HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/1991, 1 - LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE - ECONOMIC STUDY SCOPE I'IIIM1IyIIII�II�IIII�I �l�l�l MEETING DATE:
II II liii���►i� cityo May san tuts oB�spo6. 1991
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
�
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director / '�0
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner "/'J
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - economic study scope
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff and consultants concerning an
appropriate scope and budget for the economic study.
DISCUSSION
Background
The city has been working on an update of its general plan Land
Use Element since 1987. In February 1989, staff published a
discussion draft. In April 1990, the Planning Commission sent to
the City Council its preferred draft.
In September 1990, the City Council referred the draft back to
the Planning Commission, with direction to further evaluate
certain topics. Also, the council asked for an economic
evaluation, to be used in further considering the update. The
council appeared to be interested primarily in an economic
evaluation of the draft update and some of the alternatives which
have been discussed, focused on feasibility and internal
consistency.
Staff prepared a draft work scope and presented it to the
Planning Commission. Commissioners did not reach a consensus on
scope, and asked for a joint meeting with the council. That
meeting was held in January. Council directed staff to proceed
with consultant selection and a draft work scope, and to arrange
another joint meeting before beginning the study.
Subsequently, staff compiled a listing of relevant economic
consulting firms, and requested statements of qualifications from
a short list of firms whose reputation and experience seemed
specifically suited to the task at hand. Interviews by a panel
composed of members of the City Administrator's Office, Finance
Department and Community Development Department were arranged
with responding firms, and Mundie and Associates was selected to
work with Council, the Planning Commission and staff to formulate
the work scope for the study. Some work in preparation for this
joint meeting has already occurred between staff and consultant.
Roberta Mundie and Suzanne Lampert will be present at the meeting
to discuss the scope and cost of services. The contract we are
working under covers only this initial consultation. A separate
agreement will be presented for council approval once the work
scope is decided.
Icilifii�l�►Illlll�Ill ��U��l city Of san luts OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Preliminary scope
The city has completed several economic studies since the Land
Use Element last had a comprehensive revision. In preparing an
update that will guide city development and investment choices
over at least the next ten years, the city wants to take a fresh
look at economic issues. The city wants expert help in answering
some questions it has already framed, but it also seeks advice on
what other questions need to be answered so that the general plan
update will be based on fully informed choices.
In response to a draft update recommended by the Planning
Commission, the City Council has asked that several issues be
examined, including the following ones which most closely involve
economic evaluation.
1. The apparent contradiction between the city being a
regional trade and service center, and trying to
balance job opportunities and housing opportunities.
2. Recent council policy direction concerning areas at the
edges of the city (including a concept plan for the
airport area and urban use for the Dalidio area) .
3 . Goals for re-use of downtown (Monterey Street) sites
vacated by auto dealers, including the type and
intensity of development in relation to the commercial
core.
4. Evaluation of economic impacts and economic feasibility
for:
A. Controls on the rate of commercial growth,
especially in relation to downtown development and
citywide retail development; I
B. Fiscal impacts on city government;
C. Development fees;
E. Affordable housing (including the possible result
of some occupants paying more for housing so that
others would pay less) .
5. The viability of maintaining agriculture within the
city.
City staff believes that answers to the following questions will
help evaluate the council's identified issues, and will be
central to achieving the dual goal of environmental and economic
health.
�����►�►�►mIIIIIIIIIi;�IIIIhI city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
A. What types and amounts of development in the city are
likely to capture a "fair" or "desirable" share of the
economic activity which is projected to occur within
the whole county regardless of city action and, in
contrast, what types would be net additions to
countywide development?
B. Considering city resource constraints and
opportunities, how much of the "fair share" or
"desirable" development can be accommodated? What city
actions would be needed to accommodate substantially
more or less than would occur under a "no action" or
"baseline" approach?
C. What types of development would make the city's
economic base substantially more or less stable than it
is now?
D. What types of development are most fiscally beneficial
to the city? How sensitive is the answer to changes in
the formulas for subventing state-collected revenues or
in the city's fee or assessment approaches?
