Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Agenda Packet Tuesday, January 19, 2016 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 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE (GRIGSBY/BOCHUM/FUCHS – 90 MINUTES) Recommendation Staff recommends the following regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure: 1) That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project. 2) That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained. 3) Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply. 4) Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses (including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area. 5) Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final negotiations of the MOA. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 19, 2016 Page 2 NOTE: There will be an informal welcome celebration for new Police Chief Deanna Cantrell immediately following the 4:00 p.m. meeting in the Council Hearing Room. ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2016 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 19, 2016 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: Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter INTRODUCTIONS 2. TRACI R. MCGINLEY, CITY CLERK (LICHTIG – 5 MINUTES) PRESENTATIONS 3. BADGING CEREMONY AND OATH FOR POLICE CHIEF DEANNA CANTRELL (LICHTIG/MCGINLEY – 10 MINUTES) 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 allow 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. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 19, 2016 Page 4 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Recommendation Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17 AND DECEMBER 1, 2015 (MAIER) Recommendation Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of November 17 and December 1, 2015. 6. AUTHORIZE A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE HOUSING RELATED PARKS PROGRAM (CODRON/WISEMAN) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing an application in the amount of $288,650 to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for Housing Related Parks Program funds to provide financial assistance to the Public Works department for park upgrades at Sinsheimer Park.” 7. LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, SPECIFICATION 91392, CONTRACT AWARD AND BUDGET AMENDMENT (D. JOHNSON/HILL) Recommendation 1. Award and approve a consultant services agreement with the firm MNS Engineers, Inc. (“MNS”) in an amount not-to-exceed $445,000 for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management pursuant to Request for Proposals Specification No. 91392; and 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request to move funds between phases within the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management CIP. 8. WELL SITE RELINQUISHMENT AT 1460 CALLE JOAQUIN (QUIKY CAR WASH) (MATTINGLY/FLOYD/METZ) Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed and Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale for the well located at 1460 Calle Joaquin. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 19, 2016 Page 5 9. APPROVAL OF FINAL 2015 POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS MASTER PLAN (MATTINGLY/FLOYD/METZ) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan.” 10. APPROVAL OF FINAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL STRATEGY (MATTINGLY/HIX/METZ) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy.” 11. AMENDMENT OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT OF THE PALM DEVELOPMENT SITE (D. JOHNSON/DIETRICK/L. JOHNSON/RUSSELL) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a First Amendment of Purchase and Sale-Palm Development Site, authorizing the sale of City property and authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to execute closing documents,” and the Mayor to execute the grant deed. 12. MARGARITA & FOOTHILL LIFT STATION REPLACEMENTS, SPEC. NO. 91214, CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 (MATTINGLY/HIX/METZ) Recommendation 1. Approve a contract amendment of $104,854 for the design services for the Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements, Spec. No. 91214. 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request of $104,854 from Sewer Fund Working Capital to the project’s design phase to support this request. 3. Approve increases in the 2016-17 construction budget from $1,100,000 to $1,600,000 and the construction management budget from $125,000 to $155,000 for the Foothill Lift Station Replacement. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 19, 2016 Page 6 13. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STORTON/ELLSWORTH) Recommendation 1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic Safety for a Fiscal Year 2016-17 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) not to exceed $250,000. 2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the award of the grant. PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY JEFF KRAFT) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S -OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTION (CODRON/BELL – 120 MINUTES) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the construction of a single-family residence with an attached secondary dwelling unit in the S-Overlay Zone that includes height and setback exceptions with a categorical exemption from environmental review as represented in the Planning Commission agenda report and attachments dated January 19, 2016 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Use-1520-2015 & SDU-1521-2015).” 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 January 19, 2016 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, February 2, 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, California 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. Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure: 1) That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project; and 2) That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained; and 3) Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply; and 4) Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses (including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area; and 5) Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final negotiations of the MOA. