25% $86.83 5% $173.66
Service Cost Analysis
The fiscal impact analysis is intended to show the increased public service costs for the City as new
development occurs. This portion of the analysis focuses on annual recurring costs and revenues and
therefore excludes capital improvement projects needed to support the LUCE. The Public Facilities Financing
section addresses the infrastructure and facilities costs and funding programs needed to support future
growth. Other costs that are unlikely to be repeated or expanded due to future growth have also been
excluded. Mainly, these are costs for management functions such as the City Council and City Department
Heads. While future growth will increase the demand for services, these service expansions will most likely
occur through increases in service delivery staff. Table A-6 lists the costs removed from the fiscal impact
analysis.
In addition, the fiscal analysis deducts development and construction related fees that are paid once during
the entitlement or construction process, but not paid on an annual basis by the eventual property owners. An
PC1 - 40
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 35
August 2014
amount equal to these revenues, shown as $3,291,600 in Table A-6, is deducted from the costs for the
Community Development Department. These adjustments have the effect of focusing the fiscal analysis on
the ongoing revenues and costs associated with new development rather than the onetime cost of
processing the development applications.
Subventions an grant have been removed from the analysis since they cannot be projected into the future
associated with new development.
As noted earlier in the analysis, increased costs for IT, building maintenance and street maintenance have
been added to the cost basis for the fiscal analysis.
Table A-6: Fiscal Model Revenue and Expenditure Adjustments [a]
Function Amount Item
General Government ($138,900) City Council
General Government ($139,061) IT/Finance Dir
General Government ($96,538) City Clerk
General Government ($221,520) City Manager
General Government ($125,554) Human Res Dir
General Government $160,000 Additional IT capital expenditures
General Government $867,000 Additional building maintenance expenditures
Public Safety ($144,352) Police Chief
Public Safety ($139,061) Fire Chief
Public Safety ($280,000) Fire Plan Check Fees
Transportation ($123,578) Public Works Dir
Transportation $3,625,000 Additional street maintenance expenditures
Leisure ($111,592) Parks & Rec Dir
Community Development ($96,538) ED Mgr
Community Development ($139,061) CD Director
Community Development ($85,826) Chief Building Official
Community Development ($3,291,600) Development Review Fees
Various
($914,700) Mid-Year Expenditure Savings
Various ($1,200,600) Subventions and Grants
Benefits 49% Added to salaries
[a] Note: Salary figures generally reflect the average of the salary scale for each position as published by the San Luis Obispo
Human Resources Departments. The figures do not necessarily represent the actual salaries of the individuals who occupy these
positions. The additional benefits factor of 49% of base compensation is derived from the City of San Luis Obispo 2013-2015
Financial Plan, page D-19.
Municipal service costs for services provided directly to the population or businesses were generally
allocated based on the per capita method explained above. First, however, certain services were allocated to
residential or non-residential land uses based on their function. Recreation, cultural services and social
services were allocated 100% to residential land uses. Economic Health was allocated 100% to non-
residential land uses.
Police services costs are estimated using the per capita methodology as shown in Table A-5. However, within
the non-residential land uses, commercial and hospitality land uses were weighted roughly twice as much as
PC1 - 41
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 36 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
other business types, based on data from other cities that indicate calls for service related to shoplifting,
burglary, parking lot incidences and disturbing the peace are higher for retail, restaurant and night club uses.
For Fire Department services, one-third of the costs are allocated based on assessed value for each land use,
which represents the portion of fire department services related to fire suppression. The other two-thirds
represents medical emergency responses, which are allocated based on the per capita formula explained
above. This overall split of services is based on a general discussion with the City Fire Marshall.
The Transfers Out are mainly for capital improvement projects and debt service, which is for long term capital
projects financing. In particular, nearly $5 million of the total sales tax revenue received by the City from
Measure Y is programmed for capital improvements projects. If Measure Y is not renewed by the voters,
these expenditures and General Fund contributions will likely need to be reduced. Other recipients of
General Fund support are the Community Development Block Grant program, the Open Space Protection
Fund, the Fleet Replacement Fund, Information Technology Fund and the Major Facility Replacement Fund.