E. To what extent, and by what means, can the city remain
a center of specialized trade and services while
maintaining existing housing development policies?
F. What types and amounts of economic activity can
increase economic opportunities for existing area
residents.
G. Compared to current conditions, if the city's proposed
growth and revenue strategies are carried out, will the
typical city resident have a higher or lower tax and
fee burden at build-out?
H. Compared to current conditions, if the city's proposed
growth and environmental mitigation strategies are
carried out, will the typical city resident experience
a higher or lower quality of natural environment at
build-out?
The following three-part effort would obtain the desired expert
advice.
I. The consultant reviews past city economic studies, the
draft general plan update, and the questions posed
above, and identifies any additional fundamental
questions which should be answered. Consultant
discusses all these questions with the City Council and
Planning Commission. Following this joint meeting,
������ �'��I�I�Illllill11Q ��NIII city of San L.-AS OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
consultant recommends a detailed work program to answer
all the questions, including an itemized cost estimate
and schedule. The work program identifies what items
will require quantitative analysis, sources of data,
and the means of analysis. City staff could then take
this work program to the City Council for approval.
II. The consultant carries out the approved work program
and presents the results. The Planning Commission and
the City Council decide what changes, if any, should be
made to the draft general plan update as a result of
the economic evaluation.
III. The endorsed draft general plan update becomes "the
project" on which an environmental impact report and an
economic impact report are prepared. These reports
will explain the expected consequences of adopting the
draft update, in comparison with alternatives. After
considering these reports, the Planning Commission and
the City Council will adopt an update.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No budget has been established for the economic study.
The City Council budgeted $100, 000 for outside technical help
with the general plan update, to be spent in 1989-90. (This
amount is in addition to money spent for a study of downtown
retailing and the circulation element. ) None of the $100, 000 has
been spent. Staff had thought it would cover environmental
review, among other expenses. Staff suggests that the
commission and council determine a work scope. At the meeting,
we will be able to estimate costs for various topics or levels of
detail, allowing "cafeteria" style choice. The result would be a
cost estimate for future phases of the work.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may continue action.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff and the consultant concerning an
appropriate scope and budget for the Land Use Element update
economic study.
gmD:scope-cc.wp
1
NEEI7NG
DATE '�`�,�, AGENDA
7: - m
ITIZENS;VLANNING,�4LLIANCE
POST OFFICE BOX 15247. SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93406
RECEIVIl D
MAY 6 1991 May 5 , 1991
tmofflw_
SAN'LtD9eA14t0 5 E'A
To Honorable I•iembers of The City Council and Honorable Members of
The Planning Commission ,
As a non—profit organization dedicated to preserving and
en?ancing the qualit,• ., life in Sal- LuisC ist � COlir.ty , Citizen ' s
Planning Alliance was represented on the lad Hoc Committee to update
the '�a.n Luis G-bispo Cit; general plan .
We are concerned about the "fracturing" of the the Genera: Pear,
Update process which has occurred since the Planning Commission draft
was adopted.The planning commission draft recommended limits to new
commarcial development which essentially incorporated the limits
voted on by the public in the November 1989 election (Measure G,
see attachments; . After these limits were criticized by the Chamber
of Commerce , an economic study was proposed, even though an economic
study is not required by the state as part of the General Plan process .
Progress by the planning Commission was essentially stopped on the
L .U .E. since that time, although a number of new, independent activities ,
as outlined in the memo from Mr . Dunn have apparently become a new part
of the general plan process . Citizen' s Planning Alliance believes that
it is important to note that there are essential differences
between the many , man, planning commission meetings which have
taken place for well over a year and were both publicly noticed and
had a great deal of input on planning issues from planning staff , and
the subsequent "independent activities" . We support the effort to
clarify the general plan process and we believe that it is essential
that the entire General Plan process be "laid out" to the point of
implementation .
Regarding the Economic Study, we believe that , if the city council
continues to support an economic study , it should be the best study
possible . As Economist Peter Navarro pointed out in his visit to
San Luis Obispo earlier this year , to be complete, an economic analysis
of proposed growth control measures must include the benefits of
controlling growth as well as the more obvious costs .The economic study
should be very well documented , so that the steps leading to each
conclusions can be followed.