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update of analysis that staff has conducted concerning the demand for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. Staff is seeking direction on several aspects of this project prior to moving into the environmental review and final design stage. In addition, staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding entering into formal discussions with the SLO Little Theater for a long term lease and new Memorandum of Agreement for use of remnant area of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure site. 1 Packet Pg. 8 DISCUSSION Historical Summary of Structured Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo The availability of parking and access in Downtown is critical to the economic and cultural viability of the City of San Luis Obispo. Parking availability is critically important to the many stakeholders and visitors that come to the area. As a result, it has long been a City focus to pace production of our parking supply with existing and near term future demand. City parking structure construction has shown a pattern whereby construction occurs in association with existing and projected demand for parking. Historically, parking structures have a fairly long time period between project start up (land acquisition, design and environmental) and completed construction. The following summarizes when the City’s existing parking structures were completed: 1. 842 Palm (also known as Palm 1) 1988 2. Marsh Street Garage 1990 3. Marsh Street Garage Expansion 2002 4. 919 Palm 2006 Consistent with the City’s historic approach to provide parking in the Downtown core, the City Council discussed the need and timing for its next structure beginning with the 2003-05 Financial Plan. As part of the more recent 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council directed staff to return with a review of the City’s structured parking needs. The Potential Palm Nipomo Parking Structure The City has been moving forward with the pre-development of a fourth parking structure at Parking Lot 14 which is bounded by Palm, Nipomo and Monterey Street. Attachment E to this report includes a summary of previous Council actions on the project and additional background history. The project is referred to as the “Palm Nipomo” parking structure. Following the economic downturn in 2007, this project was put on hold until the economy improved. Over the past few years, the economy has improved immensely and is projected to continue to expand. Several major projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terrace have broken ground after many years of delay and will be generating new parking demand. The Palm Nipomo project represents a significant investment in parking supply for the City. The proposed project would include between 400 and 445 spaces at a construction cost estimate of $23,600,000. The spaces represent a net “new” parking supply of 323 to 368 spaces. The ‘net’ is a result of the displacement of 77 existing spaces at the lot at the location where the structure will be built. A final parking space count will depend upon the final design and building height. Previously approved funding commitments for the project include $1.65 million for project design and environmental review. The most recent Council action taken on the project was on January 3, 2012 when Council authorized moving forward with its environmental review and proceeding with final stages of 1 Packet Pg. 9 design. At that time it was believed the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects would occur the following year. As those projects were delayed, so too was beginning of the environmental and final design for Palm Nipomo. In 2014 the City completed an Organization Study of the Parking Services Division which was conducted by Walker Parking Consultants (Walker). As part of that work the consultant reviewed future parking supply/demand issues for the City to help determine potential operation and fiscal issues. Walker conducted a very high level review of the parking demand for Palm Nipomo. It was their determination that while the project could be built, occupancy of the project might be low (less than 60%). Consequently, Walker noted the City should carefully evaluate the timing, costs, project size, and alternatives to meeting parking demands prior to commencing with the project. During hearings on the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, staff informed Council that these issues would be explored in more depth and staff would return to Council for a direction on the next steps for the project. A related aspect of the project was that the Council had previously entered into an agreement with the SLO Little Theater (SLOLT) and had set aside a portion of the project site for the relocation of the Little Theatre on the corner of Palm Street and Morro Street. That agreement is no longer valid because performance deadlines have passed and the site area for the Little Theater has changed at the Palm Nipomo location. Therefore if a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is to be negotiated, staff needs to return to Council at a later date. Additional Parking Demand Data Walker Parking Consultants was hired to analyze parking demand and update its work from the 2014 Organizational study with greater accuracy for potential development that could use the Palm Nipomo project. Beginning in summer 2015, staff, in coordination with Walker, conducted parking occupancy counts of lots, streets, and the parking structures to determine capacity of the existing parking inventory. The geographical study (see Attachment A) area is larger than that analyzed in the Organization Assessment, covered more days (Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday: three times each day), longer duration during the day (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and included peak factors such as a holiday weekend (Labor Day), dates when Cal Poly was in, and not in session, and special events in Mission Plaza. These counts were combined to get an average occupancy count by time of day for each weekday observed. This information was then forwarded to the consultant for use in tabulating a baseline for demand calculations for the project. As shown in the table below Walker found that the normal peak occupancy time observed was Thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. when 67% of available public parking was utilized. 