HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2015 Council Agenda Packet
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
4:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9:
No. of potential cases: One.
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on
the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the local agency. The existing facts and
circumstances exposing the City to litigation include allegations by the group California
River Watch in a letter to the City from its counsel, Jack Silver, that the City has committed
violations of the Clean Water Act. The letter, dated October 8, 2015, is on file with the City
Clerk.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9:
No. of potential cases: One.
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on
the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the local agency. The existing facts and
circumstances exposing the City to litigation are the procurement and installation of
equipment included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan, but not finally approved in accordance
with City purchasing guidelines.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda December 15, 2015 Page 2
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL –EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9; Name of case: State Water Resources
Control Board Case No. SWB-2008-3-0016
D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: APNs 002-416-031, 002-416-035 and
002-416-038
Negotiating parties:
City of San Luis Obispo: Katie Lichtig, Derek Johnson, J. Christine
Dietrick, Anne Russell, Michael Codron and Lee
Johnson
San Luis Obispo Court Street, LLC: Tom Copeland, Suzanne Fryer, Mark Rawson
(aka San Luis Obispo Chinatown, LLC)
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL –EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9; Name of case: San Luis Obispo Police
Officers Association v. City of San Luis Obispo; State of California Public Employment
Relations Board Case No. LA-CE-729-M
ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2016
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda December 15, 2015 Page 3
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Ashbaugh
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION - RON MUNDS RETIREMENT (MARX – 5 MINUTES)
Presentation of a Proclamation to Ron Munds, Utilities Service Manager, recognizing his
upcoming retirement with the City of San Luis Obispo.
2. PROCLAMATION - COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY, INC (CAPSLO) (MARX – 5 MINUTES)
Presentation of a Proclamation to Elizabeth "Biz" Steinberg representing Community Action
Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc. (CAPSLO), recognizing CAPSLO's 50th
Anniversary.
3. PRESENTATION BY CHRIS KOFRON, REPRESENTING U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, PRESENTING A CONSERVATION AWARD TO THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (HILL/OTTE – 10 MINUTES)
4. PRESENTATION BY RON REGIER, PERFORMING ARTS CENTER MANAGING
DIRECTOR, REGARDING THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER STRATEGIC
PLAN UPDATE (LICHTIG/REIGER – 10 MINUTES)
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda December 15, 2015 Page 4
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The council welcomes your input. You may address the council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the city clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not all ow the
council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
6. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2015 (MAIER)
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of November 3, 2015.
7. FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
(JOHNSON)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, accepting the 2014-15 annual report on Development
Impact Fees and reaffirming the necessity of development impact fees and a finding
that fees are needed in the Airport Area Specific Plan.”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda December 15, 2015 Page 5
8. AUTHORIZATION FOR SLO TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (GRIGSBY/ANGUIANO)
Recommendation
Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to operate and maintain the City’s
Transit system.
9. 2016 STANDARD SPECIFICATION AND ENGINEERING STANDARD UPDATE
(GRIGSBY/LYNCH/ATHEY)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving revised Standard Specifications and Engineering
Standards for Construction.”
2. Authorize the City Engineer to release projects currently in design or approved by
Council under the 2014 City Standard Specifications on a case by case basis.
10. ORDINANCE NO. 1627 (SECOND READING) - AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 13.16 TO ALLOW FOR LIMITED INTERIM WATER AND SEWER
SERVICE ASSOCIATED WITH FIERO LANE AND CLARION COURT AREA (805
FIERO LANE) (CODRON/CARLONI)
Recommendation
Adopt Ordinance No. 1627 (2015 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the Cit y Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California amending Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 to allow
interim water and sewer service associated with the proposed future annexation of the Fiero
Lane and Clarion Court area (850 Fiero Lane).”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. UPDATE TO NOTIFICATION STANDARDS (CODRON/VAN LEEUWEN – 45
MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, adopting revised development review notification
requirements,” and direct staff to pursue the additional enhancements to public
notification and outreach.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda December 15, 2015 Page 6
BUSINESS ITEMS
12. ADOPTION OF THE OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN (STANWYCK / HILL /
OTTE / CARSCADEN / STEPHENSON – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission:
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance
Plan and adoption of a Negative Declaration,” pursuant to California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2).
13. MEDICAL MARIJUANA RESOLUTION (DIETRICK/CODRON – 20 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, reaffirming that the City’s Permissive Zoning Code prohibits marijuana
businesses, operations and uses, including cultivation of medical marijuana in the City, and
making a finding that the resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3).”
STUDY SESSION
14. 2015 WATER RESOURCES STATUS REPORT (MATTINGLY / FLOYD / METZ /
MUNDS – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Receive and file the 2015 Water Resources Status Report.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
Time limit—3 minutes each.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda December 15, 2015 Page 7
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a
question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In
addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or
other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a
subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of
business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, during normal business
hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning any
agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Page intentionally left
blank.
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
November 3, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
John Ashbaugh, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present
at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
NEW HIRES
1. XZANDREA FOWLER, DEPUTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR -
LONG RANGE PLANNING
Community Development Director Codron introduced Xzandrea Fowler as the new Deputy
Community Development Director.
2. XENIA BRADFORD, BUDGET MANAGER
Assistant City Manager Johnson introduced Xenia Bradford as the new Budget Manager.
PRESENTATION
3. PROCLAMATION - ARBOR DAY
Mayor Marx presented a proclamation to Urban Supervisor/City Arborist Combs, declaring
November 7, 2015 as “Arbor Day.”
Urban Supervisor/City Arborist Combs invited the public to “Arbor Day in SLO,”
celebrating Arbor Day on Saturday, November 7, 2015 from 10:00 A.M. – 12:00 P.M. at
Fire Station #1, 2160 Santa Barbara St.
6.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1212 : Minutes of November 3, 2015)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 3, 2015 Page 2
APPOINTMENTS
4. APPOINTMENTS TO THE JACK HOUSE COMMITTEE (JHC) AND MASS
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (MTC)
Assistant City Clerk Maier reviewed the contents of the Council Agenda Report.
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to appoint Robert Mills to the Jack House Committee, as the
Member-at-Large representative, to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2017;
and appoint Cheryl Andrus to the Mass Transportation Committee to serve as the Cal Poly
representative.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, requested that the City Council agendize an item related to
limiting alcohol outlets in the downtown.
Jim Duenow, San Luis Obispo, spoke about public safety and the increase in crime in the
downtown; opined that the City of San Luis Obispo is not the happiest place to live.
Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, inquired to staff as to why new developments in the
downtown are continuously approved with alcohol outlets; opined that the alcohol outlets will
disturb the residence that live in the downtown.
Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the City’s creeks; explained that
per the Waterway Management Plan, maintenance of creeks were to occur in the summer; opined
that the creek cleanup did not occur.
Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his past career in the army; expressed
disappointment regarding the increase of alcohol outlets in the downtown; stated that public
health and safety needs to be a priority of the City.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the alcohol outlets in the downtown;
voiced concerns about City government; opined that geoengineering that is affecting the trees in
the City.
Jeff Grandinetti, Atascadero, questioned staff about the City’s noise ordinance; voiced concerns
regarding a past incident that involved the Police Department staff; stated that the arriving
officers did not measure the decibel reading at the incident; requested that staff clarify the
language in the unruly gathering ordinance under definitions regarding unpermitted live music.
James Lopes, Save Our Downtown, spoke about a future rezoning project that limits the number
of bars in the downtown; stated that the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) identified an undue
concentration of alcohol outlets in the City; noted that the crime rate in the City had increased
due to the increase number of alcohol outlets.
6.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1212 : Minutes of November 3, 2015)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 3, 2015 Page 3
In response to public comment, Community Development Director Codron summarized the
history of the rezoning regulations regarding alcohol outlets in the downtown; explained that the
proposed user permit process, noting that in August 2013 a study session was presented to the
City Council to assess and consider a moratorium on new alcohol outlets in the downtown as part
of the City’s 2013-15 financial plan and to adopt code amendments regarding alcohol
concentration evaluations; stated that City Council directed staff not to pursue the new code
amendments and to defer the discussion to be part of the Land Use and Circulation Element
Update; asserted that the City did not approve any new bars or taverns in the downtown during
that time period; noted that new restaurants have been established; stated that staff will provide
the City Council an update on permit activity on account of the last study session in 2013.
In response to public comment, City Manager Lichtig explained that staff will provide Council
with an update to the City’s preparedness for El Niño; stated that a multidepartmental team was
created to help develop an action plan; noted that the intent for the preparedness is to have
ongoing communication with the City Council and the community.
In response to public comment, City Attorney Dietrick stated that she cannot directly address Mr.
Grandinetti’s comment regarding a past incident that involved Police Department staff due to the
fact that she has not been given any background information on the incident; explained that the
City’s Municipal Code does regulate noise disturbances emanating more than 50 feet from the
noise maker creating a disturbance across a property line; noted that there is an appeals process
related to citations.
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Consent Calendar Items 5 thru 7, with the removal of
Item 8 for separate consideration.
5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as
appropriate.
6. AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR MANAGEMENT AND
BENEFICIAL REUSE OF BIOSOLIDS
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for management and beneficial
reuse of biosolids, Specification No. 91429.
2. Authorize the City Manager to award an agreement if the selected proposal is within the
Water Resource Recovery Facility’s approved operating budget line item for biosolids
reuse of $206,000 for fiscal year 2015-16 and $210,000 for fiscal year 2016-17.
3. Authorize the continuation of the contract with Engle and Grey, Inc., on a month-by-
month basis until a new contractor is selected.
6.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1212 : Minutes of November 3, 2015)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 3, 2015 Page 4
7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CURB RAMPS 2015,
SPECIFICATION NO. 91308
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Award a contract to Maino Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Curb Ramps 2015 project, for the
lowest responsible base bid amount of $238,000, and additive alternate bid of $26,000,
for a total contract amount of $264,000.
2. Approve the transfer of $130,000 from the Master Street Reconstruction and
Resurfacing Account to the CDBG Curb Ramps 2015 project’s construction phase.
8. APPOINTMENT OF FIVE MEMBERS TO THE DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN
CREATIVE VISION TEAM
Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY MAYOR
MARX, FAILED 2-3 (COUNCIL MEMBERS CARPENTER, CHRISTIANSON, AND
RIVOIRE VOTING NO), to approve recommendations to appoint Vicente del Rio, Jaime
Hill, Matt Quaglino, Annie Rendler, Charles Stevenson and to include two additional
members: Jim Burrows and Thom Brajkovich to the Downtown Concept Plan Creative
Vision Team.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve the recommendations of the Council Subcommittee, appoint Vicente del Rio,
Jaime Hill, Matt Quaglino, Annie Rendler and Charles Stevenson, to the Downtown
Concept Plan Creative Vision Team.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10673 (2015 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, creating the Creative Vision Team for the
Downtown Concept Plan Update and defining its term and charge.”
Vice Mayor Ashbaugh noted for the record that the public is welcome to participate as
observers and commenters once the Downtown Concept Plan is established.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the contents of the Council Agenda Report.
Mayor Marx opened and closed the public hearing, there being no others desiring to speak
on this item.
6.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1212 : Minutes of November 3, 2015)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 3, 2015 Page 5
Assistant City Clerk Maier stated that there were no written protests received and validated
in advance of the Public Hearing and in addition there were no protests received during the
Public Hearing. Therefore, based on the total percentage needed, a legally sufficient protest
was not received.
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10674 (2015 Series) entitled “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring the
basis for and the levy of the assessment for the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business
Improvement District, and affirming the establishment of the district,” for fiscal year 2015-
16.
10. AMENDMENT TO THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE STANDARDS IN
CHAPTER 17.87 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND SECTION 1010 H OF
THE CITY ENGINEERING STANDARDS UNIFORM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION
Utilities Director Mattingly and Utilities Services Manager Munds narrated a PowerPoint
presentation entitled “Proposed Amended Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance &
Standards,” and responded to Council inquiries.
Mayor Marx opened the Public Hearing.
Jim Burrows, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to adopt the proposed amendments to the
Water Efficient Landscape Standards ordinance.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the impacts of geoengineering
and chemtrails on exacerbated drought conditions.
There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1626 (2015 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Chapter 17.87 of the
City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code,” to update the water efficient landscape
standards.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10675 (2015 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a revision to Engineering
Standard 1010 H. Landscaping and Irrigation.”
6.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1212 : Minutes of November 3, 2015)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 3, 2015 Page 6
BUSINESS ITEMS
11. MISSION PLAZA CEDAR TREE
Public Works Director Grigsby and Urban Supervisor/City Arborist Combs narrated a
PowerPoint presentation entitled “Mission Plaza Cedar Tree,” and responded to Council
inquiries.
Michael LaFreniere, Atascadero, voiced concerns regarding the location of the Mission
Plaza cedar tree; stated that the tree obstructs the view of the Mission as well as devalues the
property; opined that the Mission has a historical presence nationally and worldwide.
Jim Nisbet, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his past career as pastor of the Mission from
1980-1995; expressed concerns regarding the placement of the Mission Plaza cedar tree.
Terry Burrows, San Luis Obispo, thanked staff for their work efforts in the City; questioned
whether landscape architects were consulted regarding the placement of the cedar tree;
inquired why the iconic view of the Mission was not addressed.
Dan Krieger, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the other living trees in the
Mission plaza, noting that the eucalyptus trees are nonnative and do not belong in the plaza;
opined that there was a lack of communication with staff regarding the placement of the
cedar tree; recommended that the tree stay at its current location until after the holiday
season.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, stated that the cedar tree is obstructing the iconic view of
the Mission; opined that the tree is growing too close to the Mission; suggested moving the
tree to near the Warden Bridge in the plaza.
Liz Krieger, San Luis Obispo, spoke on her religious background as a child; stated that the
cedar tree does not belong in the plaza; opined that that the tree should remain in place at its
current location until after the holiday season.
George Abraham, San Luis Obispo, stated that he is a docent at the Mission Church, noting
that the church gives daily tours to people all over the world; urged Council to remove the
cedar tree as it is obstructing the view of the Mission.
In response to public comment, Urban Supervisor/City Arborist Combs stated that the cedar
tree could be transplanted to another location; explained the difficulties of moving the tree
and the costs associated with the transportation; noted that moving the tree could cause
stress on the tree and could greatly reduce the tree’s survival rate.
Following discussion, MOTION BY MAYOR MARX, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER CHRISTIANSON VOTING NO), to
remove the Deodar Cedar Tree after the holiday season and to move it from its present
location to another location. A decision shall be made about the proper placement to replant
the live tree through the Mission Plaza Planning Process.
6.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1212 : Minutes of November 3, 2015)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 3, 2015 Page 7
12. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC
PLAN 2016-2021
This item was continued to a future City Council Meeting to be held on March 15, 2016.
13. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CREATING A COUNCIL COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE FOR 2016
Assistant City Clerk Maier narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Council
Compensation Committee,” and responded to Council inquiries.
Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to defer the Council compensation
package to 2017/18.
LIAISON REPORTS
Council liaison reports were received from Vice Mayor Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Marx provided an update to the newly created Administrative Review Board; explained
the purpose of the committee and stated that applicants are encouraged to apply; noted that the
deadline to apply is November 20, 2015.
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2015
6.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1212 : Minutes of November 3, 2015)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Derek Johnson, Interim Director of Finance and Information Technology
SUBJECT: FY 2014-15 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the 2014-15 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees; and
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the report and making findings related to
impact fee balances.
DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared this report in compliance with the requirements of AB 1600 and the required
disclosures in the attached report.
This report as required by AB 1600 identifies the amount of each fee collected, the
disbursements made from each fee type, and the amount of interest apportioned to each fee
balance during the 2014-15 fiscal year. Also, a report has been prepared that reflects, for each
fee type, the aging of the balance held by the City. This report has been available for public
inspection, in the Finance Department, for 15 days prior to tonight’s meeting. . Notice was
posted on the City Clerk’s bulletin board in front of City Hall on November 30, 2015.
The schedules referred to above provide a breakdown of the individual fee balances on hand as
of June 30, 2014, based on unaudited information. The statutes specify that this report shall
include the following information:
1. The amount of each fee.
2. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended.
3. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended.
4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended.
5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable.
6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account.
7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project
cost paid out of developer fees.
8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have
been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the
public improvement remains incomplete.
9. The amount and purpose of all interfund transfers during the last year.
7
Packet Pg. 15
10. The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects
funded in the current year.
Transportation Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes
within the City. There were ten active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal
year. The largest of those projects was the Los Osos Valley Road/US101 Interchange Project.
As of June 30, 2015, the account held $ 1,471,571. No refund of impact fees were requested or
made.
With respect to the current projects, the following are incomplete and will require additional
resources beyond the current fiscal year and beyond the five years since collected:
Prado Road Bridge Widening – The project will need to compete for grant funds to complete.
Impact fees will be available as a local match with construction start anticipated for 2018 -19.
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange – This project will be completed in 2015-16 with funds
coming from state grants totaling $16 million and bond proceeds in the amount of $7.5 million
that will be paid for by TIF fees and LOVR Sub Area Fees.
Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper – This project will be completed upon the receipt of up to
$3.24 million in grant funds, which are anticipated to become available in 2017-18.
Airport Area Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes
within the City. There were ten active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal
year. The largest of those projects was the Los Osos Valley Road/US101 Interchange Project.
As of June 30, 2015, the account held $ 1,471,571. No refund of impact fees were requested or
made.
With respect to the current projects, the following are incomplete and will require additional
resources beyond the current fiscal year and beyond the five years since collected:
Prado Road Bridge Widening – The project will need to compete for grant funds to complete.
Impact fees will be available as a local match with construction start anticipated for 2018 -19.
Santa Fe Bridge. The Santa Fe Bridge will be replaced with a source of grant funding and TIF
fees.
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange – This project will be completed in 2015-16 with funds
coming from state grants totaling $16 million and bond proceeds in the amount of $7.5 million
that will be paid for by TIF fees and LOVR Sub Area Fees.
Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper – This project will be completed upon the receipt of up to
$3.24 million in grant funds, which are anticipated to become available in 2017-18.
7
Packet Pg. 16
Specifically, there are not sufficient funds available at this time to compl ete projects identified in
the AASP program. These include financing of improvements on Tank Farm Road and
completing the Santa Fe Bridge project. Council needs to make a finding that the AASP funds
are being held for these purposes. Unless this finding is made, the collected fees will need to be
refunded to the current record owner or owners of lots or units of the development project.
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road. The
only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was for design services of the Los
Osos Valley Road/US101 Interchange Improvements. In addition, the city recorded a liability for
the reimbursement owed to a developer for an amount equal to the impact fees collected for the
year. The purpose was to account for the reimbursement agreement for improvements in excess
of their fair share requirements. As of June 30, 2015 the account held $146,724. No refund of
impact fees were requested or made.
With respect to the current projects, the following is incomplete and will require additional
resources beyond the current fiscal year:
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange – This project will be completed in 2015-16 with funds
coming from state grants totaling $16 million and bond proceeds in the amount of $7.5 million
that will be paid for by TIF fees and LOVR Sub Area Fees.
Water Impact Fees
This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply,
water treatment and water distribution The fees are used for debt service for the following
projects:
1. Nacimiento Pipeline
2. Water Reuse Project Loan
3. 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service
4. 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service
All listed projects are 100% complete. Fees collected and retained are used for debt service and
new development’s fair share of funding upgrades water treatment plan upgrades. The balance
of funds as of June 30, 2015 is $615,643. No funds have been held longer than five years. No
refund of impact fees were requested or made.
Sewer Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for sewer
collection and sewer treatment. As of June 30, 2015, the account was in deficit in the amount of
$2,464,295. No refund of impact fees were requested or made.
The fees were used for the following projects:
1. Laguna Lift Station
2. Calle Joaquin Lift Station
7
Packet Pg. 17
3. Margarita Lift Station
4. WRRF Upgrade
5. Tank Farm Lift Station
6. State Revolving Loan Debt Service
The Laguna and Tank Farm lift stations are complete. However, new development in those areas
has not progressed at a rate to pay its share of the lift station improvements. The Calle Joaquin
and Margarita lift stations are moving forward. Those lift stations are currently in the design
phase.
The negative balance of $2,464,295 as of June 30, 2015 is a point in time and will be addressed
as new development pays impact fees during the subsequent fiscal year. This reflects the fact that
improvements were needed for the orderly development of the City and the negative balance will
be corrected with future impact fee payments that will be paid during the next few fiscal years.