PC1 - 42
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 37
August 2014
Appendix B: Development Impact Fee Estimates
Table B-1: Estimated Traffic Impact Fees From LUCE Development
Project/Development Areas
Traffic Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Citywide Base TIF $3,516 $3,120 $7.051 $7.406 $2.036 $1,632
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $249,600
Caltrans Site $165,360 -$26,737 -$105,647 $326,400
General Hospital Site $31,644 $99,840 $344,004
Broad Street Area $1,837,680 $1,696,478
Sunset Drive-In Site $0 $1,838,238 $1,651,257
Dalidio / Madonna Area $1,125,120 $561,600 $1,057,650 $1,481,200 $326,400
Pacific Beach Site $0 $97,736 $350,744 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $781,203 $161,520
Madonna Site on LOVR $295,780 $97,484 $884,500 $187,094
LOVR Creekside Area $408,948
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site $0 $127,920 $515,992 $464,549 $0
Avila Ranch $1,174,095 $758,740 $152,500
Chinatown Project $0 $99,840 $0 $340,676 $127,000
Pacific Courtyards $0 $37,440 $70,510 $0 $0
Mission Estates $35,160 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston and
Laurel Creek) $0 $517,920 $0 $0 $0
Garden Street Terrace $0 $24,960 $0 $185,150 $104,000
313 South Street Apartments $0 $134,160 $0 $0
Marsh Street Commons $0 $34,320 $0 $22,218
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $21,840 $0 $29,624
Margarita Area Specific Plan $1,919,931 $291,846 $5,219,930 $51,950
Airport Area Specific Plan $6,345,900 $2,359,343 $1,522,199
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $1,898,640 $1,369,680 $81,466
Suburban Residential4 $14,064 $0 $0 $0
Low Density Residential $1,125,120 $0 $0 $0
Medium Density Residential $249,636 $0 $0 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $18,720 $0 $0
High Density Residential $159,120 $0 $0
Neighborhood Commercial5 $0 $0 $19,359
Community Commercial5 $0 $0 $309,704
Tourist Commercial5 $0 $0 $112,912
Office4 $0 $139,751
Services and Manufacturing $0 $0 $294,888
Public $0 $0
PC1 - 43
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 38 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Project/Development Areas
Traffic Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
LOVR Sub Area $8,878 $6,506 $13.402 $20.556 $4,611
Pacific Beach Site $149,492 $831,206
Madonna Site on LOVR $452,410 $2,096,120 $453,835
LOVR Creekside Area $1,034,454 $0 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $0 $0 $1,851,322 $391,800
Avila Ranch $2,425,545 $1,160,530 $361,400
MASP Sub Area $12,320 $8,306 $23.746 $49.406
Margarita Area Specific Plan $7,197,333 $761,111 $17,621,937 $437,870
AASP Sub Area $3,516 $3,120 $11.745 $7.424 $2.850
Broad St@Tank Farm Rd. $94,721 $334,213 $754,427
Avila Ranch $1,339,474 $681,531 $300,683
Airport Area Specific Plan⁸ $4,110,300 $2,205,097 $796,986
OASP Sub Area $12,171 $8,912 $7.051 $31.100
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $4,250,340 $2,413,622 $342,104
TOTAL BY LAND USE $22,786,102 $14,060,921 $37,669,172 $20,049,414 $2,614,073 $2,078,049
GRAND TOTAL $99,257,732
Source: San Luis Obispo City Staff
Note: Impact fees shown for Special Planning areas such as Dalidio/San Luis Ranch (SP-3), Avilla Ranch (SP-4), and Madonna property
on LOVR (SP-2) are illustrative only and will need finalization/amendment when specific projects are submitted and development
agreements, if necessary, are negotiated.