1 Packet Pg. 10 Thursday (Average) 12:00-2:00 p.m. Inventory Occupancy Utilization Surplus (+)/Deficit(1) 2582 parking Spaces 1,730 Vehicles 67% 645 spaces This means that for most times studied, over one-third of the public parking supply was available. We anticipate that this capacity can be used to absorb displaced parking associated with the closures of Lots 2 (Garden St. Terraces), 3 & 11 (Chinatown) as they occur. (Attachment B shows parking lot numbering and location of lots). Peak times for special events (such as Farmer’s Market) were also recorded however these peak times are not used for project “sizing” or design demand analysis since the result wou ld be we over build infrastructure (at a tremendous additional cost) for most other times when more normal demand occurs. In preparing the projections for Palm Nipomo, Walker considered three factors: 1. The likelihood that Palm Nipomo, when considering its proximity to new development, would attract parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in the future; 2. The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand and future development; 3. The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking structure and the closure of public lots. 1 Packet Pg. 11 1 Packet Pg. 12 Table 1 – Palm Nipomo Structure Demand Forecast (Walker, 2015) These three factors were then used to screen forecast demand scenarios at the Palm Nipomo location for the following three time frames: 1. Initial Phase: Displaced Vehicles due to relocation of existing demand for lot closures (Primarily loss of Lot 2 as a result of Garden Street Terraces) 2. Phase 1 - consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term (3-5 years). 3. Phase 2 - consists of projected parking demand projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments (longer term build-out) and closure of other public lots. The consultant forecasted that existing and potential demand for the Phase 1 scenario would be as high as 204 vehicles. This consists of 130 vehicles generated by new development and 74 generated by existing demand and displaced vehicles. This amount represents a need for less than half the capacity of the proposed structure of 400-445 spaces. Of the 130 spaces forecast by new development, two projects, Monterey Place (65 spaces required) and SLO Museum of Art (39 spaces required), contribute 80%. These projects have discretionary approvals, but neither of 48 48 48 26 52 130 264397 241 81 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lot 14 Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2 Demand for Palm-Nipomo by Phase Existing Demand Displaced Vehicles Projected Demand Vacant Spaces them has yet to proceed to the construction phase and obtain building permits therefore they are a minimum of three years out for completion and likely more. Longer term, which accounts for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development, the forecast shows the demand increases to approximately 364 vehicles. Using the lower end objective of 400 parking spaces for Palm Nipomo project, this results in an 87% occupancy factor for the project. This forecast is significantly higher than the previous calculations shown in the 2014 Parking Organizational Assessment which showed occupancy as low as 60%. This indicates that long term, daily need for the structure in this area of the Downtown may utilize much of the available capacity. However, the timing of private development will play an important role in how soon that need occurs. Many of these projects will be far in the future and it may be many years before they get underway. Some of these potential sites include redevelopment of the Reis Mortuary location, closure and redevelopment of Lot 10, the SLO Little Theater project and major remodel of the Creamery. The primary conclusions of Walker assessment were as follows: 1. Palm-Nipomo’s planned capacity of 400-445 spaces would have more spaces than necessary to accommodate projected demand of near term development (next 5 years). 2. Suggest caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet been approved. 3. However, when that development occurs the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a way that is more environmentally friendly (since it centralizes space needs devoted to vehicles) and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. 4. Due to the delay in demand for the structure, when it is built a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary to attract the parking demand generated by longer term developments to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 5. If the City is willing to make a significant investment (or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared public parking. However it is critical to note that any exclusive private use of the parking structure will likely mean that any financing will not be funded through tax exempt bonds and would likely increase financing costs. Stakeholder Input In order to assist staff with the review of the Walker analysis, a group of stakeholders was created to discuss issues of the project location, timing and design. The stakeholder group consisted of representatives from the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, The Little 1 Packet Pg. 13 Theatre, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA), Copeland Properties. Two meetings (September 22, and December 8, 2015) seeking their input to help the city identify relevant issues/concerns regarding this project. At the first meeting the group reviewed Walker study’ assumptions and provided feedback into topics such as the phasing assumptions and projects that should be included in each group. They also clarified timing of projects for the Little Theater and SLOMA. As a result of this feedback additional data collection was completed. The theory is that it would be helpful to have diversity in the days of the week and the time of year that the data was collected. The second meeting reviewed the draft conclusions of the Walker report. The consensus of the group was that the information going into the report was good and that the conclusions appeared appropriate based upon that information. Overall, most expressed desire for the Palm Nipomo project to move forward but recognized the project demand was not showing an immediate need for the structure. The issue of emerging technologies and changes to driving and parking dynamics were discussed with the suggestions that the City continue to consider these issues as decisions are made on parking