Loading...
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