Lompoc Planning Commission seeks cost details, redlined edits on 2030 circulation element

Lompoc — At its Nov. 12, 2025 meeting the Lompoc Planning Commission voted to ask staff to return with a detailed funding and cost analysis for projects referenced in the draft 2030 General Plan circulation element and to provide a redlined version showing edits and explanations of who made them and why.

Lori Tamura, the city’s contract planner, introduced the circulation element as part of the larger general plan update and said the package was included as an addendum to the 2010 environmental impact report. She told commissioners the circulation update was advanced in part because of the Streetscape Multimodal Improvement Plan adopted in July 2022 and a citywide safety study, and that the draft had been recirculated Sept. 17 for a 30-day review that ended Oct. 17 with no new written comments during the recirculation period.

Commissioners focused much of their discussion on how the city would pay for projects after the City Council’s May 2025 amendment to the developer fee program that removed traffic impact fees for future projects. Tamura said staff identified alternative funding sources that could pay for circulation projects, including Measure A allocations, transit funds, SBCAG programs, Caltrans funding for state highways (including work on Highway 246 and Highway 1) and mitigation tied to specific developments such as the Burton Ranch project.

Public comment underscored the concern. Jim Mosby, speaking as a private property owner, urged commissioners to review the multimodal plan and its cost estimates. “I think the $42,000,000 I think they’re gonna have to set aside to do this plan won’t be enough,” Mosby said, adding that higher construction costs since the pandemic could push the figure toward $80,000,000 and that funding streams cited earlier may no longer be available.

Craig Gierling, the city’s public works director, answered commissioners’ questions about annual allocations and estimates. He said the Streetscape Multimodal Plan, as adopted, did not include a specific cost estimate and that figures cited elsewhere were associated with a separate bike-and-ped master plan. “Neither plan, as the city approved them, has a requirement for implementation by a certain date or a need for being budgeted in any particular budget cycle — any sooner than the council wishes to pursue it,” Gierling said, noting staff’s ongoing efforts to pursue annual and regional funds.

Commissioners said they wanted clearer documentation before advancing the circulation element. One commissioner objected to staff-report language and presentation slides that, in their view, implied a unilateral decision or mischaracterized the concerns raised at a prior July meeting. The commission moved, seconded and passed a request that staff return with: (1) additional information about costs and funding associated with multimodal-plan projects; and (2) a version of the circulation element that shows redline changes from the July draft along with explanations of who made each edit and why.

The motion passed on a voice vote; the transcript records the motion and that it was seconded and approved but does not include a roll-call tally. Tamura and other staff said they expect to prepare a staff report for City Council follow-up, likely in December, to respond to the mayor’s request for additional detail.

The commission also confirmed that an auto project on D and E Street had been included on the consent agenda and briefly clarified references in the Focus General Plan update to identified vacant sites 30 and 77 (noted in the EIR addendum pages cited by staff).

What’s next: Staff will return with the requested financial analysis and a redlined circulation element that documents edits and the rationale. The commission may consider additional changes after receiving that material and after council-level discussion of funding priorities.