supply and programs. As a result, under any scenario city staff will continually monitor and analyze any social trend that impacts parking supply, including Autonomous Vehicles (aka “self-driving cars”) and implementation of City mode split objectives and alternative transportation choices discussed in the General Plan. Other Issues - Little Theatre MOA At the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council conceptually approved the relocation of the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (SLOLT) to a portion of parking lot 14 at 630 Monterey Street, located at the Palm Nipomo parking structure site. With direction from Council, the City entered into an agreement with the SLOLT, which has since expired. The Little Theater continues to be committed to relocating from its existing location (at the old Library site next to City Hall) and has been in discussion with staff regarding develo pment of a new MOA. Attachment D to this report is the June 6th, 2000 agenda report and MOA as approved by Council. Staff is seeking Council direction on whether or not to pursue a new MOA with the Little Theater regarding a long term use of the remainder area of the properties and relocation from their existing use at the City owned, old library site. Major elements of a potential new MOA with SLOLT are: 1. Term of Lease 2. Annual Cost of Lease 3. Size of footprint dedicated to the Theatre 4. City responsibilities regarding rezoning and a General Plan Amendment 5. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction and maintenance of front improvements 6. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction, operation and maintenance of the Theater 7. Little Theatre’s responsibilities as it relates to a Fund raising plan and fundraising key milestones 1 Packet Pg. 14 Figure 1– Conceptual Site Plan SLO Little Theater If Council directs staff to move forward with formal negotiations with SLOLT staff will return to Council with recommendations for consideration. Other than general direction whether to proceed with negotiations, no specific Council direction is being requested at this time on the seven items noted above. Public-Private-Partnership (P3) As part of prior project reviews the Council requested that the project include some area to incorporate other uses besides SLOLT and the parking structure. Because the design of the parking structure is fairly constrained in order to deliver the objective of a minimum of 400 spaces, the 2011 preferred site plan was only able to accomplish this via narrowing the street section along Nipomo Street and incorporating a narrow building area between the structure and the street. 1 Packet Pg. 15 Figure 2 – 2011 Preferred Site Plan Attachment C shows the 2011 preferred design for Palm Nipomo as well as the conceptual rendering of the SLO Little Theater location. The concept of this alternative was to provide a small footprint that a third party could utilize as part of a private development project for office space or other use. Incorporating these types of uses into the structure has historically added significant costs to the project and so having the area “independent” of the structure is critical to keeping project costs low. Additional area for potential private use could be created by increasing the depth of this area. That will, however, come at a cost of reduced parking supply and a less efficient structure. There have been some recent discussions of whether exploring a larger public -private- partnership (P3) for the project might yield a better financial scenario for the City and help offset the parking structure construction costs and provide opportunities for housing that is a Major City Goal. The City has reached out to Kosmont Companies, a firm specializing in financial issues associated with P3 projects, to do a review on this issue and determine if there is any significant benefit to revising the project with a larger P3 component. While it is doubtful that a larger footprint for private use would offset the parking space reduction and related design and operational challenges, an additional review on this issue is prudent to make sure staff has not overlooked any opportunities to maximize use of the property and/or whether there are any opportunity to provide new housing. This study is underway and will be completed by February. If substantial new information is discovered by this study staff will return to Council with that information prior to issuance of the final RFP for environmental services. 1 Packet Pg. 16 Next Steps Assuming no significant change by Council as part of this discussion item the next stage of the project is issuing the RFP for final design and environment review. The following is a tentative schedule of next steps and an estimate of work time to complete each task. Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Task Work Time 1) Prepare Final RFP for environmental review services and project design. Complete Kosmont study of P3 issues 5 months. 2) Receive proposals Mid-Summer 2016 3) Evaluate Proposals and conduct interviews Late Summer 2016 4) Check references and Award Contract Fall 2016 5) Complete work and present for Advisory body and Council review Fall 2016 – Summer 2017 It is intended that sufficient work be done on the project to coincide with developing the 2017-19 Financial Plan and that any major changes necessary to the project budget be included as part of the FY 2017-18 Parking Fund review. FISCAL IMPACT The 2015-17 Financial Plan includes cost estimates for the project based upon delivery of a 400 - 445 space facility. The Financial Plan includes a construction cost estimated at $23,600,000 in FY 2017-18 with $6,000,000 from working capital in the Parking Fund, and $17,600,000 in proceeds from debt financing proceeds. Prior Financial Plan funding has been committed for environmental review and final project design with a current unspent balance of approximately $1,266,000. Financing of the Project In order to construct the project the City will need to use a mixture of available capital as well as borrowing to cover the costs of construction. Final construction cost will be dependent upon changes in design for the project including footprint modifications, mitigation measures necessary for construction, final parking space yield and aesthetic design. Since adoption of the Financial Plan staff has worked with the City’s financial consultant, Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) to review issues associated with the borrowing of debt for the project. It appears that a General Fund Lease Revenue bond will be the most appropriate borrowing method for the project. Attachment F includes a memorandum from PFM outlining the significance of various debt strategies including General Fund Lease revenue bonds compared to Parking Revenue bonds. 