PC1 - 44
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 39
August 2014
Table B-2: Estimated Water Impact Fees from LUCE Development
Project/Development Areas
Water Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Citywide Base TIF $10,775 $7,542 $3.879 $4.310 $3.879 $10.775
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $603,360
Caltrans Site $399,726 $1,293,000
General Hospital Site $96,975 $241,344 $189,249
Broad Street Area $4,442,238 $987,283
Sunset Drive-In Site $0 $1,011,279 $960,966
Dalidio / Madonna Area $3,448,000 $1,357,560 $581,850 $862,000 $1,293,000
Pacific Beach Site $0 $286,596 $247,821 $0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd. Site $0 $309,222 $283,865 $270,349 $0
Chinatown Project $0 $241,344 $0 $198,260 $504,270
Pacific Courtyards $0 $90,504 $38,790 $0 $0
Mission Estates $107,750 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston &
Laurel Creek) $0 $1,251,972 $0 $0 $0
Garden Street Terrace $0 $60,336 $0 $107,750 $465,480
313 South Street Apartments $0 $324,306 $0 $0
Marsh Street Commons $0 $82,962 $0 $12,930
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $52,794 $0 $17,240
Suburban Residential $43,100 $0 $0 $0
Low Density Residential $3,448,000 $0 $0 $0
Medium Density Residential $765,025 $0 $0 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $45,252 $0 $0
High Density Residential $384,642 $0 $0
Neighborhood Commercial $0 $0 $11,266
Community Commercial $0 $0 $180,236
Tourist Commercial $0 $0 $65,710
Office $0 $76,882
Services and Manufacturing $0 $0 $561,823
Public $0 $23,654
Madonna Site on LOVR $0 $867,330 $65,051 $1,017,160 $0 $898,635
LOVR Creekside Area $0 $1,199,178 $0 $0 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $0 $0 $0 $551,964 $0 $775,800
Avila Ranch $4,363,875 $2,224,890 $0 $107,750 $0 $0
Margarita Area Specific Plan $7,984,275 $957,834 $3,720,027 $43,100 $0 $0
Airport Area Specific Plan $0 $0 $1,657,074 $2,659,197 $2,900,103 $0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $5,818,500 $3,310,938 $0 $47,410 $0 $0
TOTAL BY LAND USE $26,075,500 $18,734,328 $7,647,720 $8,348,392 $3,461,926 $5,230,185
GRAND TOTAL $69,498,051
Source: ADE, based on City of San Luis Obispo Fee Structure.
PC1 - 45
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 40 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table B-3: Estimated Wastewater Impact Fees from LUCE Development
Project/Development Areas
Wastewater Impact Fees
Single
Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Citywide Fee $3,729 $2,610 $1.342 $1.492 $1.342 $3.729
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $208,800
Caltrans Site $138,330 $447,480
General Hospital Site $33,561 $83,520 $65,495
Broad Street Area $769,645 $170,839
Sunset Drive-In Site $0 $349,982 $332,570
Pacific Beach Site $0 $99,180 $85,766 $0 $0
Chinatown Project $0 $83,520 $0 $68,614 $174,517
Avila Ranch $3,761,235 $1,917,500 $0 $92,870 $0 $0
Pacific Courtyards $0 $31,320 $13,424 $0 $0
Mission Estates $37,290 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston &
Laurel Creek) $0 $433,260 $0 $0 $0
Garden Street Terrace $0 $20,880 $0 $37,290 $161,093
313 South Street Apartments $0 $112,230 $0 $0
Marsh Street Commons $0 $28,710 $0 $4,475
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $18,270 $0 $5,966
Suburban Residential $14,916 $0 $0 $0
Low Density Residential $1,193,280 $0 $0 $0
Medium Density Residential $264,759 $0 $0 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $15,660 $0 $0
High Density Residential $133,110 $0 $0
Neighborhood Commercial $0 $0 $3,899
Community Commercial $0 $0 $62,376
Tourist Commercial $0 $0 $22,741
Office $0 $26,607
Services and Manufacturing $0 $0 $194,435
Public $0 $8,186
Laguna Catchment Area $4,219 $2,953 $1.519 $1.688 $1.519 $4.219
Dalidio / Madonna Area $1,350,080 $531,540 $227,826 $337,520 $0 $506,280
Calle Joaquin Catchment Area $5,558 $3,890 $2.001 $2.223 $2.001 $5.558
Madonna Site on LOVR $447,350 $33,555 $524,675 $0 $463,537
LOVR Creekside Area $618,510 $0 $0 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $0 $0 $284,716 $0 $400,176
Silver City Catchment Area $1,356 $1,280 $0.488 $0.542 $0.488 $1.356
Margarita Area Specific Plan $251,199 $40,640 $0 $0
Margarita Catchment Area $6,474 $4,532 $2.331 $2.590 $2.331 $6.474
Margarita Area Specific Plan $1,679,032 $431,673 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tank Farm Catchment Area $7,359 $5,151 $2.649 $2.944 $2.649 $7.359
Broad Street Area $1,516,970 $337,142
PC1 - 46
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 41
August 2014
Project/Development Areas
Wastewater Impact Fees
Single
Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Margarita Area Specific Plan $2,181,208 $654,177 $2,540,666 $29,436 $0 $0
Airport Area Specific Plan $0 $0 $1,131,731 $1,816,151 $1,980,683 $0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site $0 $211,191 $193,871 $184,640 $0 $0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $3,973,860 $2,261,289 $0 $32,380 $0 $0
TOTAL BY LAND USE $14,740,420 $10,806,275 $4,591,345 $4,434,066 $2,175,118 $2,153,083
GRAND TOTAL $38,900,306
Source: ADE, based on City of San Luis Obispo Fee Structure.