As to the actual scope of the economic study , we have reviewed
the roDos@d questlon- , s through] F .lthoLc-h we dG not aygreee thELt
these are the questions which snould he asked, we understand that
there is a committment to asking them. We believe that the following
questions should also be asked:
1 . Given the air , water , sewer , school , traffic and other resource
limitations of our community , what are the costs existing
residents will ]fie ? skzd - n 3bscrb if mnr� +!-!an
a3 Vc.zed upon In i'leasure G and aLopzed ' .I
,r Lt:e rlanning comm-
ission, is allowed? *
2 . What are you going to replace prime agricultural 'Land with
once it has been destroyed?
3 . Approximately 30, 000 people commute into our city every day
for commercial ,governmental , industrial or educational reasons .
If you do not accept the jobs/ housing imbalance as an issue,
how do you accommodate even more commuters without degrading
air quality and increasing congestion? The County' s Draft
Enviornmental Impact Report on The San Luis Obispo County
Clean Air Plan will be out in two days . Why not include its
provisions in your plan?
4 . Why not differentiate in your economic plan between those items
which would help local business as oppposed to those items
which would help large commercial corporations such as
Wal Mart?**
incerely ,
Cha �
Carla Sanders
for
Citizen' s Planning Alliance
*Costs of not controlling growth include , but are not limited to ;
l . infrastructure costs such as new Narking structures to
accomodate new development , a new sewer facility if %•we exceed
the capacity of our present ewer facility (we are at
approximately g0% r=apacity now') , freeway overpasses , =tc .
2 . Enviornmental costs such air pollution , This includes
health costs to residents as well as the future costs of
cleaning up air pollution . (The California Council for
Enviornmental and Economic Balance' s lastest forcast shows
that the cost of cleaning up air pollution in Los Angeles
will be a net loss to each family in Los Angeles of
$1 , 600 per year) . The City' s General Pian survey found that
83% of city residents would accept NO increase in air
pollution to accomodate addional development and economic
growth . Resident place a high value on protecting their
clean air, !low is this community value quantified?
3 . Other costs such as increased commuting times due to traffic
congestion , costs to homeownerz in traffic-impacted areas
(loss of property value relative to non-impacted area;;) ,
the costs of expanding libraries , parks , schools , and jails .
increased probability of water shortage and higher water
costs , and costs to the loss of open space , are all costs
paid by existing residents .
(see Peter Navarro and Richard Carson , Growth Controls ;
Policy Analysis for the Second Generation .)
4 . Decreased level of service_ , such as police response times ,
school crowding, etc . must be calculated as costs to
community residents . ( 'Costs to residents cannot be
calculated using only taxes and fees .)
** 50 smaller , locally owned businesses are not the same as one
Wal Mart . ",Profits from locally owned businesses are not
shipped out of the area to corporate headquarters in
Arkansas , but are kept in the community . 50 smaller
construction/remodeling jobs are far more likely to go to
local construction firms , than one large mega construction
project which may go to an outside contractor . A Wal
Mart may act to destroy existing local businesses as well
as discourage others from opening . This should be considered.
C O M M�N T S FOR S T U D Y S E S S I O N
ANO USFy�L=�MENT EGO S�MTC STUO
Tuesday, May 6, 1991 - 7:00 - 9::00 P.M.
Distribute to Mayor and Councilmembers, Clerk for record, John Dunn, Members of
the Management Team and Community Development
by JIM MERKEL
392 PISMO ST ( J
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401 Caw, m I1 s ru q er-r
(805)541-0904.
1 . The Economic Study should not be recommending large developments
in light of the survey where citizens of San Luis Obispo consider
job and shopping opportunities as a .low priority when compared with
quality of life and environmental issues .
4 -
2 . This study should take into account that and developments will
change the face of San Luis Obispo forever ! The Citizens are
extremely concerned with the pace of development currently taking
place . It seems that the citizens representing all aspects of our
community and: environmental groups should be included . Because the
implementation- of this pian could have severe environmental and
quality of life impacts-, active members of groups such as the
Citizens Planning Alliance , Sierra Club , Ocean Sanctuary Coalition,
Earth Day Coalition , Mothers For Peace , SLOZINE , ECOSLO , Earth News ,
just to name a few , should be included from the beginning .