1 Packet Pg. 17 PFM provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a lease revenue bond based upon a project borrowing cost of $17,600,000 and a 30-year term for the bonds. PFM estimates annual costs at current rates would be approximately $1.3, an amount lower than the $1.45 Million estimated in the FY 2015-17 FP. This amount could change if rates increase prior to full financing of the debt so keeping the $1.45 Million estimate is prudent at this time. With the General Fund being used as a pledge on the lease revenue bond, there would be no annual debt service coverage covenant as there would with parking revenue bonds (debt service coverage requires a minimum ratio of parking revenue to debt service payments – PFM identifies that this could be as high as 2.0 times net revenue for the City if Parking Revenue bonds are used). Final decision on the financing plan (including but not limited to the use of General Fund assets to secure the Parking Structure) does not have to be made now. However, if the Council has any concerns regarding the concept of using General Funds Lease revenue bonds for the project it would be helpful to have those expressed so additional research can be conducted and brought back to the council at a future date. Upcoming Mid-Year Fund Review The Parking Fund continues to be healthy. Staff is completing Mid Year Budget discussion scheduled for February including consideration of FY 2014-15 year end results. As part of that item updates to the fund will be detailed. On a positive note, delays in the closures of Lot 2, 3 and 11 along with deferral of the Palm Nipomo project helped the fund end higher than anticipated with approximately $8,400,000 in working capital at year end. Payment of mitigation fees and parking in-lieu fees by the Garden Street and Chinatown Phase 2 projects will be received this fiscal year and those funds will assist in creating the working capital needed to help fund the project. On the downside, it was discovered that the mitigation fees associated with Phase I development of the Chinatown project were double programmed in the budget for this fiscal year. These funds were actually received as part of escrow closing in FY 2013-14. These funds were deposited in the Parking Fund in that year. While the amount is large ($972,000) the Parking Fund has significant year-end working capital forecast for future years, even with the construction of the Palm Nipomo project. The full effect of these adjustments will be shown in the Mid-Year update for Council review. The Parking Fund appears capable of funding the project if terms of the debt financing stay consistent with current estimates and the rate changes and other revenue enhancements that have been used as background assumptions for the forecast are implemented when needed. Finally, prior Council direction relative to adding Sunday parking fees and implementing periodic overall parking rate increases were done in part assuming low initial parking utilization 1 Packet Pg. 18 in the Palm-Nipomo structure. Therefore, staff recommends the city continue those programs and others previously identified to assure ongoing Parking Fund stability. While doable, other revenue enhancement strategies such as charging for parking past 6 p.m. or expanding residential districts around Downtown to drive demand into existing structures continues to be controversial without full support of potentially effected stakeholders. These options, as well as others can be brought forward if fund forecasts show that future revenues do not cover the costs for Palm Nipomo or Parking fund needs. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – Delay moving forward with the project. The Council could delay moving forward with the next stage of project development if significant concerns associated with cost, timing, financing or other issues of the project. Staff does not recommend this option since moving forward with the environmental review and design at this time does not commit the City to construct the project. Instead, additional information resulting from the next phase of project development should assist the City in making future and final decisions regarding the project and its timing and costs. Alternative 2 - Revise the Palm Nipomo Project design. The Council can direct staff to revise the project or add alternatives for consideration in the EIR for the project. This alternative is not recommended since this site plan has previously authorized for further design by the City Council. Alternative 3 – Put the project on hold and pursue other parking and access strategies. The Council can direct explore other ways of meeting the parking and access needs. This could include limiting new parking supply to purchasing new property for surface only parking lots, developing more aggressive pricing policies for employee parking and expanding transit subsidies or looking at other structure locations. Similar to response to Alternative 1 above, staff recommends moving forward with the environmental and design completion at this time even if Council directs staff to pursue a major shift how to increase our parking supply. Final project costs for Palm Nipomo and area impacts will only be know when the full environmental and designs are known for the project. If the Council chooses to increase the emphasis on other strategies, they can be pursued in a parallel path to Palm Nipomo development with a final decision to construct the project by Council when the EIR is brought forward. It is likely that some of these strategies may be identified as part of the EIR process to help mitigate the project. Attachments: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) b - Downtown Parking Lot Map c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 1 Packet Pg. 19 MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION The City of San Luis Obispo (the City) is considering construction of a parking structure on the south eastern corner of Nipomo Street and Palm Street (the “structure”). The multi-level 