PC1 - 47
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 42 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table B-4: Parks and Open Space Fees
Project/Development Areas
Water Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial
Citywide Base TIF $5,668 $4,494
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $0 $359,520
Caltrans Site $0 ($15,728)
General Hospital Site $51,012 $143,808
Broad Street Area $0 $2,646,966
Dalidio / Madonna Area $498,982 $222,541
Pacific Beach Site $0 $170,772
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site $0 $184,254
Chinatown Project $0 $143,808
Pacific Courtyards $0 $53,928
Mission Estates $56,680 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston &
Laurel Creek) $0 $746,004
Garden Street Terrace $0 $35,952
313 South Street Apartments $0 $193,242
Marsh Street Commons $0 $49,434
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $31,458
Suburban Residential4 $22,672 $0
Low Density Residential $1,813,760 $0
Medium Density Residential $402,428 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $0 $26,964
High Density Residential $0 $229,194
Madonna Site on LOVR $0 $516,810
LOVR Creekside Area $0 $184,526
Avila Ranch $2,295,540 $1,325,730
MASP Sub Area $8,247 $6,945
Margarita Area Specific Plan $6,111,027 ($116,375)
AASP Open Space Fee $166,604 $354,148 $390,269
TOTAL BY LAND USE $11,257,769 $7,137,302 $166,604 $354,148 $390,269
GRAND TOTAL $19,306,093
Source: ADE, based on City of San Luis Obispo Fee Structure.
PC1 - 48
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 43
August 2014
PC1 - 49
1
Land Use Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-1 Cal Poly Chapter
1 (LUE) 1.12.3
Rationale for
annexation of Cal Poly
should be stated.
New policy 1.12.3 directs the City to
analyze the costs/benefits to annexing
Cal Poly. No changes proposed by
staff.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P12-4 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.7
Comment
recommended adding
"protect in kind" or
"create in kind habitat
off site"
Not recommended for addition to this
policy which directs residential
developments to preserve and
incorporate natural features.
P12-5 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE)
2.2.9
G(b)
Comment
recommended adding
"healthy and native" to
policy that directs new
development to
maintain mature trees
on site.
Not recommended for addition to this
policy. The policy already has
provisions for "feasibility" that would
address concerns about restoration
projects and non-native trees.
P13-
15 Lopes Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.9
Concern that criteria
defining “compatible
development” may
encourage increased
density and zone
changes in
neighborhoods.
Recommend policy updates as follows:
2.2.9 Compatible Development…..All
multifamily development and large
group-living facilities shall be
compatible with any nearby, lower
density development. Compatibility
for all development shall be evaluated
using the following criteria:...H.
Housing Diversity. A mix of housing
types, and a range of density within a
neighborhood an area is generally
desirable (see also Policy 2.1.6)
PC1 - 50
2
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-5 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE) 3.5.7.8
Wants additional
language to reflect OS
areas are acquired and
maintained for use of
residents and tourism
programs are not to
include national
marketing of City OS
areas.