Margarita Area Transportation Impact Fee
Fee credits and impact fee loans were made consistent with the Council’s authorization in April
2012 to fund the first phase of the construction of Prado Road. The City Council approved
concurrently approved a reimbursement agreement with the developer’s for the Serra Meadow’s
tracts that provided for these loans and credits.
As of June 30, 2015, total MASP Transportation Impact Fee credits issued were $1,383,649 and
MASP Park Fee Credits were $1,052,718 for a total fee credit of $2,436,367. The estimated
Prado Road improvements to be reimbursed as of June 30, 2015 are $3,479,297. It is anticipated
that Serra Meadow impact fee credits will be sufficient to fund the first phase of Prado Road and
that MASP Park Impact Fees will be repaid with impact fees paid by the Moresco Tract.
Other Fees Presented
Parkland Impact Fee
This fee was established under the Quimby Act and as such is not an Impact Fee. The fee is
charged to residential development for the expansion of parkland, park facilities and other
recreational structures and is presented here for information purposes only. The only outflow of
funding from this fee for the most recent fiscal year was for the Skate Park design and
construction work. At June 30, 2015 the account balance was $ 624,9371.
Open Space In-Lieu Fees
This fee was established for the acquisition and expansion of open space for the City and only a
portion of the balance are impact fees as defined by AB 1600. The only expenditures for the
fiscal year in this account was for the Froom Ranch Improvements and Calle Joaquin Ag
Reserve. At June 30, 2015 the account held $503,979, but only $26,644 is attributable to impact
fees. No refunds were made or requested.
1 $200,000 was allocated in the 2015-2016 budget for improvements and as of June 30, 2015, $424,937 is available
for future allocation.
7
Packet Pg. 18
Affordable Housing Inclusionary Fees
This impact fee was established for funding affordable housing inclusionary programs in the City
and is also not an impact fee as defined by AB 1600. There were only two expenditures for the
fiscal year in this account. One was a contribution to the SLO County Housing Trust Fund which
was recently authorized by the City Council for an amount of $30,000. The other expenditure
was an operating transfer to the City’s Community Development Block Grant Fund for staff
salaries related to administration and oversight of these activities. At June 30, 2015 the account
held $1,699,072.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Utilities Departments concur with the recommendations contained within
this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
This report recommends making the findings called for in the resolution in order to allow the
impact be retained by the City to fund identified projects. The in-lieu fees which have balances
are not subject to the same finding requirement to allow their retention, but staff has included a
finding in the resolution affirming the need for retention of these monies.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could choose not to make the findings called for in this report. This is not recommended
since it means that impact fees that were collected for future projects must be refunded to the
developers who paid them and the City will lack the funds necessary to complete the planned
projects.
Attachments:
a a - DIF Resolution 2015
b b - DIF Annual Report
c c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015
7
Packet Pg. 19
RESOLUTION NO. ______________ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE 2014-15 ANNUAL REPORT
ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND REAFFIRMING THE
NECESSITY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND A FINDING
THAT FEES ARE NEEDED IN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is required to make certain findings
every five years with respect to the unexpended fund balance of certain development impact fee
funds pursuant to California Government Code section 66001; and
WHEREAS, the documents reflecting the balance in each development impact fee fund
or account, accrued interest in said fund or account and the amount of expenditure by public
facility for the fiscal year have been made available for public view as required by Government
Code section 66006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Acceptance. The 2014-15 Annual Report on Development Impact Fees is
hereby accepted.
SECTION 3. Findings. The following findings are made as required under Government
Code section 66001:
1. The purpose to which each Development Impact Fee is to be put has been identified.
2. There is a continued need for the improvements and that there is a reasonable relationship
between the fee and the impacts for development for which the fees are collected.
3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of capital
projects have been identified and will be deposited into the appropriate account upon
receipt or during the normal capital improvement program budget cycle.
4. As of June 30, 2015, the balance in Account 450, Airport Area Impact Fee of $349,383
has been has been held longer than five years. At this time, the City Council finds that
these uncommitted funds have a specified purpose for projects identified in the adopted
Airport Area Specific Plan and related fee programs and that there is a reasonable
relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. Presently, there
are not sufficient funds available to complete projects identified in the AASP program,
such as the financing of improvements on Tank Farm Road or the Santa Fe Road Bridge
Realignment. In FY 15-16 the Council has allocated $50,000 to commence a Project
Study Report for the Santa Fe Road Bridge Relocation project to determine project
7.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: a - DIF Resolution 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
R ______
alternatives and costs for programming of design and environmental work in FY 2016-
17. AASP Fees are being held in the account for these purposes and other AASP
purposes.
5. A copy of the approved resolution shall be forwarded to the Director of Finance for use in
overseeing these monies.
SECTION 4. These findings are based, in part, on information provided in the
City of San Luis Obispo’s 2015-17 Capital Improvement Plan.
Upon motion of ______________, seconded by _____________, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of December, 2015.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
_______________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________________, __________.
_______________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
7.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: a - DIF Resolution 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
This report as required by AB 1600 identifies the amount of each fee collected, the disbursements made
from each fee type and the amount of interest apportioned to each fee balance during the 2014-15
fiscal year. Also, a report has been prepared that reflects, for each fee type, the aging of the balance
held by the City. This report has been available for public inspection 15 days prior to tonight’s meeting
in the Finance Department. Notice was posted on the City Clerk’s bulletin board in front of City Hall on
November 30, 2015.
The schedules referred to above provide a breakdown of the individual fee balances on hand as of June
30, 2014 based on unaudited information. The statutes specify that this report shall include the
following information:
1. The amount of each fee.
2. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended.
3. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended.
4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended.
5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable.
6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account.
7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project cost
paid out of developer fees.
8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement
will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to
complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains
incomplete.
9. The amount and purpose of all interfund transfers during the last year.
10. The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects funded
in the current year.
Transportation Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes within the
City. There were ten active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal year. The largest of
those projects was the Los Osos Valley Road/US101 Interchange Project. As of June 30, 2015, the
account held $ 1,471,571. No refund of impact fees were requested or made.
With respect to the current projects, the following are incomplete and will require additional resources
beyond the current fiscal year and beyond the five years since collected:
Prado Road Bridge Widening – The project will need to compete for grant funds to complete. Impact
fees will be available as a local match with construction start anticipated for 2018-19.
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange – This project will be completed in 2015-16 with funds coming from
state grants totaling $16 million and bond proceeds in the amount of $7.5 million that will be paid for by
TIF fees and LOVR Sub Area Fees.
Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper – This project will be completed upon the receipt of up to $3.24
million in grant funds, which are anticipated to become available in 2017-18.
7.b
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Airport Area Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the airport
area. The only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was the Airport Area Specific Plan
design services. As of June 30, 2015 the account held $937,895. $23,487 was spent for widening Tank
Farm Road. . No refund of impact fees were requested or made.
$349,383 in Airport Area Impact Fees have been held longer than five years and the collected funds are
not sufficient to initiate and complete projects identified in the AASP fee program and therefore need to
be retained until adequate funding is available to fund needed improvements.
With respect to the current projects, the following are incomplete and will require additional resources
beyond the current fiscal year and beyond the five years since collected:
Santa Fe Bridge Realignment – The project will need to compete for grant funds to complete. Impact
fees will be available as a local match. $50,000 in AASP fees have been programmed to commence a
project study report in FY 2015-16 to determine project eligibility for grant funding and design
alternatives. Additional programming of AASP fees for design and environmental work for this project
will be necessary in FY 16-17.
Specifically, there are not sufficient funds available at this time to complete projects identified in the
AASP program. These include financing of improvements on Tank Farm Road and completing the Santa
Fe Bridge project. Council needs to make a finding that the AASP funds are being held for these
purposes. Unless this finding is made, the collected fees will need to be refunded to the current record
owner or owners of lots or units of the development project.
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road. The only project
funded during the fiscal year from these fees was for design services of the Los Osos Valley Road and
Highway 101 Interchange Improvements. In addition, the city recorded a liability for the reimbursement
owed to a developer for an amount equal to the impact fees collected for the year. As of June 30, 2015
the account held $146,724. No refund of impact fees were requested or made.
With respect to the current projects, the following is incomplete and will require additional resources
beyond the current fiscal year:
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange – This project will be completed in 2015-16 with funds coming from
state grants totaling $16 million and bond proceeds in the amount of $7.5 million that will be paid for by
TIF fees and LOVR Sub Area Fees.
Water Impact Fees
This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply, water
treatment and water distribution The fees are used for debt service for the following projects:
1. Nacimiento Pipeline
2. Water Reuse Project Loan
3. 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service
4. 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service
7.b
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
All listed projects are 100% complete. Fees collected and retained are used for debt service and new
development’s fair share of funding upgrades water treatment plan upgrades. The balance of funds as
of June 30, 2015 is $615,643. No funds have been held longer than five years. No refund of impact fees
were requested or made.
Sewer Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for sewer
collection and sewer treatment. At June 30, 2015 the account was in deficit in the amount of
($2,464,295). No refund of impact fees were requested or made.
The fees were used for the following projects:
1. Laguna Lift Station
2. Calle Joaquin Lift Station
3. Margarita Lift Station
4. WRRF Upgrade
5. Tank Farm Lift Station
6. State Revolving Loan Debt Service
The Laguna and Tank Farm lift stations are complete. However, new development in those areas has not
progressed at a rate to pay its share of the lift station improvements. The Calle Joaquin and Margarita
lift stations are moving forward. Those lift stations are currently in the design phase.
The negative balance of ($2,464,295) as of June 30, 2015 is a point in time and will be addressed as new
development pays impact fees during the subsequent fiscal year. This reflects the fact that
improvements were needed for the orderly development of the City and the negative balance will be
corrected with future impact fee payments that will be paid during the next few fiscal years.
Margarita Area Impact Fee
Fee credits and impact fee loans were made consistent with the Council’s authorization in April 2012 to
fund the first phase of the construction of Prado Road. The City Council concurrently approved a
reimbursement agreement with the developer’s for the Serra Meadow’s tracts that provided for these
loans and credits.
As of June 30, 2015, total MASP Transportation Impact Fee credits issued were $1,383,649 and MASP
Park Fee Credits were $1,052,718 for a total fee credits of $2,436,367. The estimated Prado Road
improvements to be reimbursed as of June 30, 2015 are $3,479,297. It is anticipated that Serra Meadow
impact fee credits will be sufficient to fund the first phase of Prado Road and that MASP Park Impact
Fees will be repaid with impact fees paid by the Moresco Tract.
Other Fees Presented
Parkland Impact Fee
This fee was established under the Quimby Act and as such is not an Impact Fee. The fee is charged
against residential development for the expansion of parkland, park facilities and other recreational
structures and is presented here for information purposes only. The only outflow of funding from this
7.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
fee for the most recent fiscal year was for the Skate Park design and construction work. At June 30,
2015 the account held $ 624,9371
Open Space In-Lieu Fees
This fee was established for the acquisition and expansion of open space for the City and is not an
Impact Fee as defined by AB 1600. The only expenditures for the fiscal year in this account was for the
Froom Ranch Improvements and Calle Joaquin Ag Reserve. At June 30, 2015 the account held $503,979,
but only $26,644 is attributable to impact fees.
Affordable Housing Inclusionary Fees
This impact fee was established for funding affordable housing inclusionary programs in the City and is
also not an impact fee as defined by AB 1600. There were only two expenditures for the fiscal year in
this account. One was a contribution to the SLO County Housing Trust Fund which was recently
authorized by the City Council for an amount of $30,000. The other expenditure was an operating
transfer to the City’s Community Development Block Grant Fund for staff salaries related to
administration and oversight of these activities. At June 30, 2015 the account held $1,699,072.
1 $200,000 was allocated in the 2015-2016 budget for improvements and as of June 30, 2015, $424,937 is available
for future allocation.
7.b
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Transportation Impact Fee
Fund 405
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Other
Expenses
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 4,041,419$ 498,385 197,387 668,853 1,829,260 3,576,784$
2009-10 3,576,784$ 51,942 107,553 399,911 87,221 74,000 864,670 28,700 3,404,041$
2010-11 3,404,041$ 889,128 72,051 647,363 671,057 114,698 4,226,828$
2011-12 4,226,828$ 414,282 66,373 - 212,085 780,961 621,064 3,517,543$
2012-13 3,517,543$ 221,213 13,190 - 1,059,704 1,059,188 818,897 2,933,565$
2013-14 2,933,565$ 1,002,592 28,352 287,949 421,651 236,955 3,593,852$
2014-15 3,593,852$ 898,574 51,872 350,172 63,791 49,388 3,533,810 2,268 1,471,571$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
6 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
950,446 1,030,944 234,403 480,655 961,179 159,495 3,817,122 (2,345,551)$ 1,471,571$
7.b
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Transportation Impact Fee (Fund 405)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
90434 Victoria Avenue Land Acquisition 104,388$ 100%104,388$ -$
90653 Traffic Volume Counts 5,082$ 100%5,082$ -$
90821 RRST Phase 4A 1,200$ 100%1,200$ -$
90949 Traffic Model Update 1,172$ 100%1,172$ -$
90950 CN RR Safety Trail Lighting 70,277$ 100%70,277$ -$
91110 RR Safety Trail Hathaway/Taft 2,800$ 19%532$ 2,268$
91111 RR Safety Trail Taft/Pepr 237,248$ 100%237,248$ -$
91252 FY Prado Rd Bridge Widen 189,839$ 100%189,839$ -$
91276 City Traffic Counts 2014 5,529$ 100%5,529$ -$
99821 Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange 2,918,543$ 100%2,918,543$ -$
Totals 3,536,078$ 3,533,810$ 2,268$ 898,574$ 51,872$ 463,351$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 3,593,852$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 1,471,571$
Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 3,817,122$
Funds held longer than 5 years 0
7.b
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Airport Area Impact Fee
Fund 450
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 966,198$ 0 48,509 20,991 993,716$
2009-10 993,716$ 3,599 31,393 0 1,028,708$
2010-11 1,028,708$ 0 19,147 19,383 1,028,472$
2011-12 1,028,472$ 11,280 16,993 35,173 1,021,572$
2012-13 1,021,572$ 0 4,344 317,712 708,204$
2013-14 708,204$ 255,011 3,668 9,845 957,038$
2014-15 957,038$ 4,344 23,487 937,895$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
6 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
4,344 258,679 3,948 28,273 19,147 34,992 349,383 588,512$ 937,895$
7.b
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Airport Area Impact Fee (Fund 450)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Other
Revenues
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
90588 Tank Farm Broad Inter 23,487$ 100%23,487$ -$
Totals 23,487$ 23,487$ -$ -$ 4,344$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 957,038$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 937,895$
Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 588,512$
Funds Held Longer than 5 Years 349,383$
7.b
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee
Fund 460
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 282,240$ 0 48,311 229,058 8,875 92,618$
2009-10 92,618$ 79,719 15,084 0 4,043 183,378$
2010-11 183,378$ 11,166 8,599 0 18,963 - 184,180$
2011-12 184,180$ 1,797,650 18,233 1,622,651 1,576 375,836$
2012-13 375,836$ 0 1,166 49,577 179,809 147,616$
2013-14 147,616$ 3,097 7,573 9,979 3,097 145,210$
2014-15 145,210$ 0 1,514 0 146,724$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
5 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
1,514 10,670 1,166 1,815,883 19,765 94,803 1,943,801 (1,797,077)$ 146,724$
7.b
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee (Fund 460)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Reimbursements
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
No Funds Expended this Year -$
Totals -$ -$ 0 1,514$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 145,209$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 146,724$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 1,943,801$
Funds Held Longer than 5 Years 0
7.b
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Water Impact Fee
Fund 500
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 4,426,570$ 777,892 256,300 895,190 122,259 4,687,831$
2009-10 4,687,831$ 462,231 210,300 970,096 14,918 4,405,184$
2010-11 4,405,184$ 699,399 104,800 803,305 59,772 4,465,850$
2011-12 4,465,850$ 643,160 109,029 703,006 0 4,515,033$
2012-13 4,515,033$ 1,625,113 26,300 3,906,320 41,330 2,301,456$
2013-14 2,301,456$ 819,477 5,650 2,865,321 261,262$
2014-15 261,262$ 2,471,502 1,972 2,119,093 615,643$
Aging of Funds Held
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
5 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total
Ending
Balance
2,473,474 825,127 1,651,413 752,189 804,199 672,531 7,178,933 (6,563,290)$ 615,643$
7.b
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Water Impact Fee (Fund 500)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Reimbursements
Developer
Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
89350 Water Reuse Project Loan Debt Service 116,639$ 59%68,817$
89350 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service 626,690$ 29%181,740$
Nacimiento Pipeline Project Debt Service 4,713,496$ 39%1,838,263$
89350 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service 131,621$ 23%30,273$
2,471,502$ 1,972$
Totals 5,588,446$ 2,119,093$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 261,262$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 615,643$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 7,178,933$
Funds Held Longer than 5 Years 0
7.b
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Sewer Impact Fee
Fund 520
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 1,229,684$ 205,929 35,700 528,164 49,055 992,204$
2009-10 992,204$ 102,301 8,600 854,235 3,733 252,603$
2010-11 252,603$ 166,937 0 849,584 14,956 (415,088)$
2011-12 (415,088)$ 141,234 0 655,355 0 (929,209)$
2012-13 (929,209)$ 355,395 0 1,308,687 9,430 (1,891,931)$
2013-14 (1,891,931)$ 268,132 0 608,432 (2,232,231)$
2014-15 (2,232,231)$ 1,160,654 1,092 1,393,810 (2,464,295)$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
6 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
1,161,746 268,132 355,395 141,234 166,937 110,901 2,204,345 (4,668,640)$ (2,464,295)$
7.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Sewer Impact Fee (Fund 520)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Reimb
Developer
Fees Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
91116 Laguna Lift Station 133,284$ 31.4%41,851$
91118 Calle Joaquin Lift Station 680,664$ 28.0%190,586$
91214 Margarita Lift Station 52,863$ 51.0%26,960$
91219 WRRF Upgrade 1,540,649$ 20.5%315,833$
89351 Tank Farm Lift Station Debt Service 752,436$ 61.7%464,253$
89351 State Revolving Loan Debt Service 610,908$ 58.0%354,327$
Totals 3,770,804$ 1,393,810$ 1,160,654$ 1,092
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 (2,232,231)$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 (2,464,295)$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 2,204,345$
Funds held longer than 5 years 0
7.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
In Lieu Fees Not Subject to AB 1600
7.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Open Space Impact Fee
Fund 430
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Other
Expenses
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2007-08 81,559$ 0 11,997 323,000 22,772 5,000 388,784$
2008-09 388,784$ 0 16,221 6,436 100 234,000 383,991 261,550$
2009-10 261,550$ 0 12,706 314,824 10,500 260,378 370,498 489,460$
2010-11 489,460$ 0 (807) 186,809 153 560,516 115,099$
2011-12 115,099$ 0 3,336 305,000 240,069 183,366$
2012-13 183,366$ 0 726 22,500 11,566 195,026$
2013-14 195,026$ 20,981 3,833 50,204 200,000 58,452 411,592$
2014-15 411,592$ - 2,289 275,000 38,258 35,000 530,623$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
5 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
2,289 24,814 726 3,336 (807) 12,706 43,064 530,623$
Balances from Transfers 503,979
Balances attributed to Impact Fees 0 26,644
7.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Open Space Impact Fee (Fund 430)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
90768 Creek Mitigation 10,000$ 100%10,000$
91112 Froom Ranch Improvement 38,258$ 100%38,258$
Totals 38,258$ 38,258$ 0 726$ 275,000$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 24,814$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 26,644$
Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 years 43,064$
Funds Held Longer Than 5 Years 0
7.b
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Parkland Impact Fee
Fund 420
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2007-08 200,679$ 861,834 38,135 84,326 1,016,322$
2008-09 1,016,322$ 176,579 54,896 94,781 22,705 1,319,873$
2009-10 1,319,873$ 36,378 41,787 66,981 1,331,057$
2010-11 1,331,057$ 35,805 23,628 25,583 169,411 1,246,662$
2011-12 1,246,662$ 40,135 19,130 214,309 1,091,618$
2012-13 1,091,618$ 152,217 4,697 11,746 1,236,786$
2013-14 1,236,786$ 97,535 9,500 173,120 1,170,701$
2014-15 1,170,701$ 273,647 3,110 822,521 624,937$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
5 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
276,757 107,035 156,914 59,265 59,433 78,165 737,569 (112,632)$ 624,937$
7.b
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Parkland Impact Fee (Fund 420)
Enacted using the Quimby Act. See note below.