445-space planned structure would replace the existing Parking Lot 14, which has an inventory of 77 parking spaces. In December 2014, Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) completed an organizational assessment for the City’s Parking Services Division. The assessment, the focus of which was a staffing analysis for Parking Services, included a preliminary projection of the demand for the parking spaces in the proposed garage. In preparing the projections, Walker considered three factors:  The projected capture of parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in the future; 1  The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand;  The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking structure and the approved developments. Based upon these three factors, in the 2014 Walker projected that on a typically busy weekday, the Palm/Nipomo structure would have a surplus of 263± parking spaces, more than half the planned supply of the parking structure. Now, the City has engaged Walker to project the parking demand that might be generated in the Palm/Nipomo structure based on a two-phase build out scenario. Phase I consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term. Phase II centers around potential parking demand projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments. In formulating its projections, Walker considered the same three factors that were used for the 2014 projections. After presenting a summary of Walker’s findings and recommendations based upon the findings, this memorandum discusses the assumptions and methodology used to project the parking demand of the two-phase build out scenario. 1 For the 2014 study those developments were Monterey Place, San Luis Square, and Marsh Commons. DATE: January 5, 2015 TO: Peggy Mandeville, Tim Bochum, Alex Fuchs COMPANY: Parking Services, City of San Luis Obispo ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: San Luis Obispo, CA CC: HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No FROM: Steffen Turoff, Derek Adams PROJECT NAME: Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Demand Study PROJECT NUMBER: 33-1871.00 SUBJECT: Projected Parking Demand for Palm/Nipomo Structure 606 South Olive Street, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Office: 213.488.4911 Fax: 213.488.4983 www.walkerparking.com 1.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR CURRENT ANALYSIS Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445- space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I. Table 1, below, summarizes the Phase I demand projections. Table 1: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase I Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects a demand for 364± parking spaces for the design day peak. Assuming an effective supply of 0.92 (409 spaces for a 445-space parking facility) we project a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I and Phase II. Table 2, below, summarizes the demand and surplus projections at the completion of Phase II . Table 2: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase II Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. 409 parking spaces 1 Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2 Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3 205 parking spaces Notes: Less (-) Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply Projected Surplus/Deficit 1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces 2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2. 3. Includes all approved developments under design day conditions. 409 parking spaces 1 Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2 Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3 Phase II Displaced Vehicles 26 vehicles 4 Phase II Projected Demand 134 vehicles 5 45 parking spaces Notes: Less (-) Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply 3. Includes all approved developments. 4. Total includes 2015 observed demand for Lot 10. 5. Total reflects design day conditions with no special events. Projected Surplus/Deficit 1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces 2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2. 1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS The location of the planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current high demand for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown. The structure could accommodate the projected parking demand for some of the Phase I approved development if parking policies necessary to encourage use of the structure are implemented and enforced. Even then, the structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces would be significantly more than necessary to accommodate the projected demand for those spaces. The assumptions contained in the Phase II of development suggest significant development A) occurring within a reasonable walking distance of the structure site and B) built with little or no parking on site. This kind of development suggests a need for a significant supply of new parking spaces to accommodate the parking demand Phase II would generate. However, we suggest that caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet been approved. Further, we note that a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary for a new parking structure to capture the parking demand generated by the Phase II developments. For the Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a shared manner, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. In such a scenario, the City would likely want to consider using its parking in lieu fee program to have developers of proximate sites assist in the funding of the structure, although we point out that such funds tend to flow slowly, often presenting a challenge for funding the parking structure. Nonetheless, given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to invest or partner with developers to provide funding, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared, public parking. ASSUMPTIONS In developing the parking demand projections for the approved developments in Phase I and the potential parking demand projections for Phase II, Walker Parking Consultants made the following assumptions when analyzing the program and parking occupancy data provided by the City. The assumptions reflect (i) Walker’s familiarity with the parking system in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo, and (ii) Walker’s familiarity with parking systems in similar downtowns in California. The assumptions, some of which were developed for the 2014 study, reflect Walker’s understanding of conversations with City staff. For the parking demand projections developed for this memorandum, Walker assumed the following. 