The areas impacted by overuse are
popular areas for both tourists and
residents and should be addressed by
specific actions to address each
situation. Survey currently underway
to develop profile of open space users
to better understand demographics.
No change to program proposed.
P2-6 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE)
3.5.7.1
2
Requests removing
specific reference to
Economic
Development Strategic
Plan (EDSP)
EDSP went through public process (4
workshops and hearings) and
incorporates city policies for
development’s responsibility to bear
cost of facilities and services required
to serve it. Removing specific
reference to EDSP in this program will
not remove Council direction to
implement it.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-7 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.5
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for rainwater
percolation from roof-
hardscape areas.
Existing stormwater regulations apply.
P2-8 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.6
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for project
designs that minimize
drainage
concentrations.
Existing stormwater regulations apply.
P2-9 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.5.1
Request to restore
deleted language
specifying approaches
to flood protection.
Not recommended to specify
particular approaches that may no
longer meet FEMA or Stormwater
regulations. Broader policy language
to support flood plain standards is
appropriate.
PC1 - 51
3
Policy input
Land Use Element Chapter 8
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-2 Cal Poly Chapter
8 (LUE)
8.3.3.1
3
CalFire /Cal Poly site
shows up in Cal Poly
Master Plan as
designated for Faculty
and Staff housing.
Update Plan to show
this designation.
Update policy to state, "The Cal Poly
Master Plan currently designates this
area for Faculty and Staff housing.
The City shall collaborate….."
A6-7 SLOCOG Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.8
Executive summary
mentions need to
reflect Homeless
Center use of
Prado/Sunset Drive-in
Site but doesn’t
mention RTA new
facility at this location.
Policy 8.3.3.8 includes reference to
both Homeless Services center and
transportation agency use. Staff
recommends retaining Office
designation for this portion of the site
to ensure LUCE update does not
create non-conforming use.
P2-10 Sierra Club Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.6
Delete provision for
meeting a portion of
open space
requirement off-site
Task Force generated this concept and
it was carried through PC and CC.
P16-
13
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.4
San Luis Ranch should
be retained for
agriculture.
Policy in LUCE provides for
development consistent with current
policy direction to retain 50% open
space/ag.
P16-
16
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.1
Need access for
pedestrians and bikes
across Santa Rosa
This circulation alternative is part of
the LUCE but wasn’t explicit in the
land use policy direction for this site.
Recommend clarifying policy
direction:
“Redevelopment plans shall include
consideration of improving the
existing complex intersections of
Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability
of modifying Boysen at and through
the property on the northeast corner
of the area, and enhancement of
pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections across Foothill and Santa
Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus.”
PC1 - 52
4
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy # Input Policy Response
P2-11 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7D
Request to expand
policy supporting grey
water systems to
include a builder
incentive program to
build new homes with
an onsite water
recycling system
included.
In 2009 the state amended the grey
water regulations to make it easier to
install a “simple” system which uses
washing machine water only and
doesn’t require a permit to install. A
full home recycling grey water system
is supposed to be designed to match
the output of the house which
includes the number of occupants and
size of the landscape and it is illegal to
store grey water. Therefore, while a
house may be plumbed to be grey
water-ready, it could not actually have
an installed system until all the
variables are known. Recommend
policy be updated to state, “Utilize
plumbing fixtures that conserve or
reuse water such as low flow faucets
or grey water systems, and encourage
new homes to be constructed to be
grey water ready.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE)
No
specific
policies
Add electric vehicle
charging stations to
residential
developments.
Add incentives to
development that
incorporate features
that off-set
operational energy
use.
Incorporate
requirements for
buildings to be solar-
ready.
Add these as examples to draft
programs:
“Incentive Program: The City shall
consider the feasibility of providing
incentives for new and renovated
projects that incorporate sustainable
design features such as constructing
new buildings that are solar ready, or
off-setting significant operational
energy use through use of solar water
heating, photovoltaic systems,
geothermal or wind energy systems.”