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
90752 Skate Park Improvement 822,521$ 100%822,521$
Totals 822,521$ 822,521$ -$ 273,647$ 3,110$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 1,170,701$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 624,937$
Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 737,569$
Funds held Longer Than 5 Years 0
7.b
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2015
Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact Fee
Fund 470
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2007-08 3,811,662$ 682,418 155,631 630,000 4,019,711$
2008-09 4,019,711$ 465,726 199,625 1,450 892,462 3,794,050$
2009-10 3,794,050$ 0 32,584 270,000 9,000 3,416,692 21,286 667,656$
2010-11 667,656$ 332,841 15,988 30,000 3,929 39,854 1,010,560$
2011-12 1,010,560$ 848,788 21,915 112,696 1,768,567$
2012-13 1,768,567$ 182,685 7,417 697,000 1,261,669$
2013-14 1,261,669$ 793,655 52,712 30,000 17,000 2,061,036$
2014-15 2,061,036$ 159,602 12,882 179,552$ 697,000 17,000 1,699,072$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2014-15
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2012-13
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2011-12
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2010-11
5 yr old
Funds
FY 2009-10
Funds
attributed
to recent
5 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total
Ending
Balance
190,102 846,367 190,102 870,703 348,829 32,584 2,478,687 (779,615)$ 1,699,072$
7.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact Fee (Fund 470)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Fees Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
90496 SLO County Housing Trust Fund 30,000$ 100%30,000$ -$
91034 313 South Street 650,000$ 100%650,000$
Transfers Out General Fund 17,000$ 100%17,000$
Totals 697,000$ 697,000$ -$ 159,602$ 12,882$ 179,552$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2014 2,728,036$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 1,699,072$
Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 2,478,687$
Fees Held Longer Than 5 Years 0
7.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: b - DIF Annual Report (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Land
Use
Type
Margarita
Tank
Farm
Silver
City
Calle
Joaquin
Laguna
EDU*
Citywide
ResidentialPer
UnitSingle
Family
Residential
1.
0
3,
815$
2,
808$
3,
713$
1,
387$
1,
871$
Multi-
Family
Residential
0.
7
2,
670$
1,
966$
2,
599$
971$
1,
310$ $
351
Mobile
Home
0.
6
2,
289$
1,
685$
2,
228$
832$
1,
123$ $
301
Studio
Unit (
450
sf
or
less)
0.
3
1,
144$
842$
1,
114$
416$
561$ $
150
Non-
Residential
Meter
Size5/
8"
to
3/
4"
1.
0
3,
815$
2,
808$
3,
713$
1,
387$
1,
871$ $
501
1
Inch
1.
7
6,
485$
4,
774$
6,
313$
2,
358$
3,
181$ $
852
1-
1/
2
Inch
3.
4
12,
970$
9,
548$
12,
626$
4,
716$
6,
362$ $
1,
704
2
Inch
5.
4
20,
600$
15,
164$
20,
053$
7,
490$
10,
104$ $
2,
707
3
Inch
10.
7
40,
818$
30,
047$
39,
734$
14,
843$
20,
020$ $
5,
364
4
Inch
16.
7
63,
707$
46,
896$
62,
015$
23,
166$
31,
247$ $
8,
371
6
Inch
33.
4
127,
413$
93,
792$
124,
031$
46,
332$
62,
494$ $
16,
742
WASTEWATER
DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT
FEE
SCHEDULE
Equivalent
dwelling
unit
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
Additional
Catchment
Area
Charges
Impact
Fee
501Page38
R10640 7.c
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
EDU*
Citywide
Residential:
Per
Unit
Single
Family
Residential
1.
0 $
10,
775 $
11,
023
Multi-
Family
Residential
0.
7
7,
543
7,
716
Mobile
Home
0.
6
6,
465
6,
614
Studio
Unit,
450
square
feet
or
less
0.
3
3,
233
3,
307
Non-
Residential:
Meter
Size
3/
4
Inch
1.
0
10,
775
11,
023
1
Inch
1.
7
18,
318
18,
739
1
1/
2
Inch
3.
4
36,
635
37,
478
2
Inch
5.
4
58,
185
59,
523
3
Inch
10.
7
115,
293
117,
944
4
Inch
16.
7
179,
943
184,
081
6
Inch
33.
4
359,
885
368,
162
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit
WATER
DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT
FEE
SCHEDULE
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
Water
Development
Impact
Fee
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage39
7.c
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Use
Category
Base
TIF
Base
TIF
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
3,
516$
3,
597.
00$
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
3,
120$
3,
192.
00$
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
7,
406$
7,
576.
00$
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
7,
051$
7,
213.
00$
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
3,
824$
3,
911.
00$
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
2,
036$
2,
083.
00$
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
5,
977$
6,
115.
00$
Motel/
Hotel
Room
1,
632$
1,
670.
00$
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
8,
305$
8,
496.
00$
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
328$
335.
00$
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
Citywide
Base
TIF (
except
LOVR,
Margarita,
Prado)
Adopted
5/
2/
06
Citywide
Base
Transportation
Impact
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage40
7.c
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Use
Category
LOVR
Base
TIF
LOVRBase
TIF
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
2,
899$ $
2,
965
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
2,
572$ $
2,
631
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
6,
100$ $
6,
240
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
5,
813$ $
5,
947
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
3,
152$ $
3,
225
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
1,
679$ $
1,
717
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
4,
928$ $
5,
041
Motel/
Hotel
Room
1,
346$ $
1,
377
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
6,
848$ $
7,
005
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
270$ $
276
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
Base
LOVR
Transportation
Impact
Fees
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage41
7.c
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Use
Category
LOVR
Sub
Area
Fee
LOVRSub
AreaFee
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
5,
989 $
6,
127
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
3,
934 $
4,
025
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet $
14,
456 $
14,
789
Retail
Auto
1,
000
Square
Feet $
11,
781 $
12,
052
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
8,
806 $
9,
008
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
4,
349 $
4,
449
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room $
3,
265 $
3,
340
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump $
0 $
0
Other
PM
Trip $
5,
871 $
6,
006
LOVR
Sub
Area
Transportation
Impact
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage42
7.c
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Use
Category
Base
TIF
Base
TIF
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
2,
591 $
2,
651
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
2,
298 $
2,
350
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet $
5,
443 $
5,
568
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet $
5,
195 $
5,
314
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
2,
817 $
2,
882
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
1,
500 $
1,
534
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet $
4,
404 $
4,
505
Motel/
Hotel
Room $
1,
202 $
1,
230
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump $
6,
117 $
6,
258
Other
Average
Daily
Trip $
242 $
248
Base
Margarita
Area
Transportation
Impact
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage43
7.c
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Use
Category
MASP
Add
On
MASP
Add
On
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
9,
713$ $
9,
936
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
5,
993$ $
6,
131
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
43,
787$ $
44,
794
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
18,
375$ $
18,
797
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
18,
375$
18,
797$
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
18,
375$
18,
797$
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip -$ -$
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
MASP
Plan
Preparation
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
MASP
Add
On
MASP
Add
On
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
200$ $
205
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
190$ $
195
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
176$ $
180
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
176$ $
180
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
176$
180$
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
176$
180$
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip -$ -$
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
MASP
Transportation
and
Plan
Preparation
Combined
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
MASPCombined
MASPCombined
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
9,
913$
10,
141$
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
6,
183$
6,
325$
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
43,
963$
44,
974$
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
18,
551$
18,
977$
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
18,
551$
18,
977$
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
18,
551$
18,
977$
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip -$ -$
MASP
Park
In
Lieu
Fee
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
MASP
Park
In
Lieu
MASP
Park
In
Lieu
Single
Family
Residential
8,
387$
8,
580$
Multi-
family
Residential
7,
063$
7,
225$
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
Margarita
Area
Fees
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage44
7.c
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
12/
2015
Use
Category
Base
TIF
Base
TIF
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
3,
516$
3,
597$
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
3,
120$
3,
192$
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
7,
406$
7,
576$
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
7,
051$
7,
213$
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
3,
824$
3,
912$
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
2,
036$
2,
083$
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
5,
977$
6,
114$
Motel/
Hotel
Room
1,
632$
1,
670$
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
8,
305$
8,
496$
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
328$
336$
Base
Airport
Area
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage45
7.c
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Use
Category
AASP
BaseTrans
AASPBaseTrans
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
None
None
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
None
None
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
3,
464 $
3,
543
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet $
4,
601 $
4,
707
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
690 $
707
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
None
None
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
Plan
Preparation
Fee
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
AASP
BasePlan
AASPBase
Plan
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
None
None
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
None
None
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
136 $
139
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet $
93 $
95
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
124 $
127
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
None
None
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
Transportation
Plus
Plan
Preparation
Fee
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
AASPCombined
AASPCombined
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
None
None
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
None
None
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
3,
600 $
3,
682
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet $
4,
694 $
4,
802
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet $
814 $
834
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
None
None
Airport
Area
Transportation
Impact
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage46
7.c
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Use
Category
Add
On
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
7,
871 $
7,
917.
00
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
5,
498 $
5,
530
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
None
None
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
Plan
Preparation
Fee
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Plan
Prep
Add
On
Plan
Prep
Add
On
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
784 $
802
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
293 $
300
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
None
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
OASP
Park
Fee
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
OASP
Park
Imp
Fee
OASP
Park
Imp
Fee
Single
Family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
12,
719 $
13,
012
Multi-
family
Residential
Dwelling
Unit $
9,
360 $
9,
575
Retail
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Office
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Service
Commercial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Business
Park
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Industrial
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Hospital
1,
000
Square
Feet
None
Motel/
Hotel
Room
None
Service
Station (
includes
1,
000
sq.
ft.)
Pump
None
Other
Average
Daily
Trip
None
Annual
CPI
Adjustment:
1.
017
1.
023
Orcutt
Area
Transportation
Impact
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage47
7.c
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Park
In-
Lieu
Fees
Each
potential
additional
single
family
dwelling
unit
in $
5,
668 $
5,
799
C/
OS
and
R-
1
zones
within
the
subdivided
area
Each
potential
additional
mult-
family
dwelling
unit
in $
4,
494 $
4,
598
zones
other
than
C/
OS
and
R-
1,
within
the
subdivided
area
Park
In-
Lieu
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage48
7.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Parking
In-
Lieu
Fees
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
New
Construction
Community
Partners $
9,
321 $
9,
535
Per
vehicle
space
required
by
zoning
regulations
for
the
new
All
Others $
18,
641 $
19,
070
construction
and
not
otherwise
provided.
Additions
to
Existing
Buildings
Community
Partners $
9,
321 $
9,
535
Per
vehicle
space
required
by
zoning
regulations
for
the
addition
All
Others $
18,
641 $
19,
070
and
not
otherwise
provided.
Change
in
Occupancy
Requiring
Additional
Parking
Community
Partners $
2,
330 $
2,
384
Per
vehicle
space
required
by
zoning
regulations
and
not
otherwise
All
Others $
4,
660 $
4,
768
and
not
otherwise
provided.
The
number
of
spaces
required
by
the
change
shall
be
the
difference
between
the
number
required
by
the
new
use
and
the
number
required
by
the
previous
occupancy.Parking
In-
Lieu
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage49
7.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Current
Fee
7/
1/
2015
Business
Park $
460 $
470
Service
Commercial $
681 $
696
Manufacturing $
618 $
633
Open
Space
In-
Lieu
Fees
Proposed
Fees
7/
1/
2015
ResolutionNo106402015Series
ATTACHMENTPage50
7.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: c - Developer Fee Schedules 2015 (1195 : 2014-2015 Annual AB 1600 Report)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR SLO TRANSIT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the issuance of a Request For Proposal (RFP) to operate and maintain the City’s
Transit system.
DISCUSSION
The City’s Transit Operations and Maintenance (O&M) work is currently contracted out to First
Transit Inc. (First Transit). First Transit was awarded the current O & M contract ten years ago
via a similar competitive process. The initial contract term was for three (3) years and included
the possibility of seven (7) one-year extensions. June 30, 2016 marks the end of the last
exercised extension with First Transit.
In order to achieve cost savings and operational efficiency, the City is soliciting via the RFP
process contractors to bid on providing the City transit services.. These services include
employment, training, and retention of drivers, mechanics and other staff necessary to
successfully operate the City’s transit system as prescribed by the City.
The RFP process is meant to bring structure and transparency to the procurement decision, while
reducing risk through open requirements and discussion. The RFP process also provides the City
with an “apples-to-apples” cost comparison for purchased O&M services. The RFP bids will be
evaluated by a “best-in-value” criterion with the goal of acquiring comparable or even greater
service quality O&M services.
To help ensure this, Staff has carefully reviewed, revised and solicited direction from the Federal
Transit Administration for the purpose of developing an improved contract. After careful review
of the current Scope of Work (SOW), staff has eliminated non-applicable items, made
corrections and improvements, established clarity and formalized procedures/arrangements to
help ensure that vendors are fully aware of the City’s requirements for O&M services.
Parallel to improving the SOW language, Staff has also revised the standard Performance
Measures. After comparing with other nearby transit systems, a revised Penalties & Incentives
section has been added to the new proposed agreement. Penalties (or liquidated damages) would
apply monthly if the selected contractor fails to meet specific service performance standards.
8
Packet Pg. 56
Conversely, incentives are provided quarterly if the selected contractor achieves specific high
levels of service. Staff believes the proposed SOW provides clear understanding of the City’s
requirements while the liquidated damages provide for correction action(s) should they not be
met.
During the November 17 Study Session of the proposed RFP, the City Council asked questions
about the City’s insurance coverage in this contract. As a result, transit staff has been working
closely with the City Attorney to insure the City is adequately covered by the language in
Section 2 of the contract and in the Scope of Work.
Proposed Term of Contract Consistent with Federal Regulations
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has specific language and recommendations in the
Codified Circular of Federal Regulation (CCFR) 4220 regarding the term of O&M contracts.
The FTA has stated in part:
Although FTA no longer requires prior approval for contract terms longer than five
years, grantees remain responsible for conducting their procurement transactions in
accordance with the “full and open competition” principle expressed in FTA Circular
4220.1E, paragraph 8a…
When deciding the best period of performance for on-going services contracts, grantees
need to consider the up-front investment by potential offerors for specialized personnel
training and other non-recurring start-up costs (e.g., relocation) that must be recovered
over the life of the contract…
Staff reviewed factors such as maintaining “full and open competition,” industry peer contract
length comparisons and contract periods that allow for “upfront cost recovery;” in determining
the contract period. As a result, staff recommends a four (4) year contract with three (3) possible
one-year extension option(s).
Next Steps
Solicitation for responses will be done by publicizing this RFP via various industry periodicals in
addition to local notification required by the City’s Municipal Purchasing Guidelines
Proposals are tentatively expected to be evaluated at the start of next calendar year, March 2016.
A team of industry professionals, both from within the City and outside the City, will review
each proposal according to pre-established grading criteria. The top rated vendors will then be
invited to formal interviews and final negotiations. The winning proposer (selected contractor)
will then be recommended to Council for consideration and award. The new contract will
become effective July 1st, 2016.
8
Packet Pg. 57
Event/Task Date
1: MTC Discussion on RFP Scope of Work November 10, 2015
2: Council Study Session on RFP Scope of Work November 17, 2015
3: Council Authorization Issuance of RFP December 15, 2015
4: Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) on Ebid Board December 16, 2015
5: Pre-Proposal Conference (2:00 p.m. PST) January 27, 2016
6: Submit Questions & Clarifications (4:00 p.m. PST) February 5, 2016
7: Response to Submitted Questions February 19, 2016
8: Proposals Due (3:00 p.m. PST) March 9, 2016
9: Pre-Award Survey and Screening March 23, 2016
10: Interview with Selected Contractors March 30, 2016
11: City Council Award Contract May 3, 2016
12: Executes Agreement with Selected Contractor May 4, 2016
13: Pre-Start Up Meeting with Selected Contractor May 4, 2016
14: Contractor Starts Service July 1, 2016
FISCAL IMPACT
The RFP ensures a competitive selection process where the City and the selected Contractor will
have the opportunity to negotiate efficiencies, service enhancements, cost savings and even
added costs. The adopted 2015-17 Budget for the Transit Enterprise Fund included some costs
increase assumptions consistent with historic rate increases along with the results of the Short
Range Transit Plan. Ultimately, the funding for City’s transit operations will be from the City’s
annual distribution of Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funds, Transportation
Development Act (TDA) funds, the Cal Poly Subsidy, and farebox collections. A final
agreement with full fiscal analysis will return to Council at the time of contract award.
CONCURRENCES
The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) has been notified of the RFP at its November 10th
meeting, and that advisory body was able to review and comment on the various terms of the
contract. The contract was approved as is without any major changes.
ALTERNATIVE
1. The Council may decide to change terms of contract (scope of work). The consequence to this
8
Packet Pg. 58
alternative is that significant changes to the scope may result in changes (potential increases to
cost or reductions in the level of service) for the contract. It is suggested that if Council wants
additional (or modified work items) included in the RFP that they include these as additional
items to be considered as part of the RFP solicitation and negotiation process.
Attachments:
a Council Reading File - 2015-16 Transit RFP
8
Packet Pg. 59
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
David Athey, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2016 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS
UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution approving revised Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards for
Construction; and
2. Authorize the City Engineer to release projects currently in design or approved by Council
under the 2014 City Standard Specifications on a case by case basis.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City Engineer is responsible for maintaining the Public Works Department’s Standard
Specifications and Engineering Standards (hereafter collectively referred to as “Standards”). The
Standards set forth general guidelines and requirements for design and construction of City
projects. The Standards are also applicable to private development work within City right of
way or on City property. The Standards set a level of quality and consistency for infrastructure
construction. These Standards, when combined with active inspection, ensure the longevity and
function of public improvements and reduce long-term maintenance costs. In addition, the
Standard Specifications provide contractual language to guide the relationship between
contractors and the City during construction activities.
The City Standard Specifications work in conjunction with the State of California Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications (“State Book”). The City references the State Book,
modified where appropriate, to satisfy City needs. The State Book covers many standard contract
issues and legal requirements such as labor laws, bidding, payment, and liability. The City
Standard Specifications also focus on construction guidelines for work the State do es not
typically handle such as water, wastewater, and park facilities. The Engineering Standards are
pictorial construction drawings and details showing how facilities are put together. These are
largely specific to City construction with only a few references to using typical State
construction details.
9
Packet Pg. 60
The Public Works Capital Improvement Program Design Section updates the City Standards on a
periodic basis to reflect changes in construction practices, materials, and to add clarifications.
Design or construction activities typically reveal Standards that need modification over time.
Modifications are generally intended to add clarification, close loopholes, or update standards to
be consistent with new technology, current construction practices, and City adopted policies. The
City Engineer keeps suggested improvements on file and the Standards are revised during the
next update.
2016 Revisions
The 2014 Standards incorporated significant updates including a plain language re-write and new
state required stormwater standards. The 2016 Standards update involves minor changes and
clarifications and includes the changes that were made to Engineering Standard 1010 (water
efficiency standards) by Council on November 3, 2015. The changes made to Section 1010 H. in
November, were completed prior to this update in order to maintain compliance with the State’s
December 1st implementation date. This action carries the Section 1010 H. changes forward.
One notable modification is that the proposed 2016 Standards will now allow contractor’s the
option of using reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) on all paving projects. The 2014 Standards
allowed the use of reclaimed asphalt pavements on a case by case basis. Reclaimed asphalt
pavements include up to 15% recycled aggregate and asphalt from road grinding projects.
Engineering has evaluated the use of RAP and has determined that RAP quality is similar to
conventional material pavements. In addition, RAP pavement use is becoming widespread as
Caltrans, a large user of asphalt, allows RAP asphalt on all projects. Since most asphalt plants
are now incorporating RAP into mixes, the City’s contractors have to wait longer to receive non
RAP asphalt. Therefore, Public Works is proposing the change to reflect the current state of
paving practice and the research into the quality of the final product.
A handful of projects are substantially complete with design using the City’s 2014 Engineering
Standards and Specifications. These projects are referenced to the Caltrans 2010 Stat e Book, and
this reference is not changing. To minimize impacts to project delivery, staff anticipates
releasing these contracts for construction under the 2014 standards on a case-by-case basis.
Wherever possible, those projects that are substantially complete will be converted to the 2016
Standards.
CONCURRENCES
The 2016 modifications were submitted by the Public Works and Utilities Department staff.
Both the Public Works and Utilities departments concur proposed modifications are reasonable
and appropriate. The City Engineer has approved all changes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act as it is not a project under
CEQA.
9
Packet Pg. 61
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended Standards changes are either minor or will have an insignificant impact on the
cost of City or private development projects. This is because most of the changes involve
improvements to current construction standards or City infrastructure needs. The changes are not
anticipated to result in significant cost impacts to construction or development.