1. The parking demand projections are for a typically busy weekday afternoon without special events. 2. The Phase I program data reflect information from development projects approved by the City. 3. The Phase II program data reflect potential developments. 1.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 4 a. These potential developments reflect provisional assumptions about how land uses might function upon full build out and occupancy. b. The parking demand ratios for the Phase II potential developments are not necessarily suitable for projecting parking demand at present day conditions at existing land uses. 4. The interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs on Thursday between 12 PM and 2 PM. 5. The 2015 parking occupancy data reflect the anticipated parking demand of existing land uses in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo at the full build out and occupancy of both phases of the design scenario. 6. In its analysis of the Phase I and Phase II program data, Walker assumed that the Shared Parking Model developed for the 2014 study remained sufficiently calibrated for the parking demand projections presented in this memorandum. 7. Vehicles displaced by the demolition and redevelopment of existing public off-street parking facilities within approximately 800 feet of the Palm Nipomo garage may seek to park in the garage upon its completion. 8. Projected parking surpluses for private developments will not be shared with private developments that have projected parking deficits. PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS The parking demand figures presented in this memorandum reflect a combination of two types of projections. The parking demand for the two-phased development scenario were projected using the Walker Parking Consultants/ULI Shared Parking Model. The parking demand for the rest of the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo were projected using parking demand data collected by City staff. The parking demand data for the Downtown area were collected on nine days between August 19, 2015 and October 17, 2015. On each day, City staff performed occupancy counts every other hour from 10 AM to 8 PM, inclusive. Table 3, below, lists the days on which occupancy counts were performed. The timing of the occupancy counts were meant to capture the high demand for parking that may be generated both in the late summer, the beginning of the Cal Poly semester, and the overlap of the summer and school seasons. Table 3: Parking Demand Data Collection Schedule Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. In performing the count of parked vehicles, City staff excluded the following categories of parking spaces. Wednesdays Thursdays Saturdays Aug 19, 2015 Aug 20, 2015 Aug 22, 2015 Sep 02, 2015 Sep 03, 2015 Sep 05, 2015 Oct 14, 2015 Oct 15, 2015 Oct 17, 2015 1.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 5 o Handicapped Spaces o Commercial Loading Zones o Passenger Loading Zones o Post Office meters Similarly, City staff excluded the following categories of parking behavior. o Multiple Vehicles Parked in One Space (e.g. 2 or More Motorcycles Parked in One Space) o Illegal Parking (e.g. Parking in Red Zone) Given the City staff’s familiarity with its parking system, Walker assumed that the excluded categories of parking spaces and parking behavior did not materially impact the parking demand collected by the City. PEAK PARKING DEMAND In its analysis of the 2015 parking data provided by the City, Walker determined that for the purposes of this study the interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs between 12 PM and 2 PM on Thursday afternoons. The designation of this time period as the interval of peak demand on a typically busy day assumes that typical peak demand rather than weekly or less frequent events such as a Farmer’s Market should not be a determining factor in determining the inventory of the proposed parking structure. To account for seasonal changes in the peak parking demand, Walker averaged the reported demand for the three Thursday counts. Moreover, to assess the adequacy of the parking supply, Walker used a blended effective supply factor of 0.92. An effective supply factor (ESF) is a projection of a parking system’s operational effectiveness. An ESF accounts for those spaces that are momentarily unavailable for use while cars circulate within a parking system. An ESF also accounts for the number of spaces in a parking system that are temporarily unavailable due to maintenance, mis - parked vehicles, and other factors. Finally the cushion of spaces identified by the effective supply can be used to accommodate more vehicles during spikes in demand above and beyond the design day peak demand. Table 4, below, summarizes the average peak parking demand on a typically busy weekday for the Downtown study area. Table 4: Study Area Average Peak Parking Demand, Weekdays Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. By way of comparison, in 2014, the study area analyzed consisted of a total of 2,041± on- and off- street parking spaces. The effective supply of spaces was 1,867± spaces. The interval of peak AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION SURPLUS (+)/DEFICIT (-) Study Area 2,582 parking spaces 2,375 parking spaces 1,730 vehicles 67%645 parking spaces 12PM 1.