“Building Code Update: The City shall
regularly review and update its
building code and ordinances to
identify revisions to promote energy
efficient building design and
construction practices, for example by
including requirements for electric
PC1 - 53
5
vehicle charging stations for new
residential developments.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7 G
Add “trees” in
addition to building
elements to address
Solar Shade Act.
Public Resources Code contains
provisions that restrict height of
vegetation on properties adjoining
properties with solar collectors. Prior
notice is required and local ordinance
may modify or opt not to apply PRC
code. If Commission is interested in
including this concept, staff
recommends adding a new program in
Chapter 9 that directs the City to
explore local conditions to support the
Solar Shade Act as reflected in PRC
25980-25986.
PC1 - 54
6
Circulation Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-12 Sierra Club Chapter
1 (CE) 1.9 1A Request to expand
language in objective.
Support updated language for
objective 1.9: A.
“The City will continue to support the
use and development of compressed
natural gas and biodiesel fueling
stations, EV recharging stations, and
other alternative fuel stations in the
San Luis Obispo area.”
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-3 Cal Poly Chapter
2 (CE) 2.1.4 Request to expand
language.
Support updated language, “The City
shall continue to work with Cal Poly,
Cuesta College and other…..”
P2-13 Sierra Club Chapter
2 (CE) 2.0.3
Request to restore text
requiring mandatory
trip reduction.
Per SB 437 (Lewis), the language was
removed because it is inconsistent
with current State law (code 40717.9
in Health and Safety regulations).
Replacement text emphasizes
commuter benefit options instead.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
26 SLOCOG Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.3
Request to edit
language regarding
seniors and persons
with disabilities.
Staff supports. See PH6-6 below for
language.
PC1 - 55
7
P2-14 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.6
Request to restore
bullet point directing
frequency of transit
service to compare
favorably to use of
private vehicle.
If Commission wishes to retain
direction regarding transit service
frequency, staff recommends:
“The frequency of City transit service
will not pose a barrier to this mode
choice.”
PH6-
6
Mass Transit
Committee
Chapter
3 (CE)
3.0.3,
3.0.4,
3.1.4
Requests for updated
language.
Supported by staff:
3.03 The City shall continue to support
paratransit service for the elderly and
disabled persons provided seniors and
persons with disabilities by public and
private transportation providers.
3.0.4 Campus Service. The City shall
continue to work with Cal Poly to
maintain and expand the free fare
subsidy program"....
3.1.4 The City shall coordinate with
the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the
cost effectiveness of benefits and
drawbacks of coordinated and
consolidated service.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 4
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-1
and
P15-5
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
4 (CE) 4.1.6
Concern that bikeways
and pedestrian paths in
railroad rights of way
are not compatible due
to security problems
and potential to block
adjacent properties’
access to be served by
rail.
No change to policy or program is
proposed.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-15 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (CE) 6.0.5 Remove text that
references “fair share”
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
PC1 - 56
8
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-16 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.0.1
Request to remove
reference to "fair
share" and include
language "as mitigation
for the impacts of
development".
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
P2-17 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.1.6
Request to add
reference to “complete
streets” model.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. This policy addresses
appearance of streets and roads.
Addition of complete streets model,
which is addressing mode share of
right-of-way, is covered in policy 6.0.1.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 12
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-7
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
12 (CE) 12.1.3
Request to remove
policy regarding idling
trains.
No changes to policy are
recommended. Commenter response
relates to GHG emissions but policy
also addresses noise concerns to
surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 14
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-18 Sierra Club Chapter
14 (CE) New
Request to add new
policy:
14.0.4 Unbundled
parking: The City shall
introduce unbundled
parking, congestion
Schools are superior agencies and City
cannot set policy for them. General
intent of unbundled parking is
accomplished through downtown
parking in-lieu districts and in zoning
provisions that allow for parking
PC1 - 57
9
pricing, shared parking,
fair price policies,
positive transportation
demand management
(TDM) and the other
components of an
Intelligent Parking
program for schools
and government
buildings with the goal
of creating a Request
for Proposal process
for full
implementation.
modifications for projects that include
car-sharing, employer-paid transit
passes, off-peak work hours and/or
trip reduction plans.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 15
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
28 SLOCOG Chapter
15 (CE) 15.0.5
Request to remove
reference to US 101
Aesthetic study
Revise D to read, "Actively
participating in the development and
periodic updates of the Caltrans US
101 Aesthetic Study of San Luis Obispo
County.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 16
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-2
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
16 (CE) 16.0.2
Request to specifically
address freight mobility
as a benefit to regional
congestion.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. Policy 16.0.2 encourages
programs that reduce dependence on
single occupant vehicles and
encourages use of alternative modes
without listing them. Rail is an
alternative mode.