ALTERNATIVES
This item can be referred back to staff for further consideration and modification on specific
items.
Attachments:
a a - 2015 Resolution
b Council Reading File - 2016 Standard Specifications
9
Packet Pg. 62
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING REVISED STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining Standard
Specifications and Engineering Standards establishing quality requirements and contract
conditions for construction; and
WHEREAS, the Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be
periodically updated to allow for changes in construction practices and contract law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. The 2016 Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards dated and effective
January 1, 2016, copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, are
hereby approved.
2. Resolution No. 10495 (2014 Series) approving previous editions of the Standard
Specifications and Engineering Standards is hereby superseded and the 2016
Standard Specifications and Engineering Specifications approved herein shall be
applicable to all projects advertised and approved following the approval of
these standards, except as expressly provided below.
3. The City Manager is authorized to release for advertising under the previous
Standard Specifications, currently pending projects that are deemed by the City
Engineer substantially complete with design at the time of this adoption. The
Council expressly affirms its prior approval of the Standard Specifications
approved by Resolution No. 10495 (2014) as applicable to those projects.
Upon motion of ________________________, seconded by
________________________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of December 2015.
Mayor Jan Marx
9.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: a - 2015 Resolution (1185 : 2016 Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards Update)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
R ______
ATTEST:
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
9.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: a - 2015 Resolution (1185 : 2016 Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards Update)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.16
TO ALLOW INTERIM WATER AND SEWER SERVICE ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE ANNEXATION OF THE FIERO LANE
AND CLARION COURT AREA (850 FIERO LANE)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1627 (2015 Series) (Attachment A) amending Municipal Code Chapter
13.16 to allow for limited interim water and sewer service outside of the City.
DISCUSSION
On December 1, 2015 the City Council voted 5 to 0 to introduce Ordinance No. 1627 (2015
Series). Ordinance No. 1627 amends the “exception” language within Chapter 13.16 of the City
Municipal Code allowing limited water and sewer service to the Fiero Lane and Clarion Court
area subject to the requirements and schedule provided in the Memorandum of Agreement
adopted by Council resolution on December 1, 2015.
The new Ordinance will become effective 30 days after its final passage.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could reject the proposed amendments. This is not recommended because
the Council voted unanimously to introduce the Ordinance amending the Municipal Code
to allow limited water and sewer service to the project site, associated with a
Memorandum of Agreement between the City and Applicant relative to the anticipated
annexation of the project site.
2. The Council could continue final adoption of the proposed amendments and provide
direction to staff for revisions.
Attachments:
a a - Ordinance No. 1627
10
Packet Pg. 65
ORDINANCE NO. 1627 (2015 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER
13.16 TO ALLOW INTERIM WATER AND SEWER SERVICE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE ANNEXATION OF
THE FIERO LANE AND CLARION COURT AREA (850 FIERO LANE)
WHEREAS, with some limited exceptions, Chapter 13.16 of the City of San Luis
Obispo’s (“City”) prohibits the provision of water or sewer service for the use and benefit of
properties outside of the City’s limits; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2015, the City Council 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, and adopted Resolution No. 10678 (2015 Series) approving a Memorandum
of Agreement (the “MOA”) between the City and Fiero Lane Water Company (“FLWC”); and
WHEREAS, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.13.5, the MOA
contemplates the future annexation of certain real property within the City’s Airport Area
Specific Plan (the “Annexation”). Such property is currently improved with various commercial
uses and water and sewer service is currently provided by FLWC; and
WHEREAS, as part of the MOA, the City has agreed to provide interim water and sewer
service to such property until such time the property is duly annexed to the City, as well as other
terms and conditions, including, but not limited to, disconnection of such water and sewer
service in the event annexation is not successful or the failure of FLWC to comply with certain
obligations as set forth in the MOA; and
WHEREAS, by this Ordinance, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 13.16 of the
City’s Municipal Code to allow for the temporary provision of water and sewer service to the
area to be annexed consistent with the terms and conditions of the MOA; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans was prepared to review any new environmental
impacts/conditions associated with the proposed project including the modifications to the City’s
Municipal Code related to the provision of interim water and sewer service under the MOA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including testimony of
the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
10.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: a - Ordinance No. 1627 (1204 : Second Reading Fiero Lane/Clarion Court Annexation)
Ordinance No. 1627 (2015 Series) Page 2
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. That the recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. That the proposed amendment will not significantly alter the character of the City or
cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the amendments are consistent
with the intent and purpose of the General Plan.
3. That the provision of water and sewer service on an interim basis under the MOA is
necessary in order for such property to be duly annexed into the City.
4. That the provision of water and sewer service on an interim basis under the MOA is
necessary in order for certain improvements to be feasibly constructed in the area to be
annexed for ultimate acceptance into the City’s water and sewer infrastructure.
5. That the MOA between the City and the Fiero Lane Water Company adequately
addresses the parameters of interim water and sewer service and establishes sufficient
penalties/timeframes to ensure future annexation or disconnection from City services.
6. That the Addendum to the Airport Area and Margarita Area Environmental Impact
Report (adopted August 23, 2005 and amended September 2, 2014) properly
characterizes the current drought conditions and provides substantial evidence that new
conditions have not occurred that would require preparation of a subsequent
Environmental Impact Report per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and
15183.5.
SECTION 2. Section 13.16.020 “Exceptions” of Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 “Water
and Sewer Service for Private Use Outside City Limits” is hereby amended to add subsection
“E” to read as follows:
E. Provision of interim water and/ or sewer service to the Fiero Lane and Clarion Court
annexation area, as set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of
San Luis Obispo and Fiero Lane Water Company and adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 10678 (2015 Series).
SECTION 3. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase
of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of t he
remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the City’s rules and regulations.
It is the City’s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective
of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be
declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at
10.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: a - Ordinance No. 1627 (1204 : Second Reading Fiero Lane/Clarion Court Annexation)
Ordinance No. 1627 (2015 Series) Page 2
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 1st day of December, 2015, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the______ day of______, 2015, on the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
10.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: a - Ordinance No. 1627 (1204 : Second Reading Fiero Lane/Clarion Court Annexation)
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: UPDATE TO NOTIFICATION STANDARDS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) revising the development review notification requirements
and direct staff to pursue the additional enhancements to public notification and outreach
outlined in this report.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City Council reviewed and approved a Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) manual on
August 18, 2015. During that Council meeting, public testimony was received concerning the
level of noticing that the City requires for development projects. The testimony included specific
requests to expand certain noticing requirements. The Council approved the Notification
Standards as presented on August 18 (Attachment B). However, that approval was made with the
direction to staff to evaluate potential changes in the notification standards to increase
notification timeframes and distances. Council directed staff to present this analysis at a later
date.
Noticing Standards for Development Projects
The Notification Standards are a technical document that has historically been adopted by
Council Resolution. The Standards govern when and where the Cit y distributes mailed postcards,
legal ads, and posted signs about upcoming development projects. The Notification Standards
identify who will be noticed and when the notice will happen. These Standards reflect State law
and local policy.
The Notification Standards that were adopted on August 18, 2015, included some revisions from
the 2008 standards (Attachment D). The revisions included: (1) incorporating Council direction
for Homestay application notifications, (2) expanded noticing for all actions on pro jects that
require different levels of advisory body approval, (3) providing notification around an off-site
parking location as well as the project site, and (4) postcard notification on projects that formerly
only required minimal outreach, such as secondary dwelling units and lot line adjustments.
11
Packet Pg. 69
1. Recent Council Direction
At the August 18th Council hearing, staff was directed to further explore changes to the
standards, which were requested by Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN). These
enhancements include increasing the number of days that certain projects are noticed, in
particular, extending the five day notification of smaller project (those that do not typically
require an advisory body hearing) to 10 days. RQN also requested that some projects currently
noticed to adjacent neighbors be extended to the 300 foot notification level. The suggested
enhancements aim to allow more residents to be notified about pending projects in their
neighborhood.
2. Staff Analysis of RQN Recommendations
The recommendations made by RQN were explored by staff to clearly identify impacts to
process times, resources, costs and their overall feasibility. The requested enhancements were
also analyzed for their impacts to previously established goals that were ident ified by the
Community Development Department (CDD) Organizational Assessment and the Economic
Development Strategic Plan (EDSP). After close evaluation (Attachment C), staff proposes the
following enhancements to the Notification Standards:
1. Expanding the postcard range to 100 feet for projects that are currently noticed to
adjacent owners and occupants
2. Increasing the noticing to seven days for all projects that currently have a five day
standard.
These enhancements are recommended by staff for the following reasons:
1. Expanding the postcard range sets a clearer standard for who gets noticed about smaller
projects and increases the distance of noticing. This change will allow for more residents
within a reasonable distance to be informed about proposed changes to their
neighborhood, which will increase the likelihood of public participation. The proposed
expansion will approximately double the number of notification postcards sent for these
projects.
2. Increasing the number of days these projects are noticed will ensure that interested
neighbors have a full week to inquire about a project, and arrange their schedule to
possibly attend a hearing or provide correspondence concerning a proposed project.
Therefor increasing the likelihood of public participation for these projects.
Staff will be able to make these enhancements to the standards by changing internal staff
procedures, without impacting the ability to achieve the other process goals previously set for the
department. The only increase in costs to the City will be for the increased number of postcards
mailed. This increase in cost of postage will be funded through the existing application fees, and
is estimated to be approximately $5 to $8 more per project. No increase in costs to project
applicants is currently proposed.
11
Packet Pg. 70
3. Additional Public Engagement Enhancements
In addition to the stated changes above to the Notification Standards document, the CDD has
also developed other strategies to enhance the ability of interested citizens (in addition to
neighbors within 100 or 300 feet) to be informed and consulted regarding upcoming projects.
These ideas are organized into those which can be implemented in the near future and those
which can be put into place further down the road with the development of new resources.
Implemented on a short timeframe:
1. Agenda Reports for all hearings available one week before advisory body hearing
(similar to Council Agenda Reports).
2. Posters and postcards improved to be easier to see/read.
3. Improved ease of access to contact advisory bodies. Expand the ability of the City’s
website to allow for one email to be sent to all advisory body members. These
correspondences will be posted to the website for others to see.
Implemented on a longer timeframe:
1. Notification sign-up by geographic area. Citizens can sign up to be notified by email
about projects in a particular area. (Further development of this program could allow
citizen’s to set their own notification boundary).
2. On-site Neighborhood Meeting Days. For large projects with neighborhood interest, a
planner would be available on-site to answer questions and present aspects of the project.
These above strategies to improve public participation are in addition to other approaches
currently in place. For example, staff maintains and updates an email list of interested parties and
stakeholder groups to be notified of hearings via email. The Community Development CDD
website now offers a monthly update of “Current Development Projects” to provide the public
with a slide show of larger projects currently in review, approved, and under construction. For
large Special Focus areas, such as San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch, staff is maintaining and
updating links on the website to keep the public apprised on progress of these major proj ects.
Pre-applications and Conceptual Reviews are other methods that introduce larger projects to
decision-makers and the public early in the process. Each of these is an example of ways the City
works to improve awareness and opportunities to provide meaningful input regarding
discretionary project approvals.
4. Consistency with Zoning Regulations and State Laws
The proposed changes to the Notification Standards are in some cases different than what is
required by the Zoning Regulations. Language in the Zoning Regulations, for example, may call
for an advertisement to appear in the paper at least five days before a hearing. The Notification
Standards now require an ad appear at least seven days before a hearing. In every instance where
a difference presents itself, the proposed Notification Standards require more time than the
Zoning Regulations requirement.
11
Packet Pg. 71
In addition to exceeding some standards of the City’s Zoning Regulations, the proposed
Notification Standards in all instances meet or exceed the notification requirements under State
law.
Conclusion
The goal of updating the Notification Standards is to inform and involve the affected community
in governmental decisions. If local residents are directly involved in the process they will be able
to identify with the reasons behind the decisions. The proposed enhancements have the potential
to increase public participation without negatively affecting other departmental goals or
unreasonably increasing costs and staff time.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed changes to the City’s notification standards were reviewed by City Departments
with responsibility for development review and no impacts to staff resources were identified with
the proposed changes. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(Section 15061.b3).
FISCAL IMPACT
The increase in cost of postage for the proposed enhancements will be funded through the
existing application fees, and is estimated to be approximately $5 to $8 more per project. No
increase in costs to project applicants is currently proposed. Any need for incremental
adjustments to application fees will be evaluated as part of the City’s normal financial planning
process.
The City departments may need to identify ongoing resources for new technologies t hat can
enhance participation and citizen engagement. As additional tools become available, their merits
will be evaluated and proposals will be made for funding, consistent with the City’s normal
budget augmentation process.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff on specific changes to the Notification Standards. Staff can return at a later
meeting to review and discuss changes.
2. Do not approve the Notification Standards.
Attachments:
a a - Notification Standards Resolution
b b - Previously Adopted Notification Standards
c c - Staff Analysis of Requested Notification Enhancements
d d - 2008 Resolution - notification requirements
11
Packet Pg. 72
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REVISED DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) follows specific notification
requirements for projects requiring development review;
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 10660 (2015 Series)
establishing development review notification requirements;
WHEREAS, the City’s current notification practice meets or exceeds the minimum state
law requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to revise the notification requirement to further expand
public noticing for projects requiring development review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the Notification Standards for Development Projects are hereby amended as shown
in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 10660 (2015) is superseded by this
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
11.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: a - Notification Standards Resolution (1197 : Notification Standards)
Resolution No. _________ (2015 Series) Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Jon Ansolabehere Interim City Clerk
11.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: a - Notification Standards Resolution (1197 : Notification Standards)
Resolution No. _________ (2015 Series) Page 2
Address Change 7
Annexation - ANNX 10 10 10
Appeal - APPL
Architectural Review - ARCH
ARC 10 10 10
Minor/Incidental 7 7 7
Condo Conversion - CNDO 10 10 10
Cultural Heritage Projects
Projects/Demolitions in Historic District 10 10 10
Change in Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10
Directors Approval - DIR
Daycare (7-12 Adults or 9-14 Children)10 10 10
All others (Special Events, Nightwork, etc..)7
Environmental Review a
Fence Height Exception - FNCE 7 7 7
Final Map - FMAP 10
General Plan - GENP
Map Amendment (incl. Rezoning) - PC and CC 10 10 10
Text Amendment - PC and CC 10
Guest Quarters - GUST 7 7 7
Historic Review - HIST 10 10 10
Homestay - HOME
Homestay 7 7 7
Homestay with Exceptions (Administrative Hearing)7 7 7
Occupancy - OCC
Home Occupation 7
Administrative Hearing for Home Occupation 7 7 7
Planned Development - PDEV
Plan Amendment 10 10 10
Rezoning (Final Plan)
Rezoning (Preliminary)10 10 10
School Tenant Permits
Allowed use 7
Approved by Use Permit 7 7 7
Secondary Dwelling Unit - SDU 7 7 7
Sign Permits
Specific Plan - SPEC - Amendment 10 10
Street Abandonment - STAB (Noticed for each step in Process)10 10 10 c
Street Name Change - STNE 10 10 10 b
Subdivision - SBDV
Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 7 7 7
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less lots)10 10 10
Tentative Tract map (5 or more lots)10 10 10
Voluntary Merger 7 7 7
Time Extensions
Use Permit - USE
Administrative Hearing (Setback Exception, High Occupancy, Etc.) 7 7 7
Offsite Parking 7 d 7 d 7 d
Downtown Housing Conversion 10 10 10
Planning Commission or City Council 10 10 10
Variance - VAR 7 7 7
The above noted procedures meet or exceed the requirements of other sections of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or applicable state law. While it is
city policy to provide additional notice beyond these requirements, failure to provide such notice shall not be construed in any way as invalidating otherwise proper
actions or decisions.
Posters
(on-site
notification)
- - no notice - -
- - use requirement for body being appealed to - -
- - no notice - -
- - no notice - -
4) For projects with multiple entitlements, each notification for the project will be noticed at the highest level required
for any entitlement of the project. Example: an Administrative Use Permit which also requires ARC review will be
noticed at the distance required for ARC (owners and occupants within 300' instead of 100').
Notification Standards for Development Projects
3) All projects will be noticed to interested parties as requested.
Notes:
1) The Community Development Director can increase these notification standards for any project, at any time.
2) Distances for notification shall be measured from the edge of property lines.
a) No specific date or time limit
b) Minimum 3 signs
c) Signs must be 300' apart or less, minimum of 3 signs
d) Offsite parking address must also be used for noticing (2 posters)
Days of notification required before hearing or final decision
Procedures Legal Ad Legal Ad
with Map
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 100'
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 300’
Exhibit A
11.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: a - Notification Standards Resolution (1197 : Notification Standards)
Notification Standards for Development Projects
Changes Highlighted
a) No specific date or time limit
b) Signs must be 300’ apart or less, minimum of 3 signs
c) Minimum 3 signs
NOTE: All projects will be noticed to interested parties as requested.
For projects with multiple entitlements, each step in the process will be noticed at the highest
level required for any entitlement of the project. Example: an Administrative Use Permit that
also requires ARC review, will be noticed at the ARC level (owners and occupants within 300'
instead of adjacent owners and tenants).
Address Change 5
Annexation - ANNX 10 10 10
Appeal - APPL
Architectural Review - ARCH
ARC 10 10 10
Minor/Incidental 5 5 5
Condo Conversion - CNDO 10 10 10
Cultural Heritage Projects
Projects/Demolitions in Historic District 10 10 10
Change in Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10
Directors Approval - DIR (Special Events, Nightwork, ect.)5
Environmental Review a
Fence Height Exception - FNCE 5 5 5
Final Map - FMAP 10
General Plan - GENP
Map Amendment (incl. Rezoning) - PC and CC 10 10 10
Text Amendment - PC and CC 10
Guest Quarters - GUST 5 5 5
Historic Review - HIST 10 10 10
Homestay - HOME
Homestay 5 5 5
Homestay with Exceptions (Administrative Hearing)5 5 5
Occupancy - OCC
Home Occupation 5
Administrative Hearing for Home Occupation 5 5 5
Planned Development - PDEV
Plan Amendment 10 10 10
Rezoning (Final Plan)
Rezoning (Preliminary)10 10 10
School Tenant Permits
Allowed use a
Approved by Use Permit 5 5 5
Secondary Dwelling Unit - SDU 5 5 5
Sign Permits
Specific Plan - SPEC - Amendment 10 10
Street Abandonment - STAB (Noticed for each step in Process)10 10 10 b
Street Name Change - STNE 10 10 10 c
Subdivision - SBDV
Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 5 5 5
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less lots)10 10 10
Tentative Tract map (5 or more lots)10 10 10
Voluntary Merger 5 5 5
Time Extensions
Use Permit - USE
Administrative Hearing 5 5 5
Offsite Parking (Project Site and Offsite Parking Site)5 5 5
Downtown Housing Conversion 10 10 10
Planning Commission or City Council 10 10 10
Variance - VAR 5 5 5
Days of notification required before hearing or final decision
Procedures Legal Ad Legal Ad
with Map
Postcards to Adjacent Owners
and Occupants
(including all abutting properties
and those across the street)
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 300’
Signs
(on-site
notification)
- - no notice - -
- - use requirement for body being appealed to - -
- - no notice - -
- - no notice - -
Exhibit A
11.b
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: b - Previously Adopted Notification Standards (1197 : Notification Standards)
Staff Analysis of Requested Notification Enhancements
REQUEST:
Increase the number of days that projects are noticed to neighbors, increasing a 5 day
notification to 10 days
ANALYSIS:
Current notification timeframes have been established, in part, to correlate with other timing
factors. These factors include; the day of the week that hearings are held and decisions are made,
days of the week City staff are available (weekdays), and the day of the week that legal ads
appear in the newspaper (Saturday).
The last factor, timing for newspaper ads, carries with it a deadline for getting those ads to the
paper. This deadline is something that the City cannot change, so any proposed increase is
constrained by this factor. Increasing, even slightly, the number of days of required notification
would require that the ad to go to paper an entire week earlier. This would either cut the
available time to review a project down to an amount that is not feasible, or extend the overall
project timeline to exceed established process timeframes.
The other factor in this timing, which city staff does have control over, is the day that decisions
are made (Director’s approvals or administrative hearings). Currently, those decisions are
scheduled for Fridays. Through much evaluation, staff has determined that moving the scheduled
decision day from Friday to the following Monday is a reasonable and appropriate change that
could be made. This adjustment, for example, would extend the time between when a neighbor
receives a postcard, and the date of the decision, from less than a week to at least 7 days.