3 . Would it be more appropriate for the city council to direct
staff to prepare an ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN or a. DUALITY OF LIFE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN that is answering the concerns already gathered
from the citizens in recent surveys . The ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN should include a very- important section of maintaining a
healthy sustainable economy .
4 . Somevery difficult. questions need to be answered in this study .
- Is bigger better? Do we need to grow at all?
- At: "Build Out". what then? , A higher build out?
1% growth doubles in 70 years , 2% in 35 years, 3% in 23 years
Flow big do: the citizens what their city. .
- What are the cumulative effects of development.
- Do the citizens want any- more- large developments?
- What are the naturally imposed resource- constraints.
( OVER )
2
COMMENTS RELATIVE TO Ereliminarv- !scopa
- What is the overall goal? Is it to simply create employment and
shopping opportunities? Or is it to create long term , ecologically
sustainable , fulfilling job opportunities that will be providing
necessary goods and services at a low cost?
- Do we envision large corporations with lots of minimum wage
employees who spend their lives in boring jobs that create products
that simply further deplete the earth of resources yet provide no
social or quality of life enhancement?
- Do we envision keeping our current businesses healthy while
creating incentives for small businesses to form and supply the
local people with local products?
- Address specific and global concerns regarding economic
development and its compatibility with the ecology and quality of
life for the current and future residents and business owners .
- What are the long term impacts and cumulative effects of
development .
- The city should plan to be responsible to the citizens , the
county , state and globe in its planning .
Identify and target the kind of businesses that will best improve
our ecologic health , quality of life , fiscal and community economic
health .
- Create an appropriate economic development department . The
department would consist of experts to train local people in
starting and operating small businesses that provide needed goods
and services to the community . The following is a list of some
appropriate businesses that should be solicited for a long term
sustainable community:
Video Conferencing , computer links to work from home . Consider
Implementation of ISDN( Information Service Distribution Network ) .
Jobs for Computer and Electronic fields .
- Water conservation and efficiency programs . Jobs for contractors ,
plumbers , planners , apprentices .
- Energy conservation and renewable energy sources . Jobs for
architects , engineers , contractors , plumbers , planners , apprentices .
- Alternative shopping that is designed for zero throw away . Jobs
for industrial and mechanical engineers , packaging and food services
specialists .
- Community planning and design where most goods , services and
employment are within a 10 min walk or bike ride . Jobs for
planners , environmentalist , architects and business planners .
- Develop transit to service city , county and state with goals of
efficiency ; cost effectiveness , and pollution reduction . Jobs for
transit planners , engineers , manufacturing .
- Develop bicycle facilities and paths that will be safe for all
ages and actually save time over the automobile by having direct
routes that avoid car traffic completely such as along the rail road
tracks . Jobs for bicycle sales and service and manufacture and
installation of bike facilities . Engineers and construction workers
for path construction .
- Restoration of destroyed native habi.tat( we could be the last
generation that knows what a central coast eco-system looked like ).
3
Encourage planting native species within the city to re-establish to
the extent possible the actual habitats that were once here . Jobs
for biologists , .resource management , landscape architecture ,
xeroscapers and gardeners .
- Community Based alternative schools with increased parental
participation . Jobs for teachers .
- Community based care for the elderly and handicapped . Jobs for
nurses , . developmentally disabled specialists , and students .
- Community based economy focused to some degree on the responsible
use of local. renewabie resources . Jobs for resource specialists ,
material science , chemistry., manufacturing , industrial technology .
- Local food self sufficiency. based on sustainable agriculture
practices .
The communities food supply could be developed to be= somewhat
independent of national and global crisis that seem likely in the
future . Jobs for agriculture students , growers , marketers ,• local
distributors . . .
- Develop dietary consulting businesses to stress health and
ecological advantages to eating• lower,- on• the food chain : Jobs for
dieticians .