P2-20 Sierra Club Chapter
16 (CE) 16.1.2
Request to remove
reference to “fair
share”.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
PC1 - 58
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
UPDATES TO CHAPTERS 6-10 AND 12-16 OF THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing recommendations of the Task Force
for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of
policy changes for the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the
environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January 14th and
28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
for the purpose of endorsing a LUCE update project description to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day comment period
that closed on July 28, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 17, 2014, for the purpose of considering updates and amendments to Chapters 6-10
and 12-16 of the Circulation Element; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the public and interested parties, the Draft EIR, and comments and responses
provided in the Final EIR, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
PC1 - 59
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, CE Chapters 6-10 & 12-16
Page 2
1. Recommended Chapter 6 of the Circulation Element establishes Multi-modal circulation
policies, level of service objectives, multi-modal priorities, circulation significance
thresholds, and mitigation policies.
2. Recommended updates to Chapters 7 and 8 (previous CE Ch. 6 & 7) of the Circulation
Element provide new policies to minimize unnecessary vehicular infrastructure, allocate
transportation funding across various modes of transportation, and to reduce and
maintain vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods, and to identify and address
regional cut-through traffic issues in the City.
3. Recommended updates to Chapters 9 & 10 update Street Network and Truck
Transportation Chapters of the Circulation Element to require public participation in the
planning and design of major changes to the street network and include a policy that the
City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy vehicles.
4. Recommended updates to Chapter 12 of the Circulation Element add rail transportation
policies to encourage increased availability of passenger rail service and to enhance City
transit service to transit station and to work with the train station management to
upgrade the facility and visitor services.
5. Recommended updates to Chapter 13 update parking management policies related to
short term parking, establishment of park and ride lots, curb parking evaluation, and the
approval and construction of public parking structures.
6. Recommended updates to Chapter 14 of the Circulation Element include policies to
protect residential neighborhoods from parking demand generated by adjacent high-
intensity uses and for the City to update the review criteria and clarify the process for
establishing neighborhood parking districts.
7. Recommended updates to Chapter 15 of the Circulation Element include policy
direction for development along scenic roadways and the nighttime visual environment
per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance.
8. Recommended updates to Chapter 16 of the Circulation Element include additional
emphasis on the City’s financial decisions and alignment with circulation policies and
programs and encourage the City to actively participate in regional transportation issues.
Section 2. Environmental. The Draft EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element
Update was on June 13, 2014 with a 45-day comment period that closed on July 29, 2014 and the
Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014. For each identified potentially significant effect
under the categories of Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services,
mitigation measures were included and incorporated into the LUCE Update project which
reduces the identified potentially significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels. The
significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Traffic and Circulation, and Noise sections of the
PC1 - 60
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, CE Chapters 6-10 & 12-16
Page 3
EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all the
identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. On September 10, 2014, the Planning
Commission reviewed and recommended Council certify the FEIR and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations that the project benefits warrant project approval despite the
identified adverse environmental impacts.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council adopt proposed amendments to Circulation Element Chapters 6-10 & 12-16
contained in the legislative draft considered at the hearing on September 17, 2014, with
modifications made during the hearing by the Planning Commission; an official copy of which
shall be maintained in the Community Development Department referencing this resolution.
On motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner _____, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
PC1 - 61
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND
ZONING FOR SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
UPDATE TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
(GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing recommendations of the Task Force
for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of
policy changes for the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the
environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January 14th and
28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
for the purpose of endorsing a LUCE update project description to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day comment period
that closed on July 28, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 17 and 18, 2014, for the purpose of considering General Plan Land Use Element
diagram and Zoning map changes associated with the update of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan,
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the public and interested parties, the Draft EIR, and comments and responses
provided in the Final EIR, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
PC1 - 62
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, Land Use Element diagram and Zoning Map amendments
Page 2
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. Proposed amendments to Land Use Element designations and Zoning map changes
associated with the update to the Land Use and Circulation Element project support
development and redevelopment of sites that will accommodate the community’s future
growth.
2. Recommended amendments to Land Use Element designations and Zoning map changes
associated with the update to the Land Use and Circulation Element project correspond
to recommended policy direction to address development areas in the City or in the
City’s urban reserve areas which have special constraints or considerations.
3. Proposed amendments to Land Use Element designations and Zoning map changes
associated with the update to the Land Use and Circulation Element project present
opportunities in the community to develop customized land use and circulation
approaches or special design implementation to enhance their appearance and achieve
their respective development potential in a manner that is consistent with community
values.
4. Land Use Element mapping amendments and Zoning changes associated with
implementation of the South Broad Street Area Plan are consistent with plans for
redevelopment reviewed through a separate planning effort involving 27 public hearings
and approximately 40 public outreach efforts.
Section 2. Environmental. The Draft EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element
Update was on June 13, 2014 with a 45-day comment period that closed on July 29, 2014 and the
Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014. For each identified potentially significant effect
under the categories of Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services,
mitigation measures were included and incorporated into the LUCE Update project which
reduces the identified potentially significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels. The
significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Traffic and Circulation, and Noise sections of the
EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all the
identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. On September 10, 2014, the Planning
Commission reviewed and recommended Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations that the project benefits warrant project approval despite the identified adverse
environmental impacts.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council adopt proposed amendments as shown on the draft Land Use Element diagram and
draft Zoning Diagram considered at the hearing on September 17, 2014, with modifications
made during the hearing by the Planning Commission; an official copy of which shall be
maintained in the Community Development Department referencing this resolution and as
described below:
PC1 - 63
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, Land Use Element diagram and Zoning Map amendments
Page 3
Area General Plan Designation Associated Zoning
Alrita area:
Change from Interim Open Space to
Low Density Residential R-1 Low Density Residential
Bella Montana area: Change from Interim Open Space to
Medium Density Residential
R-2 Medium Density
Residential
Bishop Knoll /
Foothill area:
Change from Interim Open Space to
Low Density Residential R-1 Low Density Residential
Cal Poly/Calfire area: Change from Interim Open Space to
Public Facilities PF Public Facilities
Creekside/LOVR area:
Change from Interim Open Space to
Low (south side) and Medium (north
side) Density Residential and Open
Space
R-1 and R-2 Low (south side)
and Medium (north side)
Density Residential
Foothill/Santa Rosa
area:
Change from Neighborhood
Commercial to Community
Commercial on both sides of Foothill
between Chorro and Santa Rosa.
Retain existing General Retail.
C-C Community Commercial.
General Hospital area:
Change from Low Density
Residential to Low and Medium
density Residential and Public
Facilities
R-1 Low Density Residential,
R-2 Medium Density
Residential, and
PF Public Facilities
Madonna Inn area:
Change from Interim Open Space to
Tourist Commercial, Agriculture and
Open Space
C-T Tourist Commercial and
C/OS Conservation/Open
Space
South Broad Street
area:
Change from Services and
Manufacturing to Community
Commercial and Services and
Manufacturing
C-C Community Commercial
and
C-S Service Commercial
Sunset Drive-in/Prado
area:
Change Office, Interim Open Space
and Services and Manufacturing to
Office and Community Commercial
O Office and
C-C Community Commercial
Tank Farm/Broad
area:
Change from Business Park to
Community Commercial C-C Community Commercial
On motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner _____, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PC1 - 64
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, Land Use Element diagram and Zoning Map amendments
Page 4
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
PC1 - 65
Land Use Element Diagram Corrections
Madonna Hills Area
Proposed Correction
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area
Proposed Correction
Sunset Drive-In Area
Proposed Correction
PC1 - 66
Land Use Element Diagram Corrections
General Hospital Area
Proposed Correction
PC1 - 67