If the hearing date were to change, the impact to established timeframes would be minimal (only
extending the process time one business day), and would work well with other established timing
factors that cannot be changed.
RESPONSE:
Projects that currently require a 5 day notification will be increased to 7 days. This will be
accomplished by changing the decision date for these projects from Friday to Monday.
REQUEST:
Increase the noticing distance for projects that currently require postcards sent to only adjacent
and across the street neighbors to a 300 foot notification radius.
ANALYSIS:
Projects that are currently noticed to property owners and tenants who are adjacent and across
the street are generally smaller scale projects. These projects often generate little or no response
from those persons who receive a noticing. It has been determined that increasing the notification
standards to 300 feet would not be cost efficient (often tripling the cost of notification).
However, staff has determined that increasing the notification radius to 100 feet is an appropriate
enhancement. This would clarify any ambiguity in the language currently used for this level of
11.c
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: c - Staff Analysis of Requested Notification Enhancements (1197 : Notification Standards)
noticing, and will slightly expand noticing so that neighbors who may be affected, but lie just
beyond the “adjacent property” standard, will be noticed.
RESPONSE:
Language that currently reads on the noticing standards, “postcards to adjacent owners and
occupants (including all abutting properties and those across the street), will be changed to read
“postcards to owners and occupants within 100 feet”. This will be accomplished by changing
staff procedure, and would not unreasonably increase costs.
11.c
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: c - Staff Analysis of Requested Notification Enhancements (1197 : Notification Standards)
RESOLUTION NO . 9976 (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTIN G
REVISED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT S
WHEREAS,the City follows specific notification requirements for planning entitlement s
requiring development review ; an d
WHEREAS,the City Council previously adopted Resolution 6779 (1990 Series) establishin g
development review notification requirements ; and
WHEREAS,the City's current practice exceeds the current requirements ; and
WHEREAS,the Council desires to revise the requirements to reflect current lega l
requirements and City practice in excess of those requirements .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obisp o
that Resolution No . 6779 (1990 Series) is superseded and a new Notification Requirements table i s
hereby adopted, as shown as Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated herein .
Upon motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Vice Mayor Brown, and on the followin g
AYES :
Council Members Carter, Mulholland, and Settle, Vice Mayor Brown an d
Mayor Romero
NOES :
Non e
ABSENT : Non e
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15 th day of April 2008 .
Mayor David F . Romer o
ATTEST :
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
n~a t_l
°. Lowel l
City Attorne y
vote :
R 9976
11.d
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: d - 2008 Resolution - notification requirements (1197 : Notification Standards)
Exhibit A
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT S
Procedures
AD A d
Map
POSTCARD S
TO ADJACENT
OWNERS
POSTCARD S
TO OWNER S
WITHIN 300 'Signs
Address Change 5
Administrative Actions (SDU, DA, M, LLA)5
Appeals - -Same as original a plication --
Architectural (ARC) Review 10 10 g 10
Minor or Incidental 5 e 5 a 5 e
Non-Residential adjacent to Residential Zones 10 10 10
Determination of Significant Structure 10 10 10
Demolition of Significant Structure h h 10 10
Condominium Conversions 10 10 10 g 10 1 0
Cultural Heritage -Projects on Residential Sites 5
Projects in Historical Districts b 5
Demolition on Historic Resources Sites 5
Demolition in Historic Districts b 5
Changing Master List: Resources 5
Changing Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10 1 0
Downtown Housing Conversion Permits -City Council 10 10 a g 1 0
Environmental Review h
Fence Height Exception -FH 5 e 5 a 5 e
General Plan Amendment -Map - PC and CC 10 10 10
Text - PC and CC 1 0
Home Occupation Permits 5
Home Occupation with Admin Hearing 5 5 a 5
Parcel Maps (except Plan . Dev) -Tentative Map -Director - MS 10 10 10 10
Final Map - Director 10 1 0
Planned Development Rezoning -Preliminary - PC & CC 10 10 10 1 0
Final Development Plan - Director - -no notice --
Amendments (preliminary or final) - PC 10 10 10 1 0
Rezoning /Annexation -Map - PC and CC 10 10 10 1 0
Text - PC and CC 1 0
School Tenant Permits h
School Tenant Permit with STP 5 e 5 a 5 e
School Tenant with Administrative Use Permit 5 5 a 5
Sidewalk Sales Permits - -no notice --
Sign Permits - -no notice --
Specific Plan Amendments -PC and CC 10 10 1 0
Street Abandonments -Planning Commission 10 10 10 1 0
Resolution of Intent - City Council - -no notice --
Resolution Ordering - City Council 10 10 10 c
Street Name Change -Planning Commission 10 10 10 g 10 d
Time Extensions - - no notice --
Tract Maps and Parcel Maps with PD (tentative) -PC 10 10 10 a 1 0
Use Permits -Administrative Hearing 5 a 5
PC and CC 10 10 a 1 0
Variances -Administrative Hearing 5 5 a 5
a)Notice to adjacent tenants, including those across stree t
b)Notice may be required to adjacent or any othe r
property owners at the discretion of the CDD Directo r
c)Signs must be 300' apart or less, minimum of 3 sign s
d)Minimum of 3 signs
e)Notice at least 5 days before final decisio n
f)Letters sent to persons of organizations that hav e
requested notice of demolition of significant structure s
g)Notice to tenant s
h)No specific date or time limi t
11.d
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: d - 2008 Resolution - notification requirements (1197 : Notification Standards)
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Freddy Otte, City Biologist
Doug Carscaden, Supervising Ranger
Lindsey Stephenson, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: ADOPT THE OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
in order to:
1. Approve The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan; and
2. Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Project (Attachment B)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2)).
REPORT IN BRIEF
As a result of a major City Goal to protect and maintain open space the City’s first Open Space
Maintenance Plan (“the Plan”) has been drafted. The Plan articulates standards for maintenance
activities in the City’s open space in accordance with existing practices and adopted policies.
Upon adoption by Council, the Plan will serve as a guide for significant deferred maintenance
and priority projects in the City’s open spaces as well as the establishment of consistent trailhead
amenities and signage.
DISCUSSION
Background
With the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, one of Council’s Major City Goals is Open
Space Preservation: Protect and Maintain Open Space. Presently, the City owns 15 properties
totaling approximately 3,700 acres of land protected under open space, natural reserve,
ecological reserve, or agricultural reserve status (Attachment C). Many of these open space
properties feature an established trail network of approximately 52 miles, in total, where
compatible passive recreation uses can be enjoyed by the public. The City’s open space lands
are managed by its “Open Space Team” comprised of City Administration Natural Resources
program staff and Parks and Recreation Department Ranger Service staff. Through various city
programs and community partnerships, City staff undertakes open space maintenance, patrol, site
stewardship, and environmental programs. Continued open space preservation today necessarily
entails appropriate levels of maintenance, including infrastructure enhancement to ensure user
12
Packet Pg. 81
safety and neighborhood compatibility, restoration of degraded or hazardous areas, and focused
educational opportunities.
Open Space Preservation Major City Goal Work Program
The Council’s Major City Goal to preserve open space is articulated on pages C -6 to C-12 of the
2015-17 Financial Plan. One of the two key strategies for achieving this goal is the adoption of
an Open Space Maintenance Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan details the “nuts & bolts” maintenance
practices and protocols presently undertaken in the City’s Open Space , as well as planned
enhancements for the future.
Open Space Maintenance Plan Integrates Existing Policy Documents
The proposed Plan is the City’s first – and it is one of the first in open space programs across the
nation. The Plan is premised on the protection of the City’s natural resources including plants,
animals, geologic, and historic features as well as the natural areas themselves. The Plan was
crafted in a manner that affirms existing maintenance practices undertaken by staff, contractors,
and volunteers. Those practices are all undertaken in a manner that is consistent with existing
City policies, ordinances, and plans regarding open space which is to prioritize resource
protection and then provide for passive recreation opportunities. The proposed Open Space
Maintenance Plan specifically references and integrates as its foundational policy guidance the
following existing City policy documents.
1. Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006)
2. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002)
3. Adopted Conservation Plans for City Open Space Lands
a. Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve (2011)
b. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update (2015)
c. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005)
d. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2011 Update (2011)
e. Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan (2008)
f. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2014)
g. South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2007)
h. Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2009)
i. Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2013)
j. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan (2015)
In addition, the Open Space Maintenance Plan introduces two new technical appendices:
1. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis
Obispo (2015-2020), The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County (2015)
2. City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management Plan: The Wildland–Urban Interface,
Danielle Rose Althaus, Master of City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo (2014)
The first appendix details a strategy for invasive species management using Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) protocols per the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City
of San Luis Obispo. It provides a comprehensive inventory of invasive species, ranks the priority
12
Packet Pg. 82
of managing these species based on threat and other factors, and outlines a specific control plan
for each open space property. The second technical appendix inventories vegetation types and
wildland fire threats to assets at risk, discusses management strategies, and provides an ordered
ranking of pre-fire activity that should take place by open space property.
Lastly, the Plan will be amended in the future to reflect any and all changes to the above policy
documents (and relevant future documents). As appropriate in accordance with the Conservation
and Open Space Element, Appendix C, any new open space areas will have Conservation Plans
adopted and linked to this Plan following acquisition.
Nature of the Actions Outlined in the Maintenance Plan
In addition to implementing the Conservation Plans for specific open space and reserve
properties the Plan addresses existing maintenance needs in the City’s open space lands. It
articulates the enhancement and maintenance of existing trailheads and trails in a sustainable
manner for passive recreation purposes only. It also articulates removal of illicit materials and
trails, improvements to user and natural resource safety, land restoration and stewardship
projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosion control and stabilization, education of
users via patrol and outreach and management of the wildland-urban interface areas.
Key Elements of the proposed Open Space Maintenance Plan
The Plan is divided into three sections:
The first section, Maintenance Activities, provides a listing of the maintenance activities
undertaken in the City’s various open space areas. Activities are described narratively. This is
followed by the second section, Amenities, which includes an overview of the amenities which
are located in open space areas with a specific description of each. The purpose, number of
types, specifications, typical location, vendor, standard costs, installation, maintenance
requirements and expected lifespan information is provided for each amenity. The last section of
the Plan incorporates maintenance activities with amenities on illustrative maps for each open
space area as well as provides highlights of priority maintenance and conservation projects. The
three sections of the Plan provide general and specific information in a visual manner. Each
section has a particular focus and integrates City policies as described above.
12
Packet Pg. 83
1. Maintenance Activities
Maintenance Activities have been ongoing in the City’s open space for years. They are
undertaken by staff, as well as contractors and volunteers on a daily, weekly, monthly and
annual basis. Maintenance Activities fall into six main categories of maintenance: 1)
vegetation, 2 ) structure, 3) sign, 4) trail/road, 5) drainage, and 6) trail construction. Under
each category are specific tasks. Within each of these categories are focused activities that
can occur seasonally or year-round.
2. Trailhead Amenities
A trailhead is the point at which a trail begins; the size of trailheads var y . For the purpose of
standardization, the City will have three different classification of trailhead improvements
(small, medium, and large) with differing degrees of enhancement for each type. The City
has 24 active trailheads throughout its open space system. Each amenity outlines the
purpose, design specification, location, standard costs, materials, installation, maintenance,
and lifespan of the amenity.
3. Open Space Locations
The City of San Luis Obispo owns approximately 3,700 acres of open space lands comprised
of 15 properties held in open space, natural reserve, ecological reserve, or agricultural reserve
status. The Conservation Plan implementation items are numerous and property specific.
They include activities such as: trailhead, parking, and emergency access improvements;
directional and educational trail signs and kiosks; trail installation, closures, re-routes, and
erosion control; invasive species control, fire protection and native habitat restoration; and
bridge, fence, and open space infrastructure replacement. A majority of these enhancements
will occur during this financial plan time frame and will result in substantive user safety and
resource protection improvements.
Public Engagement
In conducting the public outreach and engagement for the Plan, staff followed the City’s adopted
Public Engagement and Notification “PEN” Manual. The outreach strategy for public input on
this Plan is collaborative in nature. As such, an interactive process summarized below was used
to encourage public input through a variety of ways ranging from the City’s website (where
comments could be input) to two “Awareness Walks” at a trailhead, to Farmer’s Market displays
and input, to a public meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The following is a
summary of outreach steps taken to circulate the Plan.
12
Packet Pg. 84
Adoption of the Maintenance Plan will result in a Series of Improvements
Staff will immediately begin to implement the planned series of activities, as well as address
deferred and new maintenance projects. These activities will be guided by the Plan and will be
consistent with the timing established for the action tasks outlined in the Major City Goal: Open
Space Preservation. Progress reports on activities will be provided with Major City Goal updates
to Council. Staffing resources are in place to accomplish these tasks as the Ranger Service
Program is fully staffed with skilled rangers ready to manage, and improve and enhance existing
open spaces. Future progress reports will include statistical information regarding Ranger
Service operations including maintenance and patrol, at this time it is too early to have
comprehensive data on this topic.
Priority Projects
The Maintenance Plan contains specific information for each of the City’s open space areas. In
addition to describing the nature and frequency of the activities undertaken in each area the Plan
contains a listing of the notable priority projects for each open space or reserve property. Using
approved funding from the Open Space Protection: Maintenance CIP, Ranger Service staff will
be enhancing trail head amenities, trail signage, kiosk, trash and mutt mitts at all locations with
this major work effort running to June 2017.
12
Packet Pg. 85
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study has been prepared that identifies several areas where potential impacts exist in
the areas of Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; and, Hydrology and Water Quality. These potential impacts are characterized as de
minimis and are less than significant. Staff recommends that the City Council make the findings
contained in the proposed plan has less than significant impacts and approve the Negative
Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2)). A Negative Declaration is
prepared for a project when there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects
could result in significant adverse impacts.
CONCURRENCES
The Fire Department has reviewed the Plan and concurs with its content. On December 2, 2015,
the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Plan, received public input, and unanimously
recommended to the City Council that it adopt the Plan (Attachments D and E).
FISCAL IMPACTS
With the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council approved $285,000 in 2015-16 and the
same in 2016-17 to fund deferred and ongoing maintenance needs of the City’s Open Space
using as a guide the Open Space Maintenance Plan (to be adopted with this report). Generally,
the projects and costs are expected to include: trail head enhancement, Conservation Plan priority
projects, ongoing maintenance, and multi-model access improvements.
Costs of specific items are articulated in the Plan itself and run the gamut in complexity and cost
from a bell box which costs $100 to acquire and $24 to instal l to a large kiosk at a trail head that
costs $12,000 in materials and approximately $575 to install. All of the installations will be done
by Ranger Service staff. Tracking and reporting on all projects will be reported to Council on a
bi-annual basis at a minimum.
It is expected that the key items identified by the Plan will be supported by the Maintenance CIP
approved with the 2015-17 Financial Plan, while larger long-term capital improvement items
will be considered and reviewed separately.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Approve The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan and adopt the
Negative Declaration, with amendments.
2. Deny The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan and not adopt the
Negative Declaration., This is not recommended given numerous opportunities for public
input and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation and the Plan provides
12
Packet Pg. 86
for critical guidance to manage, maintain and enhance the City’s precious open space
resources.
3. Continue the item with specific direction if more information or discussion time is
required before taking action.
Attachments:
a a - OSMP Council Resolution
b b - Initial Study
c c - Open Space Property Map
d d - PRC 12.02.15 Minutes_Draft
e e - Public Comment
f Council Reading File - OSMP Final Draft
12
Packet Pg. 87
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
2015 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands and natural and cultural resources acquired by
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages 15 open space areas totaling
approximately 3,700 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the general public have
commented upon The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan as it has
moved through a Council-directed approval process, and staff has considered and incorporated
those comments where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan. The City Council hereby
adopts The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan, an official copy of
which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, based on the following findings:
a. The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan will guide the day-to-
day maintenance and stewardship activities undertaken at City of San Luis Obispo open
space properties. These activities include the following: enhancement and maintenance of
existing trailheads and trails, maintenance and construction of approved and sustainable
trails and open space facilities for passive recreation purposes only, removal of illicit
materials and trails, improved user and natural resource safety, land restoration and
stewardship projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosion control and
stabilization, education of users via patrols and community outreach, and management of
wildland-urban interface areas.
b. The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan is consistent with
General Plan goals and policies relating to the oversight and management of City open
space areas, specifically Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.5.6 that calls for
the development of conservation or master plans for open space properties to protect and
enhance them in a way that best benefits the community as a whole.
c. Implementation of The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan will
provide protection of identified natural resources by specifying maintenance standards
and protocols to guide appropriate public access to City open space, as well as attending
to threats to open space conservation values posed in invasive species and wildland fire
incidents, all of which is consistent with adopted Conservation Plans for those properties.
12.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: a - OSMP Council Resolution (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
R ______
2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts a Negative Declaration pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2)) for the project, an official copy of which shall be
kept on record with the City Clerk, finding that it adequately identifies all of the potential
impacts of the project and that those potential impacts identified in the areas of Aesthetics;
Biology, Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and, Hydrology and Water
Quality are de minimis and less than significant because adequate protective measures are
included in the guiding documents that pertain to the activities outlined in the project
description.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this day of , .
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
12.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: a - OSMP Council Resolution (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application # GENP 2347-2015
1. Project Title:
City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Hill, (805) 781 7211
Freddy Otte, (805) 781 7511 4. Project Location:
Various City of San Luis Obispo open space properties in the City and County of San Luis
Obispo (vicinity map attached).
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration Department, Natural Resources Program,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Land Use Designation:
Open Space
7. Zoning:
Open Space
8. Description of the Project: The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan (the “Plan”) will guide the day-to-day maintenance and stewardship activities undertaken at City of San Luis Obispo-owned open space properties. These activities include the following: enhancement and maintenance to existing trailheads and trails, maintenance and construction of approved and sustainable trails and open space facilities for passive recreation purposes only, removal of illicit materials and trails, improved user and natural resource safety, land restoration and stewardship projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosion control and stabilization, education of users via patrols and community outreach, and management of the wildland-urban interface areas.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Privately-owned agricultural lands and adjacent urban developments.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
City Council approval
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
12.b
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
12.b
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 3
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Community Development Director
12.b
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved
(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed
site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
12.b
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 5
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1, 9 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any new structures that would impede views or have an effect on a scenic vista; however, it
does propose new kiosks, trail restoration, improvements and decommissioning efforts that may alter the character and
appearance of existing trailhead areas and trail sections within City Open Space.
b), c) The project site is not within a local a state scenic highway area, and does not anticipate any improvements that would
damage scenic resources or historic buildings.
d) City Open Space closes one hour after dusk and no new lighting is anticipated or proposed by Plan. The City has a night-
sky ordinance that would apply in the event any new safety lighting is installed.
Conclusion
Although the Plan does anticipate some ground level improvements and minor structures that could change the visual
character of a portion of the various open space sites, these actions are considered less than significant because the trail
corridors will be vegetated and restored over time, and any potential impacts accruing from the installation of new trailhead
kiosks and improvements are considered de minimis as they are relatively small and are constructed of natural wood materials
intended to compliment the natural background.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) and c) The Plan does not propose to convert any Farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of statewide importance.
There are no Williamson Act contracts that apply to the site, and no changes are proposed to the sites that could result in
conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use. City Open Space includes 17 acres of class I prime farmland that will be
maintained in agricultural production pursuant to the City’s adopted Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin
Agricultural Reserve (see section 19, Earlier Analyses).
Conclusion
City Open Space that will maintained pursuant to the Plan is part of an existing open space system and no changes in use are
proposed that would affect agricultural resources.
12.b
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 6
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
3 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
3 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) and e). The Plan does not include any actions that would create new air quality impacts or violate any air quality
standards or existing plans.
Conclusion
The project sites are City open space properties bordered by open land and residential development. No changes in land use
or the operations of existing facilities are proposed that would impact air quality in any way.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4,
7, 8,
9, 12,
13, 14
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4,
7, 8,
9, 13
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
1, 4,
7, 8, 9
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 6,
12
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1, 6 X
Evaluation
12.b
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 7
a) A Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey has been prepared for each open space property (see section 19, Earlier Analyses).
There is the possibility that sensitive plant species according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) may exist near various alignments
of the trail system that will be maintained. These resources could also be compromised by Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices and wildland fuel reduction projects; however, botanical site surveys will occur prior to commencement of
work in order to ensure that impacts from these activities are avoided. City policy prohibits off-trail use.
b) The project sites contain riparian areas but these areas will not be impacted by implementation of the Plan.
c) Some of the project sites contain state and federal wetlands but these areas will not be impacted by implementation of the
Plan.
d), e), f) The Plan does not anticipate any improvements that would be considered a barrier or otherwise interfere with
migratory animals. The Plan requires compliance with all local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources in the
area, as well as other published conservation / recovery plans that apply to the project site (sources 4, 7, and 8).