- Family planning and population. reduction education programs . Jobs
for social workers , councilors , environmentalists. :- -
-
nvironmentalists.-
- Develop a financial assistance program for- sprinkler/earthquake
retrofits for private property owners that meet a strict
qualification program that includes:
- Reuse and recycling of building materials
- Priority for work to be done by locally owned and operated
businesses .
- Any rebuild must where ever possible change use or portions
of use of building to incorporate mixed use that can be proved to
discourage auto travel . As an example , a downtown business could
add two stories of low to moderate income apartments that an
incentive program would ensure that downtown employees had first
option to housing . Apartments had to be affordable to the owners
and employees of businesses .
- Buildings had to make use of solar design concepts for
lighting , heating and hot water .
- County administration office space should be decentralized into
other areas of the county to reduce travel requirements . Computer
links using modems should be developed for county employees to work
out of their homes where appropriate . Will save resources in all
building operating costs and employee travel costs and the cost of
pollution .
- Decrease the supply of parking for all businesses . Increase and
standardize the parking rate for all parking in the city . Use the
revenue from parking to increase transit , walkways and bikeways and
programs to plan access through proximity . The multiple millions of
dollars spent on each parking structure should be cost justified
against using the same amount to enhance alternative non-polluting
forms of transportation .
( OVER )
4 - r
- The city should solicit a location for a permanent downtown
market , perhaps the Court Street- property . A market similar to
those throughout Europe have mass appeal and could certainly
contribute to the atmosphere that makes .San Luis Obispo a place to
visit , while. also stimulating the local economy . The market could
be semi open air that would be open for use by any local growers ,
artisans , crafts , and items that fall into categories of locally
made , grown ,- manufactured or produced . Criterion should be
established that screened products for their sustainable use of
resources and pollution contribution . Priority should be given to
those smaller business that cannot afford a store front and that
intend most of their production for local consumption , say 80% of
items more or less considered necessities .
- The city should seek to scale down the Central Coast and Madonna
Plazas and to transform them into less traffic generators and
serviced by public transit and bikeways in a very efficient way .
- The Airport creates noise pollution that is intolerable so close
to the city . Take off and landing need to be altered to reduce
noise . Development should be restricted in the noise and flight
paths .
- Consider very careful and deliberate review not a "project
expeditor " on any desired action . Once prime Ag land or prime
wildlife habitat has been paved over-, it is most likely gone
forever !
May 6, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: R. Gilbert Hoffman, Planning Commissioner
Subject: LUE Economic Study
The proposed questions and work scope do not seem to address the question
asked by council regarding the economic affects of the PC draft LUE. They
appear to be steering the study to show what the NEGATIVE affects will be
while giving minor mention of any POSITIVE affects. They also appear to be
overly concerned with "development." I think there is a simpler approach,
which may save both time and money, while providing the desired information.
One of the council 's original concerns with the PC draft LUE, as I understood
it, was the economic affect of the element on the City, both as a corporate
entity and as an economic community. Since the help of an outside expert is
desired, I think that the following single question and work scope should be
posed:
"If the draft LUE were adopted, what fiscal effects would be
likely due to the policies and programs contained in it? Provide
both dollar amount and percentage change related to each
policy/program, or related group, either positive or negative, for
both the corporate City entity and the city' s economic community
(wage earners and businesses). Provide an executive summary of
the findings and a detailed report with the bases for each
conclusion."
The results of this study should be used as part of the EIR for the draft LUE
and balanced with the environmental and social effects of the LUE. It may be
appropriate to begin this work now so it can be available for inclusion in the
EIR at the earliest possible time. The Council draft LUE for the EIR should
be produced with all due speed, with specific additional advice by the PC and
economic consultant as requested (ie. program/policy specific requests).
cc Planning Commission
Arnold Jonas
n
A
Ilof Shcl lU1S OBICI� 00,_.,,u.O,.po,Ca93403e100
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box
May 2, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: John Dun U
Subject: Gene al Pla updating process
I had a conversation late Wednesday evening with three members of
the Planning Commission. They expressed their concerns about the
balance of the General Plan updating process and, more
specifically, certain of the City's other activities which they
believe should be integrated into that process.