Conclusion
The project will not have significant impacts to biological resources because the Plan requires all anticipated projects are to
be designed in a manner that avoids or minimizes these effects. The Plan requires compliance with all local ordinances and
policies established for the purpose of protecting biological resources, such as the City’s Conservation Guidelines, the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, and the City’s Open Space Regulations, and applicable state and
federal agency published recovery plans.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
1 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
1 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
1 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
1 X
Evaluation
a) There are approximately 11 acres of City open space (0.3% of the total land area) that categorized as a cultural or historic
resource; however, there are no activities in the Plan that was represent a substantial adverse change to these resources.
b), c) The Plan does not anticipate any action that would have an adverse change on archaeological or paleontological
resources.
d) The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a burial sensitivity map that identifies locations of known and likely burials. The
project site falls outside of the area known to be used for this purpose. The City has construction guidelines that would apply
if any human remains are discovered. The Plan does anticipate limited excavation activities and very limited ground
disturbance and no impact to human burials is likely.
Conclusion
The project site areas that will be maintained pursuant to the Plan have been modified and disturbed in the past, and proposed
activities under the Plan are unlikely to disturb any significant cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. The Plan
calls for educational kiosks to help the public understand and interpret the history of the sites and the surrounding area.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
12.b
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 8
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
5 X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
5 X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 5 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5 X
IV. Landslides? 5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 10 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
10 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
10 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
10 X
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any new structures or activities that would expose people or structures to substantial adverse
effects.
b) Some maintenance activities have the potential to cause erosion. Any project located in or near a drainage will have
sediment and erosion control measures in place. The Plan includes policies that direct projects to be designed in a manner
that minimizes the potential for soil erosion and runoff to the greatest extent possible, and some of the projects anticipated by
the Plan are specifically intended to reduce sedimentation. All activities will consider proper drainage in their design and
configuration, while installing erosion and sedimentation measures during the course of construction and until the site
becomes revegetated.
c), d), e) The Plan does not anticipate the construction of new structures that would be subject to geologic impacts. The
project site does include expansive soils in some locations, but paths and other flatwork will be designed in a manner that
takes the soil type into consideration and in no case would involve substantial risks to life or property. The site is served by
the City of San Luis Obispo sanitary sewer system, but no sanitation facilities are proposed including septic tanks or
alternative systems.
Conclusion
The Plan calls for drainage and erosion control strategies whenever there is any possibility of erosion, although such
maintenance activities are consistent with existing activities and are less than significant. Although the location is an active
seismic region and located proximate to a mapped Alquist-Priola fault, the Plan does not introduce people or structures to an
area where substantial risk of harm to life or property exists.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1, 11 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1, 11 X
12.b
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 9
Evaluation
a), b) The City of San Luis Obispo has a Climate Action Plan that requires the City to evaluate actions that would lead to
increased greenhouse gas emissions. The projects contemplated in the Plan are to maintain existing open space areas mostly
within the City limits and day to day operations of the open space properties will not generate, directly or indirectly, new
increased greenhouse gas emissions. The Plan calls for removal of dead trees and shrubs (which emit carbon) and replacing
them with native materials (which sequester carbon).
Conclusion
On balance, the long term positive effects of the project for increasing carbon sequestration capacity within the project site
are expected to outweigh any temporary impacts that might occur from the use of equipment during maintenance activities.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
9, 14 X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
9, 14
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The Plan and ongoing maintenance of open space areas will not expose people or structures to harm
from hazardous materials because there are no hazardous materials on site, routinely transported through or adjacent to the
site, and no handling of hazardous materials is proposed. The project sites are mostly outside of the Airport Land Use Plan
area, and there are no private landing strips in the vicinity. The Plan would not impair or interfere with the City’s emergency
response plans.
12.b
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 10
h) The project site area contains annual grassland, chaparral, and oak woodland, as well as non-native nuisance vegetation
species. A component of the City’s overall conservation planning includes the development of Wildfire Preparedness Plans
within each adopted Conservation Plan (see section 19, Prior Analyses) that identify the areas needing wildland fuel
reduction management. The impacts are considered less than significant and are also pre-existing, and are therefore not
affected by the Plan.
Conclusion
The project sites are existing City open space properties. Most are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. There are no uses,
past or present, that involve hazardous materials. Wildland fire fuel reduction project impacts associated with maintaining on-
site vegetation are minimal, and potential impacts are addressed through the existing Wildfire Preparedness Plans.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
9 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
9 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project would not negatively impact water quality standards or discharge requirements, introduce new
groundwater extraction, or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Plan envisions activities to restore and improve natural
systems.
d), e) and f), Some maintenance activities may have the potential to cause erosion. The Plan requires that any project located
in or near a drainage system will address sediment and erosion control, and such activities are less than significant.
g), h), i), j) There are no projects anticipated that would place new structures within a 100-year flood plain, or impede or
redirect stormwater flows.
12.b
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 11
Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant effect on water quality, with only minor maintenance activities anticipated.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 6 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
1, 6 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Conservation Guidelines and would not physically divide
an established community. No land use changes are proposed and there is no habitat conservation plan currently covering the
site.
Conclusion
There are no impacts to land use and planning associated with the project to create an Open Space Maintenance Plan.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
1 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) The project does not involve any physical changes to the site that would impact the availability of mineral resources.
Conclusion
No impact to mineral resources is anticipated or likely because the project is an Open Space Maintenance Plan involving
minimal physical changes to the project site.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
9 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
9 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
9 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
9
X
12.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 12
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
9 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
9 X
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any potential new uses that its use would not exceed applicable noise standards.
b), c) and d) The Plan does not anticipate and other new uses or facilities that would generate noise, or expose people to
unsafe noise or ground vibration levels.
e), f) Some of the project sites experience frequent overflight, but are mostly outside of the airport land use plan area, and
farther than two miles from of a public airport.
Conclusion
The Plan would involve no new day to day increases in noise that would expose people to unacceptable noise levels. The
City’s Noise Ordinance applies to all activities, and ensures that temporary noise impacts are less than significant.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project sites are existing City open space properties and there will be no population growth or displacement
associated with adoption of the Plan.
Conclusion
No impacts to population and housing will occur with the adoption and implementation of the Plan because no housing will
be constructed or displaced as part of the project.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 9 X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The Plan will not result in any increase in new demand for public services because it involves maintenance of
12.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 13
existing City open space properties.
Conclusion
Implementation of the Plan will not result in any new or altered government facilities, or changes to acceptable service ratios,
response times, school enrollment, or park use.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
9 X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Evaluation
a), b) Plan implementation will enhance the natural environment of the project sites as a municipal open space property,
while providing for passive recreational use. There is nothing in the Plan that is intended to increase new use of the project
sites.
Conclusion
The Plan is anticipated to continue supporting passive recreational uses such as hiking and scenic enjoyment. However, the
project will not increase new use of existing open space property in a way that degrades existing or planned facilities, and no
impacts are anticipated from the construction of minor new facilities, such as trails or kiosks.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The project is adoption of an Open Space Maintenance Plan to enhance the maintain the natural
12.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 14
environment of the project sites. There are no new uses proposed that would conflict with traffic management plans, change
air traffic patterns, create hazards due to a design feature, result in inadequate emergency access or conflict with an adopted
transportation plan.
Conclusion
The Plan does not propose new uses that will further contribute to adverse effects on traffic or transportation.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project would create no new demands on utilities and service systems that cannot be met with
existing supplies.
Conclusion
The proposed Plan and its implementation will have no adverse effect on utilities or service systems.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
The project is expected to have an overall beneficial effect on the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
12.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GENP-2347-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 15
There are no cumulative impacts identified or associated with the project. All of the impacts identified are less than
significant and temporary in nature.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
The project will not have adverse effects on human beings because it is an Open Space Maintenance Plan for sites that is
currently used for open space conservation and passive recreational purposes and will enhance user awareness and safety.
12.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 16
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006)
2. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html
3. SLO County APCD List of Current Rules and Clean Air Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/slo/cur.htm
4. Recovery Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western San Luis Obispo County,
California. USFWS (1998).
5. Alquist-Priola Special Studies Zones Map:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/SAN_LUIS_OBISPO/maps/SLOBISPO.PDF
6. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo (2002)
7. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, USFWS (2002)
8. South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan, NOAA (2013)
9. Public Review Draft, City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan. City of San Luis Obispo
(2015)
10. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, USDA Soils Conservation Service (1984)
11. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, City of San Luis Obispo (2012)
12. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Open Space Regulations, 12.22 (1998)
13. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Land
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County (2015)
14. City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management Plan: The Wildland-Urban Interface. Althaus, D. (2014)
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map with aerial photograph
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
An environmental document was previously adopted for the following Conservation Plans:
1. Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve
2. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, 2015 Update
3. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
4. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
5. Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan
6. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
7. Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
8. South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
9. Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
10. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan
(see: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/natural-resources/open-space-plans)
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Impacts described as Less than Significant in the Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards, and
Hydrology and Water Quality section were also previously analyzed in the earlier documents identified in section 19, above.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A.
12.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY Open Space Maintenance Plan (GENP 2347-2015) 17
ATTACHMENT 1: Vicinity map with aerial photograph
12.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: b - Initial Study (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
12.c
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: c - Open Space Property Map (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
1
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, December 2, 2015, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chair Jeff Whitener, Vice Chair Ron Regier and Commissioners Ryan Baker,
Susan Olson, Michael Parolini, Douglas Single and Susan Updegrove
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL: None
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Doug Carscaden, Freddy Otte
Public Comment
Don Green, SLO City Laguna Shores area resident. Spoke about Priolo Martin Park as a well-used and
loved park by the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to urge for landscape maintenance to
address lighting issue. He supported the collaborative meeting of Parks and Recreation, Administration
Natural Resources, Public Works parks maintenance and arborist staff onsite to discuss neighbor
concerns. Director Stanwyck confirmed that City staff and neighbors will be having a collaborative
meeting in the field.
Ken Kienaw, SLO resident across from Priolo Park. He would like to see the willow trees in the open
space trimmed as it presents a neighborhood safety issue.
Commissioner Parolini asked how the park will be visually delineated between park and open space
area. Staff Freddy Otte responded that the natural vegetation breaks will be used to visually discern the
boundaries between park and open space areas.
1. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES (Commission)
Motion: (Updegrove/Olson) Approve Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2015 as amended.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
2. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE OPEN
SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN (Carscaden, Otte, Stanwyck)
Staff provided an overview of the draft Open Space Maintenance Plan developed as part of the
adopted 2015-17 Major City Goal for Open Space Maintenance and Preservation. The plan
incorporates existing City policies as well as best practices for open space management.
Staff Carscaden highlighted the community engagement process followed using the adopted in
the City’s Public Engagement Manual (PEN). Staff Carscaden provided the Commission with
an operational update regarding Ranger staffing. Since October 8th Ranger Services has been
fully staffed consistent with 2015-17 budget allocations. As a result the division’s staffing levels
include: 1 full time Ranger Supervisor, 2 full time Rangers, 4 full time limited benefit Ran gers,
Meeting Minutes
Parks and Recreation Commission 12.d
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: d - PRC 12.02.15 Minutes_Draft (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
2
and 1 part time city worker five Ranger. As a result of this staffing Rangers are in the City’s
open space approximately 250 hours a week (excluding breaks and administrative paperwork
time). In the 45 days since the division has been fully staffed and trained 43 citations have been
issued in the open space and approximately 20% of that has been at Bishop Peak. This
additional Ranger staffing has resulted in increased open space protection through patrol and
maintenance
Commission Comments:
Commissioner Olson asked about benches and if there is an opportunity to create memorials.
Director Stanwyck answered that the City has a bench memorial program that would be
implemented. Commission Olson asked about cost sharing opportunities with fencing. Staff
Carscaden responded that city staff will coordinate with adjacent land owners as opportunities
arise.
Vice Chair Regier asked about additional trailhead access at Bishop Peak with new development.
Director Stanwyck replied that Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, has engaged in
preliminary discussions with private land owners to identify future public trail access needs.
Commissioner Parolini asked for clarification on total acres included in the maintenance plan.
He recommended grammatical corrections, adding links to policy documents referenced and
correction of page numbers. Director Stanwyck said that the final maintenance plan will be
offered electronically on the City’s website to provide users with direct links to all policy
documents. Commissioner Parolini suggested that required “Ranger hours” necessary to address
the entire plan be added.
Commissioner Single asked about park patrol. Director Stanwyck confirmed that patrol of parks
is now provided by the Police Department and designated Neighborhood Enforcement Officers.
Commissioner Single expressed concern that the reallocation of Ranger staffing resources to
open space could have a direct impact on the patrol and safety of our City’s neighborhood parks.
Commission Updegrove asked about the schedule of implementation. Director Stanwyck
responded that implementation would begin immediately upon Council’s approval.
Commission Baker thanked staff for their efforts in drafting the Open Space Maintenance Plan.
Chair Whitener asked about implementation priorities. Director Stanwyck said that staff and the
public have identified trailhead amenities are the top priority in this budget cycle.
Public Comments:
Carol Hall, Highland Drive resident said there is heavy vehicle traffic at Oakridge causing a
safety concern. She expressed that she has not received a prompt response from the non-
emergency dispatch phone number and asked about the Ranger work schedule. Director
Stanwyck responded that the City will be launching a multi-Department effort with the Highland
Drive Neighborhood at the beginning of the year to discuss the traffic and fire safety concerns.
Staff Carscaden responded that rangers now patrol the open space seven days per week during a
wide variety of times. Staff will look into communications between dispatch, other and
neighbors. Vice Chair Regier supported multi-department efforts towards resolving this traffic
safety issue.
12.d
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: d - PRC 12.02.15 Minutes_Draft (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3
Carla Saunders, Oakridge resident, said she has served on many City committees and task forces
including the City’s open space task force in the 1990s which created the Open Space program.
She has been involved in open space issues for the past twenty years. She would like to see
consistent enforcement and commitment to Ranger patrol and enforcement of open space.
Director Stanwyck acknowledged Ms. Saunders’ concerns and noted that six weeks in, to full
Ranger Staffing, there has been a marked increased enforcement. . Director Stanwyck shared
that staff will return to the Commission after enough time has passed with new staffing in the
Ranger program to present data. Commissioners Parolini, Updegrove, and Olson noted
increased compliance with open space regulations and comments about it.
Motion: (Updegrove/Parolini) Recommendation that the City Council Approve the City of San
Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
Motion: (Regier/Baker) Recommend that the City Council Approve a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for the Project.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT (Stanwyck)
Director Stanwyck presented to the Commission a brief overview of Parks and Recreation
Programming for December. She shared that staff has communicated with Richard Schmidt, a
community member, who expressed his concern about the shortage of parks in the north Broad Street
area and she wanted Commissioners to be aware of this neighborhood concern. The Sinshiemer pool
replastering work continues on-time. The Thanksgiving “Gobble Wobble” fun-run at the Laguna
Lake Golf Course was a huge success in part due to Cal Poly recreational student volunteers. She
reminded the Commission about upcoming park closures for annual maintenance. She added that the
Reindeer Run will be held this Saturday, December 5th, at Mitchel Park. The Ranger staff received
chainsaw training in preparation of El Nino. Director Stanwyck said she is excited that seven
members of the Parks and Recreation Department will be graduating soon from the City’s
Leadership training programs. She forecasted that the Public Art Master Plan may be ready to
present to the Commission in January 2016.
4. SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS (all)
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Baker reported that adult softball has season
has concluded. The softball nets at Santa Rosa Park have been installed. Staff Melissa
Mudgett updated the Commission about the Pickleball Pilot program and that staff will
return to the Commission in March 2016 with updates and recommendations.
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC): Vice Chair Regier said that the BAC met to discuss
proposed development for Avila Ranch. He said the City of SLO received an award for
being a bicycle friendly city. He added that the BAC has been reviewing the DeAnza trail.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Parolini
said the Damon Garcia fields are in very poor condition with numerous bald spots. Parks
Maintenance staff will be closing fields for renovation. Parks Maintenance staff has been
identified non-permitted users practicing at the fields.
12.d
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: d - PRC 12.02.15 Minutes_Draft (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
4
Jack House Committee: Commissioner Updegrove said the Jack House is being decorated
for Victorian Christmas. December 20th the house will be closed for annual maintenance.
The Jack House Elevator Removal Project is anticipated to begin construction in
Tree Committee: Commissioner Olson reported that Committee did not meet in November.
The Tree Committee will be hosting a “Lunch n’ Learn” about tree removal processes at the
Corporation Yard, 25 Prado, on December 10th.
Youth Sports: Commissioner Single said that the Youth Sports Association only meets
quarterly and there was no report.
5. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Parolini said that the State of California for Storm water support is providing
reimbursement options for local conservation efforts. Go to stormrewards.org to sign up.
Adjourned at 7:34pm to the Regular Meeting on January 6, 2016 at the Council Chambers,
990 Palm Street, at 5:30pm.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on __________________.
________________________________________________
Melissa C. Mudgett, Recreation Manager
12.d
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: d - PRC 12.02.15 Minutes_Draft (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Hill, Robert
To: Carscaden, Doug
Subject: RE: Comments on Draft Maintenance Plan
From: Greg Bettencourt [mailto:gmbett@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 9:01 PM
To: Carscaden, Doug
Subject: Comments on Draft Maintenance Plan
Some thoughts. I tried to read everything but i got bogged down in the detail of non-bike open
space areas. You are the best judge of what is appropriate so these are just ideas for you to
think about.
Bridge repair - how about including checking foundation/supports?
Cattle Guards - how about “maintaining trail-to-cattle guard transition area”?
Barricade/closure signs - this sentence is unclear.
Road and Parking Maintenance - “maintenance of limited surface replacement” is confusing to
me.
Trail repair - might change “and barbed wire fencing.” to “and repair fencing.”
Remove Loose Rocks - This is an interesting one. I think I recognize you dancing around
liability issues. I can’t think of any other types of hazards which would need to be “maintained
out of a trail” that don’t get you into liability issues i.e. safety issues. Nevertheless, “Remove
Loose Rocks” seems particularly specific.
New Trails - Might be clearer and more accurate to say “Construction of new trails, reroutes or
decommissioning when an existing trail is not sustain or when there is an expansion of open
space land.” Reroute - Abandon and decommission a section of existing trail which is unsafe
or not sustainable and relocate that section within the trail corridor.”
Decommission - Abandon and then rehabilitate a trail or section of trail using boulders, fencing,
new vegetation, reseeding and excess brush materials
Parking - Johnson Ranch is not on this list of "typical locations” Does that mean no new parking
there?
Signage - Level of Difficulty No examples. Have you figured out how you are doing that yet?
Cerro San Luis - This doesn’t allow for reroutes. Is that because of the conservation plan?
Some are certainly needed.
Stenner Springs Open Space - does it matter that the “Return Trail” isn’t shown? Also, I hate
to see that no new trails are allowed. I don’t have any in mind but I could imagine some
connectors coming off of other properties.
Thanks,
Greg
12.e
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
12.e
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
From: Gary Felsman General [mailto:backpackingary1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:57 PM
To: Advisory Bodies
Cc: Stanwyck, Shelly; Carscaden, Doug; Hill, Robert; E-mail Council Website
Subject: Comments to Parks and Recreation Commission for "2015 City of San Luis Obispo Open Space
Management Plan"
11-17-2015
San Luis Obispo City
Parks and Recreation Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Commissioners and Staff;
I have had a chance to review the draft 2015 City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Management
Plan.
Overall I think this document is a big step forward to the regular maintenance of the City’s Open
Space Areas and Recreational Trails. This combined with the increased number of Rangers,
regular Volunteers like my wife and myself. I believe the many goals set forth in the plan can be
accomplished as we all work together to get things done. The dedication of Doug and his crew
clearly shows every time we work with them. I personally would like to see a couple more rangers
to augment what is going and to spread the work load outlined in this plan.
From what I can tell the plan lists the many tasks for each area and the details are left to the staff
to complete as we move forward. Each area is different and will require various approaches to
achieve the goals outlined in the plan.
After reviewing the documents I found a few things that at least should be looked at prior to final
approval. I added to categories “If Approved and “If Necessary”, “If Necessary” area was added
just in case it is needed to help protect a given the resource area.