Their feeling was that the Land Use Element and the Circulation
Element seemed to be working together, as the Commission is working
on both of them. We had a long discussion about five other
activities, and how these could or should fit into the General Plan
updating process. These five are:
1. The Citizens Advisory Committee "white paper"
2. Civic Center proposed expansion and area plan
3. Downtown Physical Concept Plan
4. County Administrative office space
5. Open Space Element.
We briefly discussed the origins of each of these activities. They
are presently viewed as separate and disparate City efforts, and
it was suggested that a process be designed to "integrate" these
separate efforts into the General Plan updating process, which
would help to eliminate the perceptions and the negative attitude
which result from a perceived "fractured" process.
Further comments on each of the five areas are:
1. "White Paper"
I indicated that the Citizens Advisory Committee has completed
their work relating to review of the City's revenues, with
suggested enhancements, and that the White Paper was concluded
and had no official status (since it hasn't been reviewed or
approved) and should be considered as advisory to the Planning
Commission and the City Council as they further deliberate the
Land Use Element and other elements of the General Plan. It
was indicated that not all Planning Commissioners may have
received a copy, and I said I would send a copy to Planning
Commission members (attachment to this memorandum) .
2. Civic Center
In our discussion we subdivided the Civic Center issue into
two sub -parts, the expansion of City Hall and the plan for the
area east of City Hall (bounded by Palm, Osos, Monterey and
Chorro). Regarding the expansion, I indicated that the
project was being deferred for the next two years because of
having other projects with greater priority and budget
restraints. The process that we have been following, joint
meetings involving the City rniinr.i1/Planning
Commission/Architectural Review Committee are appropriate and
should be used as we complete the planning of the expansion.
In regard to the area plan, I indicated my belief that, though
the Planning Commission and the City Council would ultimately
have the job of reviewing and approving it, in the short-term
it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Downtown Design
Committee for their further work on the downtown plan.
3. The Downtown Physical Concept Plan was viewed as another
essentially indepericuaL planning activity, creating
uncertainty as to where it would tit into the General Plan
updating process. We examined whether the downtown planning
effort should be regarded'as an independent effort, or as a
sub -part of the LUE process. We agreed that it would be
desirable to further define the balance of the Downtown
Physical Plan process, showing its relationship to the General
Pldn updating process.
4. The County Administrative office space issue was discussed.
The County earlier announced their plan to move to the TRW
site, and the City Council stated tat the joint meeting with
the BIA Board) that this office space should be retained in
the downtown area close to existing facilities. After some
discussion, we agreed that it might be desirable to
differentiate between (1) those functions which could be moved
out of the downtown without hurting the downtown (with the
computer being given as an example), and (2) those which, if
moved out would harm the downtown or the community (like
planning and engineering) by either causing the relocation of
professional office❑ to the new site or by increasing the
number of cross-town trips.
Concern was also expressed about the kind and amount of the
financial assistance which might be provided to the County,
probably in the form of parking support, in order to induce
them to stay in the downtown.
Though we came to no definitive conclusion on this matter,
the feeling was that this issue had to be related to what the
City should 'be doing in the downtown and with the Land Use
Element, and that it would have been appropriate at an earlier
stage to involve the Planning Commission in this issue.
5. Though the Open Space Element is being done within the
Community Development Department, the concern was expressed
regarding its integration with the other elements of the
General Plan. I informed them that I had recently received
a memo from Jan suggesting two things:
1. That she be given the opportunity to create a broadly
based and representative advisory body to her, so that
she would have a group to exchange ideas with, and
2. That the planning process be accompanied by a series of
professionally -facilitated community forums, to inform
the community of what we were thinking about and doing,
and to solicit ideas which could be incorporated into the
draft planning process.
Even though it was acknowledged that this Element, like the others,
would be reviewed/approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council, the perception was that this was an "independent" effort.
The question was raised whether this Element should be treated in
a parallel fashion to the Land Use and Circulation elements, with
direct Planning Commission review.
The dominant issue for our discussion was the proper integration
of these various City efforts into the General PLan updating
process. The concern was expressed that a fractured approach would
produce "little volcanos being built up" and that we needed a
process which "pulls people together and doesn't polarize them".
I indicated that I would do two things, write up the content of the
meeting to pass the concerns/suggestions to the City Council, and
to refer the perceived problem to the Community Development
Director and ask his assistance in designing a process which better
ties these various components together.
Though not discussed at any length, we also discussed the time
involved in the General Plan updating process, and what could be
done to "get the LUE going".
I wanted to get this to you as soon after our conversation as
possible, as an aid to you, because it is possible that some of
these same matters could be discussed at Monday's joint meeting.
JD:mc
C. Planning Commission (with attachment)
Arnold Jonas
Management Team
RECEIVED _
1217 Mariners Core
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 �� 7 i99Qf
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 17, 1990
bly 01 n Luis Qlhs
f+trnrrmu rty f7evalrtmm�
µ
Subject: Supplemental questions to the workscope of the General Plan
Update Economic Study.
The purpose of the this economic evaluation should be to obtain a
comprehensive socioeconomic statistical analysis of the full range of scarcity,
amenity, and distributional consequences of adopting various versions of the
Draft Land Use Element update.
What are the economic effects of adopting the Draft Land Use Element in its
current form? The analysis should include, but not limited to answering the
following questions.
A. What will be the Cost -Revenue impact of adopting the draft
element?
1. Including an estimate of the full range of scarcity and amenity
effects associated with alternative growth management proposals,
(2) determination of the distributional and general welfare
implications of these effects, and (3) examining the important
collateral issues listed below.
B. Will the 1 % cap on residential growth rates result in changes in the
number of people per individual households?
C. Will the draft element result in less jobs being created thus
translating into a higher unemployment rate relative to the case of
unconstrained growth in the rate of commercial development?
1. Will controlling the rate of job creation Lhrough a cap on
commercial development result in controlling population growth?
D. Will the 1 % cap on residential growth rates result in significant
(statistically) increases in prices for new and existing homes that
otherwise might not have occurred in the absence of such a cap?
1. Will growth control reduce the housing supply in an absolute
sense, or merely slow down the rate of expansion?
2. Will homeowners benefit from the wealth effects of an increase in
equity if housing prices rise above what can be expected due to the
cap on residential growth rates?
E. Can the additional growth pay for itself in terms of providing
revenues to finance incremental facilities and infrastructure? If not,
what are the additional costs born by the existing residents?
F. Will the rates of job formation and population growth be consistent
with the City of San Luis Obispo's ability to provide the desired level
of public services and infrastructure under the existing (or an
alternative set of) fiscal and zoning rules?
G. How do differing rates of population and commercial growth affect
the tax base and per capita income?
H. What are the amenity effects and their welfare implications induced
by adopting the Draft Land Use Element (relative to the case of
unconstrained growth)? A measurement of these growth induced
externalities should include, but not be limited to the following
areas.
1. Air Pollution
a. Health damage
b. Visibility impairment
c. Mitigation costs
2. Public Safety
a. Police protection
b. Fire protection
3. Congestion
a. Traffic -freeways
b. Traffic -arterials
c. Recreational facilities (parks, beaches, etc.)
d. Public facilities (libraries, performing arts centers, etc.)
e. Parking
4. Reliability
a. of water supply
b. of power supply
5, Loss of open space
6. Expenditure avoidance
a. Sewage capacity
b. Solid waste disposal site
C. School overcrowding
I. What transfers of income will result from adopting the Draft Land
Use Element?
J. If the plan to provide additional affordable housing available to low
income individuals succeeds will the aggregate utility of the
community rise?
K. In the absence of growth controls, property tax limitations and rising
marginal costs for public services will a disproportionate share of the
costs of growth be born by existing residents?
L. Will amenity effects realized by residents of San Luis Obispo be
negated by spillover costs born by other communities?
M. Do economically superior alternatives exist to the Draft Land Use
Element in its current form? If so, what are they?
Thank you for including these questions into the workscope of the General
Flan Update Economic Study.
Sincerely,
/ �Z
Brett Cross