1. Page 23, I would add Johnson Ranch to the list of Parking Areas.
2. Page 30, Under New Trails we have N/A. I would like to see a different designation here (Like “If
Approved”) if the “Bishop Peak Conservation Plan” is updated to help disperse people around the
Back Side of Bishop Peak to the Felsman Loop. It could be updated later to reflect that, but I would
not preclude the option.
3. Page 36, I would change New Trails to If Approved, if we ever come done from the “M:” Trail,
under reroute, I would change it to “If Necessary”
4. Page 38, Future Bob Jones Trail, I think is now on the other side of S. Higuera St. As approved by
the EIR.
5. Page 40, Irish Hills, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
6. Page 42, Islay Hill, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
7. Page 43, The map shows the Islay Bike Path Corridor. As part of the maintenance project
a. I would like to have the City install three permanent Mutt Mitts stations with Trash
Cans, one at each of the road entrances on Wavertree Street. This will help reduce
the amount of dog poop that is left along the path. The Poop Fairy Group has
placed temporary trash cans and bags for people to use. It has really help the
situation immensely.
b. Mary Lou Johnson has applied for a grant from the City of SLO to help spruce up
the area. She has met with many members of the City to discuss this trail and Islay
Hill Park.
12.e
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
c. We should look at resurfacing or sealing portions of the trail where necessary.
8. Page 44, Johnson Ranch, I did not see anything about addressing the parking issues at the
trailhead. I thought it was on the list, but should be a long range goal to accomplish as we move
forward.
9. Page 46, Laguna Lake, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
10. Page 48, Reservoir Canyon, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
11. Page 52, South Hills, I would change reroute to “If Necessary”
12. Just a general comment about trash cans. They should probably be inside the trailhead gate to
prevent people from just driving up and dumping their trash randomly. I have seen this from past
experience.
With these minor changes and the assumption the exact details of how each task is completed will
be left up to Staff. The plan should go forward. The plan should be reviewed periodically to update
any actions taken, what has been completed and what might be needed in the future..
Thank You for your time. If there are any questions or comments please contact me.
Sincerely,
Gary Felsman
1266 Sumac Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)473-3694.
12.e
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Oscar Loeza
1121 OrcuttRd,Spc 17 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
November 3, 2015
City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Mayor and City Council 990 Palm
Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I am writing a letter because Ihave a concern about invasive plant species in the San Luis
Obispo County. First, I would like to mention that invasive plant species can cause serious ecological
disturbances and destroy natural habitats. Based on my research invasive plants species tend to
threaten wetlands, sand dunes, as well as fire prone areas (The U. S. National Arboretum). I feel that
this relates to San Luis Obispo County because I've seen many homes with many non native plants.
Plants such as the Scotch broom, genista monspessulana, pampas grass, ice plant, Cape ivy can often
overrun the presence of native plants in which some species of birds and animals rely on for
protection and nesting. Also, plants such as the Scottish broom can become fairly easy to catch on
fire. Furthermore, an article from the San Luis Obispo Tribune states that ". . . invasive plants cost
$82 million a year in control, and monitoring.. ." (Invasive species can crowd out native plants).
I believe that it is important to educate people about this issue because these invasive
plants can spread and take over areas where native plants are present. If stores would stop
offering these species of plants and encouraged and educated shoppers on why nativeplants are
better, it would ultimately sustain the natural biodiversity of the county.
Sincerely, Oscar Loeza
12.e
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
To: The Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Residents of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve Subject: Draft "Open Space Maintenance Plan"
Dear Chairman and Honorable Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission,
We are very appreciative that the City Council made "Protection & Maintenance of
Open Space" a highest City goal for 2015-2017, and that your Commission joined
with the Planning Commission in recommending, additional Ranger positions to
add meaningful support to achieve this goal. (attachment #1).
While we were disappointed that the Park & Recreation Department Director and
Assistant City Manager did not join the Commissions in supporting these additional
Ranger positions, we believe that Council's eventual addition of two part-time
Rangers can help significantly in achieving the primary purpose of open space---
protection of natural resources---- IF A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF
THE TOTA L TIME OF RANGER STA FF IS DEDICAT ED TO RANGER PATROLS IN OPEN
SPACES TO ENFOR CE T HE WI LDLIFE-P ROTE CTIVE R EQUIRE M E NTS OF TH E C ITY'S
1998 OPEN S PAC E OR DINANCE. These include; No nighttime use of Open Space, as wildlife
moves freel y through the open space at night, and wildfire danger increases with night
use; Stay on trails, as this protects both wildlife and their habitats; Dogs must be on leashes,
as this prevents unleashed dogs from "running" wildlife in protected open spaces and
protects habitats .
The recently featured, Tribune article on the City's Open Space highlighted this lack
of enforcement as a fundamental problem; "Night-hiking has been prohibited in
San Luis Obispo since 1998, but the city has never had enough ranger staffing
available to consistently enforce that and other rules, such as keeping dogs on a
leash---and trail users knew it"
As residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, we
have observed positive beginnings of increased public awareness of the City's
Open Space Ordinance requirements. But unfortunately, there continue to be
many incidents of disregard for them. These include;
• Almost nightly, after hours, night use of the Reserve
• Off-leash dogs that frequently "run" wildlife
• Illegal mountain biking in the Reserve, both on hiking trails and off-trail in wildlife
habitats
• Hiking off trail
• Overnight camping
• Occasional, open fires at night in this very high fire area
During WOW Week, we were also very disappointed when hundreds of WOW Leaders
12.e
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
and WOW participants descended in one large gathering in the Bishop Peak Natural
Reserve for a massive, competitive group hike to the summit, spurred on by the top-
decibel, blasting of multiple boom boxes. The City's Open Space Ordinance's
prohibition of "large gatherings" in open spaces was obviously violated, and adjacent
narrow residential streets were blocked and overwhelmed by the huge number of
cars. Fire trucks would have been unable to reach any number of houses during this
large gathering. But perhaps the worst part was the inadvertent message that was sent
to hundreds of incoming students being introduced to our City. When twenty or so
WOW Leaders and participants were asked about this WOW experience as they were
coming out of the Bishop Peak trailhead, NOT ONE STUDENT KNEW THAT THEY HAD
BEEN IN A NATURAL RESERVE; NOR ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURAL
RESOURCES BEING PROTECTED IN OUR CITY; NOR WHY THERE WERE REGULATIONS THAT
THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO FOLLOW. (if people don't know why they are being asked
to follow a regulation, they are less likely to do so .) Disappointingly, this occurred after
Staff's "education of over 1,000 WOW leaders about appropriate Open Space uses".
We believe that in the future it is important that Natural Resource Staff "educate"
WOW Leaders and incoming students about the City's Natural Reserves; the rich
wildlife and habitats that City residents value and protect; and why it is important to
follow the wildlife-protective requirements of the City's Open Space Ordinance.
We also believe that new trailhead signage should emphasize, the words "NATURAL
RESERVE". (In a number of existing trailhead signs the words "Natural Reserve" are in
significantly smaller letters.)
We also respectfully request the following, critical clarification;
1. At the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting on December 2, we ask that
the public and the Commission be given "the big picture" of how Ranger
Service time will be allotted, if the draft "Open Space Maintenance Plan" is
adopted. Specifically;
* The total number of full and part-time rangers.
* An estimate of what percentage of the estimated total, combined Ranger hours per
week/month, on the average, will be dedicated to patrolling Open Spaces for enforcement of the
wildlife -protective requirements of the City's Open Space Ordinance. In other words, what
percentage of total Ranger time will be dedicated primaril y to the primary purpose of Open
Space....the protection of natural resources?
* A realistic estimate of what percentage of the estimated total, combined
Ranger hours per week/month, on the average, will be dedicated to maintenance
of trails and the building of new trails in the City's Open Spaces? This primarily
supports passive recreation, the secondary purpose of open space. Ranger Staff
has said in meetings that the vast majority of their time in Open Space is spent on
trail building and trail maintenance, which supports passive recreation, the
secondary
purpose of open space.
12.e
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
* The above estimates of Ranger Staff time division, applied specifically to the Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve.
* We request that a summary of the responses to the above be included in the minutes
for this meeting.
2. A reoccurring problem is also that there are apparently no telephone numbers to reach the
Ranger Service outside of regular City Hall hours. This is especially problematic, as night use
of Open Space is a large problem, but there seems to be no way to reach the Ranger Service
at night.
Responding to last night's use of open space on the following day, does little to "educate"
those who were violating the City's Open Space Ordinance. As there is more use of open
space on weekends and holidays, there is also a correspondingly larger need to also reach
the Ranger service on weekends and holidays.
For your review, we have attached previous correspondences on this issue. (attachments #2, #3 )
Thank you for your consideration .
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Eltzroth
Mary Kay Eltzroth
Richard Frankel
Marilyn Kinsey
Noni Smyth
Kathy a pRoberts
Jim apRoberts
Julie Frankel
Phil Ruggles
Joanne Ruggles
Carla Saunders
Felicia Cashin
Carol Hall
Helen Sipsas
12.e
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Don Ramirez
Leslie Stanley
Nita Laloggia
Janice Elliott
Keith Elliott Peter
Karacsony Gail
Karacsony
Michelle Clark
Suzie Beresky
David Stafford
Beverly Gingg
Bryan Gingg
B.K. Richard
Gail Steele
Roger Steele
12.e
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
PH1 - 10
12.e
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: e - Public Comment (1196 : Open Space Maintenance Plan)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Michael Codron, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: MEDICAL MARIJUANA RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution reaffirming that the City’s permissive zoning code prohibits marijuana
businesses, operations and uses, including cultivation of medical marijuana in the city, and
making a finding that the resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
DISCUSSION
Background
New State Laws
The State Legislature recently enacted, and the Governor signed into law, a package of
legislation providing for the comprehensive regulation of medical marijuana at the statewide
level. Assembly Bills 243 and 266, and Senate Bill 643, create an extensive statewide regulatory
system for the cultivation, manufacture, testing, storage, dispensing, distribution and transport of
medical marijuana.
These bills take effect January 1, 2016, but the regulations implementing them are not expected
to be in place until 2018. Operators that are working in compliance with local and state
requirements on or before January 1, 2018 can continue operations until their application for
state licensure is either approved or denied. The new legislation provides for a “dual licensing”
process whereby State licenses will not be issued to operators that are not operating in
compliance with local regulation or to operators in jurisdictions that prohibit medical marijuana
uses and activities.
Current law permits a local entity to prohibit any and all medical marijuana business or activity
within its jurisdiction or to permit and regulate such activities as deemed appropriate by the local
legislative body. The newly adopted state laws expressly do not apply to individu al qualified
patients or caregivers growing up to 100 square feet of marijuana for an individual patient or up
to 500 square feet for up to 5 qualified patients. Rather, the new laws focus on the licensing and
regulation of larger scale collective-cooperative-commercial activities.
New Health and Safety Code Section 11362.777, enacted by AB 243, directs the Department of
Food and Agriculture to establish a Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program, requires both a state
13
Packet Pg. 122
and local permit, and prohibits submission of an application for a state license if the proposed
cultivation would violate any local ordinance or regulation or if medical marijuana uses are
prohibited by the jurisdiction in which the cultivation is proposed to occur, either expressly or
under principles of permissive zoning. It also provides that if a city does not have land use
regulations or ordinances regulating or prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana, either expressly
or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to ad minister a conditional
permit program, then commencing March 1, 2016, the Department of Food and Agriculture shall
be the sole licensing authority for medical marijuana cultivation applicants in that city. Health
and Safety Code Section 11362.777(c)(4). The State is not anticipated to adopt final regulations
establishing the scope and limits of cultivation activities under State licensing standards until
approximately 2018.
Current City Law and Enforcement Approach
The City has a “permissive zoning” code, which means that uses that are not expressly or
conditionally allowed, or deemed to be similar to expressly allowed uses, are prohibited within
the City. Permissive zoning effectively acts as a passive prohibition on uses not listed in the
City’s zoning code as permitted uses. The City, in Municipal Code Section 17.22.101 C
provides:
“Interpretation of Use Listing. These regulations are intended to permit similar types of
uses within each zone. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66,
shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed
subject to use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be
used as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses
to a zone.”
Table 9 of that section lists uses allowed or conditionally allowed in each zone. No use that is
prohibited by or in conflict with state or federal law is included as an allowed or conditionally
allowed use in Table 9 or any other provision of the City’s Zoning Code. The City has
consistently taken the position that marijuana uses are not allowed under the City’s code, both
because they are not expressly or conditionally allowed and because they cannot be deemed
similar due to continuing conflicts with state and federal law.
On that basis, the City consistently has declined to process applications for brick and mortar
medical marijuana dispensaries, and to issue licenses for mobile delivery services operating
within the City. The same is true for commercial cultivation operations. The City has initiated
code enforcement action on commercial cultivation operations on the grounds that such uses are
not expressly or conditionally allowed under the Zoning Code and, therefore, are prohibited.
This permissive zoning prohibition related to medical marijuana was formally asserted by the
City, as approved by the Council, as to both brick and mortar and mobile dispensaries, in a 2012
Grand Jury report response.
In May 2014, staff presented regulations to Council that would have expressly prohibited
dispensaries (brick and mortar or mobile) and limited and regulated personal or collective
cultivation activities. Council opted not to pursue those regulations after hearing public concerns
and, instead, proceeded with regulation directly addressing only the potential nuisance/odor
13
Packet Pg. 123
effects of cultivation activities. Those regulations along with other applicable standards would
continue to be enforceable under the new state laws, as would the City’s permissive zoning
prohibition. The City has not pursued enforcement action against non-commercial activities (i.e.,
small indoor and/or outdoor grows limited to qualified patients and caregivers for the personal
use of qualified patients), that are not in violation of existing nuisance regulations.
Finally, Council should be aware that the language in the new State regulations that is driving the
need for action by March 1, 2016, is viewed by many as an unintended remnant of prior drafts
that was not intended to be included in the final legislation (in part because the language only
exists as to the cultivation provisions and seems otherwise inconsistent with the strong
protections of local control reflected throughout the legislation). Thus, there may well be
cleanup language that eliminates the March 1 deadline, but moving forward with the
recommended resolution is the most cautious approach to ensure local control if that legislation
does not materialize.
League of California Cities Recommendation:
The League of California Cities has been working diligently to assist member cities in
understanding and appropriately responding to the new legislation in a timely way that ensures
informed decision making about local control options. For cities like San Luis Obispo, which
have relied on permissive zoning to address medical marijuana operations, the League has
recommended the adoption of a resolution (effective upon adoption) formally affirming and
clarifying the City’s interpretation and application of its existing zoning code.
Accompanying this report is a resolution (Attachment A) that would clarify the City’s
longstanding interpretation that medical marijuana cultivation is a prohibited use in the City,
because it is not expressly or conditionally allowed under the City’s permissive zoning code.
Staff will continue to evaluate the options available to the City Council regarding its local
authority for permitting other uses under the new regulations. However, reaffirming the City’s
permissive zoning code is an important step in preserving local control of cultivation activities as
the state develops its regulations. In the future, the City would have the option to defer to the
state licensing regulations if the City determines the state regulations create a desirable
regulatory construct. Alternatively, the current action will ensure that the City will have the
option of maintaining its existing permissive zoning prohibition.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department and Police Department have reviewed and concur
with the proposed approach.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The resolution confirming existing law does not make any change in the current or historic
policy or practice of the City, and the whole of such action is not an activ ity which may cause
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment under Public
Resources Code Section 21065 or California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines
13
Packet Pg. 124
Section 15378(a). Thus, the recommended action is exempt from, and not a project subject to,
environmental review.
Even if the adoption of this resolution reaffirming and confirming existing law are determined to
constitute approval of a project under CEQA, and even if the project is not subject to any
statutory or categorical exemptions, as a matter of common sense, it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the activity in question, the adoption of this resolution reaffirming
existing law, may have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA guidelines section
15061(b)(3).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Decline to adopt the Resolution. Council could decline to adopt the recommended
resolution and opt to simply rely on the staff level application of the City’s permissive zoning
code. Staff would continue to decline applications for licenses, permits and entitlements for
medical marijuana operations or uses and would continue to take enforcement action against
unpermitted operations. This alternative is not recommended because the most clear and certain
way to ensure the City’s right to assert its permissive zoning authority is to have a Council
affirmation of the permissive zoning principles and their application to medical marijuana
operations in the City. Failure to take affirmative action to clarify the City’s position could
create undesirable ambiguity and in an unlikely, but worst case, could potentially result in ceding
permitting and regulatory authority of cultivation activities to the State of California.
2. Adopt the Resolution and direct staff to develop and ordinance for the permitting or land
use regulation or medical marijuana cultivation and/or other uses that would either expressly
prohibit or conditionally allow activities that are currently unpermitted under permissive zoning
and give staff direction as to the desired scope of regulations. This alternative is not
recommended since the Council recently considered this policy alternative and det ermined that
more explicit regulation was not necessary for our community. Should the council direct staff to
pursue this alternative, staff would have to assess an approach to conducting the policy analysis
and develop an outreach plan, as this topic is not currently in any department’s work plan.
Depending on the scope of the desired approach and the level of public outreach directed, it is
questionable whether this alternative could be accomplished by the existing March 2016
deadline.
Attachments:
a a - Resolution Permissive Zoning Medical Marijuana
13
Packet Pg. 125
R_______
RESOLUTION NO. (2015 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING THAT THE CITY’S
PERMISSIVE ZONING CODE PROHIBITS MARIJUANA BUSINESSES,
OPERATIONS AND USES, INCLUDING CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA IN THE CITY, AND MAKING A FINDING THAT THE
RESOLUTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3)
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that the Compassionate Use Act (CUA),
passed in 1996 by the voters of the State of California, provides a defense to criminal
prosecution for the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes and the
Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) establishes a voluntary participation, State-authorized
medical marijuana identification card and registry database for verification of qualified patients
and their primary caregivers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly affirms that this Resolution is not intended, and
shall not be construed, to interfere with any right, defense or immunity afforded to qualified
patients or their caregivers under those acts; and
WHEREAS, in October 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law Assembly
Bill 266, Assembly Bill 243 and Senate Bill 643, collectively known as the Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), which together create an extensive statewide regulatory
and licensing system for the cultivation, manufacture, testing, dispensing, distribution and
transport of medical marijuana, effective January 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the MMRSA includes certain exemptions from state licensing requirements
for medical marijuana cultivation by individual qualified patients, and primary caregivers with
no more than five patients; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current and intended ongoing regulatory practice regarding
cultivation by such qualified patients and caregivers is to direct enforcement resources only
toward those uses and activities that result in nuisance or adverse health and safety impacts to
other City residents or neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, AB 266 contains most of the core provisions of the regulatory structure,
and authorizes the Department of Consumer Affairs, through a newly created Bureau of Medical
Marijuana Regulation, to license and control all medical marijuana businesses in the state. AB
266 includes local control provisions, such as a dual licensing structure requiring a state license
and a local license or permit, and provides criminal immunity for licensees; and
WHEREAS, SB 643 establishes criteria for licensing of medical marijuana businesses,
regulates physicians and recognizes local authority to levy taxes and fees; and
13.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: a - Resolution Permissive Zoning Medical Marijuana (1205 : Medical Marijuana Resolution)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
WHEREAS, AB 243 establishes a regulatory and licensing structure for indoor and
outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana under the jurisdiction of the Department of Food and
Agriculture, and requires dual licensing by the state and the city for the cultivation of medical
marijuana within a city; and
WHEREAS, neither the CUA, the MMPA, nor the MMRSA preempt or otherwise
preclude the City’s exercise of its local land use and zoning authority; and
WHEREAS, newly adopted Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77(c)(4), added by
AB 243, states that if a city does not have land use regulations or ordinances regulating or
prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana, either expressly or otherwise under principles of
permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional permit program pursuant to that
section, then as of March 1, 2016, the Department of Food and Agriculture will be the sole
licensing authority for medical marijuana cultivation applicants in that city; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section Chapter 17.22, Use Regulations,
sets forth the uses allowed by zones in the City and, in Section 17.22.010 C, provides that the
regulations are intended to permit similar types of uses within each zone; that the Community
Development Director shall determine whether uses that are not listed are deemed allowed or
allowed subject to use permit approval in a certain zone; and that the interpretation procedure
shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of
uses to a zone; and
WHEREAS, marijuana uses, including the cultivation of medical marijuana, remain
illegal under federal law and the Council expressly declares that nothing in the City’s permissive
zoning regulations is intended, or shall be interpreted, to allow or authorize the issuance of any
City license, entitlement or permit for any use or activity that is otherwise prohibited by state or
federal law, and that the City’s zoning code does not expressly or implicitly permit or make legal
any use or activity that is illegal under state or federal law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby expressly affirms that the City zoning regulations
are adopted and operate under principles of permissive zoning and that uses that are not
expressly allowed or conditionally allowed under the zoning regulations are prohibited within the
City of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS the City has consistently asserted its permissive zoning regulations as a
basis to decline City permitting, licensing and entitlement applications for medical marijuana
businesses and operations; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2012, the City Council voted unanimously to approve its
response to the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury report entitled “Out of Sight, Out of Mind-
Medical Marijuana in San Luis Obispo County”(“the 2012 Response”), wherein the City Council
formally affirmed the City’s permissive zoning regulations, noted that neither brick and mortar
medical marijuana collectives, nor collective delivery services were listed allowed uses in the
Municipal Code and stated that, since such uses are not specifically allowed, “medical marijuana
uses including medical marijuana collective delivery services are prohibited ;” and
13.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: a - Resolution Permissive Zoning Medical Marijuana (1205 : Medical Marijuana Resolution)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 3
WHEREAS, marijuana businesses, operations or land uses, including but not limited to,
medical marijuana cultivation, manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, dispensing, transport and
delivery, are not expressly or conditionally allowed uses under the City’s permissive zoning
regulations and, therefore, such uses are prohibited within the City under its permissive zoning
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City’s zoning regulations do not establish the local consent required as
a condition of the issuance of any state license for the cultivation of medical marijuana under the
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, and related statutory or regulatory licensing
provisions as adopted in October 2015 or as they may subsequently be amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that for the reasons set forth above and herein:
1. The City Council reaffirms and declares that the City’s zoning regulations, as set
forth in Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, are adopted and operate
under principles of permissive zoning.
2. The City Council expressly declares that, under the City’s permissive zoning code,
any use that is not listed as an allowed or conditionally allowed use under the zoning
regulations is prohibited. Marijuana uses, including but not limited to the cultivation
of medical marijuana, are not listed as allowed or conditionally allowed within the
City, are declared not to be similar to any listed allowed use and, therefore, have
never been and are not currently allowed in the City.
3. The City Council further declares and directs that nothing in the City’s permissive
zoning regulations or in this Resolution shall be interpreted to authorize or allow the
issuance of any City license, entitlement or permit for, or to otherwise make legal or
allow, any use or activity that is prohibited by local, state or federal law or to allow
any use or activity that would otherwise constitute a nuisance under the laws of the
City.
4. The City Council directs the State of California that no state license for the cultivation
of marijuana, including medical marijuana, within the City of San Luis Obispo should
be issued because such uses are not allowed under the City’s zoning regulations.
5. The reaffirmation and confirmation of existing law does not make any change in the
current or historic policy or practice of the City, and the whole of such action is not
an activity which may cause direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment under Public Resources Code Section 21065 or California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15378(a) and, therefore, is
exempt from, and not a project subject to, environmental review.
6. Even if the adoption of this resolution reaffirming and confirming existing law are
determined to constitute approval of a project under CEQA, and even if the project is
13.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: a - Resolution Permissive Zoning Medical Marijuana (1205 : Medical Marijuana Resolution)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 4
not subject to any statutory or categorical exemptions, as a matter of common sense,
it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question,
the adoption of this resolution reaffirming and confirming existing law, may have a
significant effect on the environment under CEQA guidelines section 15061(b)(3).
Upon motion of _____________, seconded by_________________, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this____ day of __________, 2015.
______________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
_______________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________________, __________.
_______________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
13.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: a - Resolution Permissive Zoning Medical Marijuana (1205 : Medical Marijuana Resolution)
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Water Division Manager
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manger
Ron Munds, Utilities Services Manager
SUBJECT: 2015 WATER RESOURCES STATUS REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the 2015 Water Resources Status Report.
DISCUSSION
The 2015 Water Resources Status Report (Attachment A) provides an overview and update of the
City’s water resources. These reports have been provided to the City Council and community since
1985 and serve to both inform future policy decisions as well as provide historical documentation of
existing water conditions.
2015 Water Year Summary
Potable Water Use 4,988 acre feet
Recycled Water Use 168 acre feet
Per Capita Demand Per Day 97.3 gallons*
Per Capita Demand - 10 year running average 114.4 gallons
Water Projection Model as of November 30, 2015 3.5 years
Water Resource Availability (planning data)
Primary Water Supply
Reliability Reserve
Secondary Water Supply
10,005 acre feet
7,330 acre feet
1,174 acre feet
1,501 acre feet
* As a comparison, water demand in 2014 was 108.5 gallons per person per day. The reduction to 97.3
gallons per person per day amounts to a 10 percent decrease in one year.
Change in Reporting Period
Beginning this year, the reporting period has changed from the calendar year to the “water year”; a
timeframe from October 1 through September 30. This will cover the timeframe in which rainfall
typically occurs in our region and is consistent with other water reporting periods. The water year is
designated by the calendar year in which it ends. This report covers water year 2015.
14
Packet Pg. 130
Response to Drought
Following the Governor’s Executive order in April 2015, the State Water Board adopted
mandatory reductions with the City’s required reduction at 12 percent. The community has done
a laudable job in meeting the mandated reductions and has continued to demonstrate its
commitment to resource conservation and stewardship.
As the drought continues into its fifth year, both the State and the City have taken increasing actions
to encourage water conservation through active outreach regarding the importance of water
conservation continue. Efforts made by the City in 2015 have included hosting a community
water forum, offering rebates and free water saving fixtures, and numerous site visits to assist
concerned residents. City staff aimed for a 17% reduction during warmer months in which
irrigation typically occurs to offset the lower reductions anticipated during winter months in
order to achieve the cumulative 12% reduction for the period from June 2015 to end of February
2016.
The following table is a summary of the water use reduction, compared to 2013, which
demonstrates the community’s success in reaching this goal.
Water Use Reduction from 2013
Month Percent Reduction
June 20
July 26
August 25
September 19
October 19
Cumulative 22.6
Recycled Water
Recycled water use for calendar year 2014 totaled 185 acre feet, up seven per cent from 177 acre
feet in 2013. The recycled water use for water year 2015 was 168 acre feet.
Corporation Yard Well
As part of the drought response strategy adopted by City Council in June, the use of the
Corporation Yard well located on Prado Road was brought under a permit system. Water use was
curtailed to only allow non-construction use within the San Luis Obispo groundwater basin. This
change has had the effect of generating 40 permit users for the Corporation Yard well as well as
increasing the number of recycled water permits for construction from 9 to 37 and a
corresponding increase in recycled water use for construction from 6 acre feet in 2014 to over 13
acre feet in 2015.
Water Modeling
The city uses two models to assist in water management. The first is the Water Projection Model
which is used to predict the City’s current water availability. This model was updated to include
data on rainfall, evaporation, stream inflow, future population growth, and downstream releases
from the 2012-14 time period to more accurately reflect the impacts of the drought on reservoir
14
Packet Pg. 131
levels. Based on this analysis, the model indicated the City had approximately a three and a half
year supply of water as of November 2015.
The second model used is the Safe Annual Yield Model. This model defines the annual amount
of water available from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs when operated in a coordinated
manner. Water from Nacimiento Reservoir is accounted for independently and not part of the
Safe Annual Yield Model since it is a contracted amount of water delivered on an annual basis.
The current combined Safe Annual Yield for Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs is 6,940 acre
feet per year. Since it is unknown how long the drought will last, model updates used
hypothetical precipitation scenarios for the upcoming rain season. The results of these model
runs showed that a relatively normal rainfall year would not impact the Safe Annual Yield;
however, a continued drought will negatively impact the Safe Annual Yield from these two
water sources.
Outlook for 2016
Work continues on several projects that will impact the City’s future water status. In September of
this year, City Council authorized the signing of the letter of intent to pursue an additional allocation
of over 2,100 acre feet of water from Nacimiento Reservoir. In early 2016, City Council will
consider taking further action related to Nacimiento water resources. The City’s Urban Water
Management Plan and Recycled Water Master Plan will be updated in 2016. Lastly, meteorologists
have predicted, and City staff have prepared for, a major El Nino event associated with an above-
normal rainfall season.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report does not meet the definition of a “project” under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended action.
Attachments:
a a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report
14
Packet Pg. 132
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
2015
Water Resources
Status Report
This Report Covers the Time Period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015
Salinas Reservoir Dam, February 2015.
Photo credit: County of San Luis Obispo.
PREPARED BY:
Ron Munds, Utilities Services Manager
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director-Water
14.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
2
The Water Resources Status Report updates the City Council and community on existing water
resources. This report focuses on seven main areas:
I. Drought
II. Water Supply
III. Projected Water Supply
IV. Water Demand
V. Water Resource Availability
VI. Water Supply Accounting
VII. Water Demand Management
The 2015 Water Resources Status Report includes water production and water consumption
data for October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 and was prepared in accordance with the
City’s General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME), Policy A5.3.1.
Historically, data provided in the Water Resources Status Report reflected on the preceding
calendar year. Starting with this report, the Report corresponds to the Water Year (October 1
through September 30), the 12-month period for which precipitation totals are measured. This
change enables the City to better report on water supply availability issues.
I. DROUGHT
The statewide drought has continued and is now well into the fourth year. Governor Brown
declared a drought emergency on January 17, 2014 and, as part of the response, directed the
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to draft water conservation
regulations to respond to the emergency. The State Water Board adopted regulations
prohibiting water waste in July 2014, and issued directives to reduce water use statewide. In
response to the continuing drought conditions, the State Water Board extended the 2014
emergency regulations and added new measures on March 17, 2015. On April 1, 2015, the
Governor issued Executive Order B-29-15 mandating increased enforcement against water
waste and declared a statewide water use reduction goal of 25 percent. This action was
followed by the State Water Board adopting regulations that require specific water purveyors
to reduce water use in a range of 8 to 36 percent compared to their 2013 water usage . The
amount of the mandated reduction is dependent on the water purveyor’s per capita use in
2013. The City’s required reduction is 12 percent. The following is a summary of the City’s
progress of reaching this goal.
14.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
3
2015 Reduction
from 2013
June 20%
July 26%
August 25%
September 19%
October 19%
The community has done an outstanding job in reducing water
consumption in response to the new regulations and the city is
on target to meet the State’s requirement.
LOCAL RESPONSE STRATEGY
The impacts of the 1987-1991 drought enculturated a strong
water conservation ethic in San Luis Obispo along with an
urgency to develop new water supply sources. The current
statewide drought brought about unprecedented regulatory action from the State of California
which resulted in a mandatory average 12 percent reduction in water use from June 2015 to
February 2016, when compared with 2013 water use numbers. To achieve this mandate, the
City Council adopted a drought response strategy in June 2015. This strategy includes:
1. Adoption of a resolution declaring a drought emergency;
2. Adoption of a resolution to defer new landscape installation or the use of modified
landscape plans during the drought emergency;
3. Introduction of an ordinance amending Chapter 13.07 of the City’s Municipal Code to
include two-day-a-week and time-of-day restrictions for outdoor watering;
4. Approval of an incentive program for high efficiency toilets and washing machines; and
5. Adoption of a resolution establishing a permit fee for the use of the Cor poration Yard
groundwater well.
This strategy relies on active enforcement of water waste prohibitions, with a core focus on
providing information and resources to the public
Nacimiento Reservoir Dam, February 2015.
Photo credit: County of San Luis Obispo.
14.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
4
II. WATER SUPPLY
Per WWME Policy A2.2.1, the city uses multiple water sources to meet its water supply needs.
The city has four primary water supply sources including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas
Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for landscape irrigation and construction
water), with groundwater serving as a fifth supplemental source. The supply per source for
Water Year 2015 (October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015) is summarized as follows:
2015 City Water Supply by Source (Acre Feet)
Salinas Whale Rock* Nacimiento Groundwater Recycled Total Water Demand
1,122 1,718 1,891 89 168 4,988
23% 34% 38% 2% 3% 100%
Notes:
All Values are rounded.
*Water delivered to Cal Poly State University is excluded from the City’s water demand.
SALINAS & WHALE ROCK RESERVOIRS
Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs have
served as the city’s primary water supplies
for over 50 years. The City pays the County
of San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (County) to provide
oversight, operations, and maintenance of
the Salinas Dam and related water delivery
facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo
provides the oversight, operations, and
maintenance of the Whale Rock Reservoir
for the benefit of the Whale Rock
Commission, a joint powers agency made up
of Cal Poly State University, California Men’s
Colony, and the City. The city draws water
from these two reservoirs to maximize the
long-term water supply available from these
two sources. In addition, the city has in a
coordinated manner adopted policies in the
WWME to account for reductions in storage
capacity at each lake resulting from siltation.
NACIMIENTO WATER PROJECT
Water deliveries from the Nacimiento Reservoir began on January 5, 2011. The City has a
contractual right to 3,380 acre feet per year. The county operates and maintains the project
that delivers water from Nacimiento Reservoir to participating agencies (currently the cities of
Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo, Atascadero Mutual Water Company, Templeton Community
Whale Rock Reservoir, February 2015.
Photo credit: County of San Luis Obispo.
14.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
5
Services District, and County Service Area 10A [Cayucos]). The Nacimiento Project Commission,
which is made up of representatives from each of the four agencies’ governing boards and a
County Representative (who is a member of the County Board of Supervisors which also sits as
the Board of Directors for the Flood Control District), provides oversight to project operations,
maintenance, and the project budget. The Nacimiento pipeline was shut down on June 2, 2014
for emergency repairs and was offline for the remainder of 2014 , with flow being reinstated in
April of 2015.
RECYCLED WATER
Recycled water use for 2014 totaled 185 acre feet, up five
percent from 177 acre feet in 2013. For the 2015 Water
Year, the City delivered 168 acre feet of recycled water.
GROUNDWATER
The City stopped supplying groundwater to its drinking
water system in April 2015. Due to new regulatory
requirements, using the groundwater would require
additional costly treatment at the wells before the water
could be used. Groundwater wells remain in operable
stand-by condition should use of groundwater be
required in the future .
Pe r WWME Policy A 3.2.3, the Cit y does not consider
groundwater a source of supply due to limitation s on its
use. Cit y wells are summarized below:
Well Type Use Location
Pacific Beach #1 Potable Domestic Los Osos Valley Road near
Pacific Beach School
Corp Yard Well Non-potable Construction Water City Corporation Yard
Prado Road
Laguna Lake Golf Course Non-potable Irrigation Laguna Lake Golf Course on
LOVR
SLO City Farm Non-potable Irrigation SLO Community Farm off
Highway 101 & LOVR
Note: The City discontinued domestic groundwater use in 2015.
14.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
6
43%
25%
21%
11%
Single Family
Residential Uses
Multi-Family
Residential Uses
Non-Residential Uses
Landscape Irrigation
III. PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY
The City uses a computer model to estimate its future reservoir storage in Salinas and Whale
Rock Reservoirs. This is accomplished by applying historical drought, weather patterns, water
use projections, reservoir data, and available water supplies from Nacimiento Reservoir, and
recycled water. The model assumes implementation of Stage I conservation measures when
supplies are projected to last three years. Stage II and III conservation measures are
implemented when water supplies are estimated to last two years and one year, respectively.
In December 2014 the model predicted water supplies would last six years. In early 2015, the
model was updated to include the new worst case drought information (climatic data for 2012,
2013, and 2014). The model indicates the City has approximately a three year supply of water
as of September 2015.
IV. WATER DEMAND
During Water Year 2015, 68 percent of water use in the City was for single and multi-family
residential uses. Historical water use is summarized below, as well as corresponding population,
per capita use rate, and precipitation. The 2015 per capita water use was 97.3 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd). Based on WWME policies, the City uses the ten -year gpcd average to project
water required to serve build-out population. The ten-year average water use is 114.4 gpcd.
14.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
7
Population, Water Use & Rainfall
Year Population Total Water Use
(acre feet)
Per Capita
(gpcd)
Rainfall1,2,3
(inches)
2006 44,559 5,999 120.2 17.2
2007 44,433 6,493 130.5 12.7
2008 44,579 6,359 127.3 18.1
2009 44,829 6,134 122.2 18.9
2010 44,948 5,489 109.0 36.0
2011 45,418 5,285 103.9 18.9
2012 45,308 5,541 109.2 21.5
2013 45,541 5,892 115.5 3.8
2014 45,473 5,524 108.5 14.2
2015 45,802 4,990 97.3 11.8
Ten-year per capita average: 114.4
Notes:
1. Rai nfa ll amou nts for 2005 –2012 cal endar year source: Cal Poly CIMIS W eather Statio n.
2. Rai nfa ll amou nt fo r calendar year 2013-2015: SLO Reservoir.
3. Rainfall for 2015 covers October 2014 through September 2015
V. WATER RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
The following table summarizes the Water Resource Availability to serve the community water
demand based on WWME Section 3. Water availability for 2015 is 10,005 acre feet.
2015 Water Resource Availability
Water Resource Acre Feet Description
Salinas & Whale Rock Reservoirs 6,940 Safe Annual Yield 1
Nacimiento Reservoir 3,380 Dependable Yield 2
Recycled Water 185 2014 Annual Usage 3
Siltation from 2010 to 2060 (500) WWME Policy A 4.2.2 4
10,005 2015 Annual Availability
NOTES:
1. Safe Annual Yield determined from computer model, which accounts for
siltation loss through 2010 (per WWME Policy A 4.2.1).
2. Dependable Yield is the contractual amount of water the City has rights to
from Nacimiento Reservoir.
3. The quantity of recycled water included is the actual prior year’s recycled
water usage (calendar year 2014) per WWME Policy A 7.2.2.
4. Reservoir siltation is a natural occurrence that reduces storage capacity over
long periods, resulting in the reduction of safe annual yield.
14.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
8
VI. WATER SUPPLY ACCOUNTING
Per WWME Section 5, the City will account for water supplies
necessary to meet three specific community needs:
1. Primary water supply
2. Reliability reserve
3. Secondary water supply
The primary water supply is defined as the amount of water
needed to serve the build-out population of the City as
identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Table
3 in the Land Use Element identifies an urban reserve capacity
of 57,200 people. The quantity of water needed for the
primary water supply is calculated using the ten -year average
of actual per capita water use, shown in Table 2, and the
population of 57,200 (2014 LUCE). Per WWME Policy A 5.2.2:
Primary Water Supply:
= Ten Year Average per Capita Water Use x City Build-out Population
= 114.4 gal/cap-day x 57,200 x 365 day/year x Acre-Ft/325,853 gal
= 7,330 Acre-Ft/year
The reliability reserve provides a buffer for future unforeseen or unpredictable long -term
impacts to the City’s available water supply. The quantity of water for the reliability reserve is
established using 20 percent of the ten-year average of per capita water use and the existing
City population (45,802, 2015 population). The reliability reserve concept is included in the
City’s Charter (Section 909) which identifies that the water may not be used to serve future
development, and is defined per WWME Policy A 5.2.3:
Reliability Reserve:
= Ten Year Average per Capita Water Use x 2014 City Population x 20%
= 114.4 gal/cap-day x 45,802 cap x 365 day/year x Acre-Ft/325,853 gal x 20%
= 1,174 Acre-Ft/year
14.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)
City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Water Resources Status Report
9
The secondary water supply is the amount of water remaining from the City’s available water
resources above those needed to meet the primary water supply and reliability reserve. The
secondary supply is identified to meet peak water demand periods or short -term loss of City
water supply sources, per WWME Policy A 5.2.4:
Secondary Water Supply:
= Current Annual Availability – Primary Water Supply – Reliability Reserve
= 10,005 Acre-Ft/year A – 7,484 acre-Ft/year – 1,190 Acre-Ft/year
= 1,501 Acre-Ft/year
A 2015 Annual Availability
Water supply accounting is summarized as follows:
2015 Water Supply Accounting (acre feet)
Total Primary Water Supply Reliability Reserve Secondary Water Supply
10,005 7,330 1,174 1,501
VII. WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The City’s water conservation program is an integral part of its overall water management
strategy. In the late 1980’s, the City implemented effective water efficiency programs and
policies that allowed for continued community growth and economic development during
water-constrained periods. Through strong conservation efforts, the community has reduced its
annual average per capita water use from over 180 gallons in 1987 to 97 for the 2015 Water
Year.
REGIONAL COOPERATION
Beyond the involvement in the Nacimiento Water Project, the City is a participating member
of the Water Resources Advisory Council and Regional Water Management Group, which
promotes collaborative, integrated management of water resources within San Luis Obispo
County and provides policy recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors. In addition,
the City participates in the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Advisory Committee and the
regional water conservation group Partners in Water Conservation.
14.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: a - 2015 Water Resources Status Report (1198 : Water Resource Status Report)