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 6 demand was identified as occurring between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM on Saturday. During that interval, 1,289 vehicles were parked resulting in a utilization percentage of 63% and a surplus of 578 parking spaces. For this year’s study, the area of study was expanded however the observed trend for peak parking demand remained consistent. The differences in inventory, effective supply, occupancy, and parking surplus are due to the City’s designation of a study area for the 2015 fieldwork that was centered on the proposed Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure site. While a full discussion and analysis of the differences between the data collection area are beyond the scope of this memorandum, the slightly increased level of occupancy (from 63% to 67%) is an indication that the 2015 data allow for a more conservative projection of the impact of the two phases of development on the parking demand in the proposed structure; demand for parking in the Downtown is assumed to be slightly higher for this analysis. The 2015 peak week day data allow for a more conservative than the 2014 data because the former reflect a higher level of occupancy in areas that will likely generate parking demand in the planned garage. Based upon additional analysis of the parking demand and program data prov ided by the City, Walker concluded that the two-phase development will likely displace vehicles that currently park in Lots 2, 10, and 14 and that these displaced vehicles would likely be parked in the proposed garage. Walker projects that the Phase I and Phase II developments will displace vehicles that currently park in Lots 2, 10, and 14 as follows. 1. City staff, based on their knowledge of parking patterns Downtown, asked Walker to assume that half of the parking demand in Lot 2 observed during the interval of peak demand would also park in the Palm Nipomo garage. At the peak a total of 52 vehicles were observed parked in Lot 2. 2. The construction of the parking structure requires the elimination of Lot 14 which would displace spaces where 48 vehicles are parking. 3. The build out of the Phase II development will require the elimination of Lot 10, which will displace 26 vehicles. Table 5, below, summarizes by phase the projected vehicle displacement for Lots 2, 10, and 14. The projected displacement is based upon data collected by City staff. Table 5: Vehicle Displacement Projections by Phase Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. Based on the on-street data collected, it is our assumption that motorists used to parking in Lot 10 and Lot 14 will seek to park in the proposed structure rather than on street or at another off-street PHASE AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION VEHICLES DISPLACED* Lot 2 59 parking spaces 54 parking spaces 52 vehicles 88%26 vehicles Lot 14 77 parking spaces 71 parking spaces 48 vehicles 63%48 vehicles Phase II Lot 10 27 parking spaces 25 parking spaces 26 vehicles 96%26 vehicles * Values indicate number of vehicles that are assumed to park in the Palm/Nipomo structure. Phase I 12PM 1.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 7 parking facility. We also assume that the City will actively engage in policies to encourage additional parking demand generated in the area to utilize the new structure. PHASE I AND PHASE II PROGRAM DATA The City asked Walker to project the parking demand for a two-phase development scenario. Phase I consists of seven (7) approved projects. The seven approved projects of Phase I fall into one of two categories. The first category consists of four approved developments that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. This category includes:  The Garden Street Terraces,  Chinatown,  Pacific Courtyards, and  Discovery San Luis Obispo. The second category is comprised of three approved developments that likely will generate a significant level of parking demand in the garage. These three developments are:  Monterey Place,  the Creamery, and  the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA). Table 6, below, provides a summary of the Phase I program data by land use. Table 6: Summary of Phase I Program Data by Land Use Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. Phase II consists of five provisional development sites. These five sites are provisional in that they reflect assumptions that are conceptual in regards to land uses and user groups. Because of the Land Use Program Data Retail (<400 ksf)66,318 s.f. Family Active Entertainment 17,500 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 6,700 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food 7,500 s.f. Museum 23,000 s.f. Spa 5,000 s.f. Hotel-Leisure 153 keys Residential 72 total d.u. 1 bedroom†4 d.u. 2 bedroom†51 d.u. >3 bedroom†17 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 22,080 s.f. † Dwelling units (d.u.) 1.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 8 conceptual nature of these assumptions, the five land uses have parking generation ratios that do not necessarily reflect contemporaneous conditions for similar land uses in the Downtown area. Table 7, below, summarizes the Phase II program data by land use. Table 7: Summary of Phase II Program Data by Land Use Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. To project the parking demand for both phases of the development scenario, Walker used the Walker Parking Consultants/Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (SPM). Walker led the research effort to update the most recent ULI Shared Parking Model. Walker’s internal SPM is based on the ULI model but includes more detail, data points and specific land uses. Furthermore, the Walker SPM allows for calibration based upon on observed conditions within a study area and anticipated conditions within proposed developments. Based upon conversations with City staff, Walker concluded that the base parking demand ratios used for the 2014 parking demand projections should also be used for the projections presented in this memorandum. Table 8, below, summarizes the ratios used in the Walker SPM for the parking demand projections for the two-phase development scenario. Land Use Program Data Retail (<400 ksf)14,440 s.f. Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 3,607 s.f. Family Restaurant 3,607 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,607 s.f. Performing Arts Theater 200 seats Residential 82 total d.u. 1 bedroom†82 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 25,000 d.u. † Dwelling units (d.u.) 1.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 9 Table 8: Ratios Used in Walker Shared Parking Model for San Luis Obispo, 2014 and 2015 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2014-2015. It should be noted that the net new parking demand projection for the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA) was reduced by 50%. This reduction represents the conclusion of Walker that SLOMA will double the parking demand it currently generates, based on past and projected attendance data. The reduction reflects the assumption that the current parking demand for SLOMA is assumed to be accounted for in the 2015 occupancy demand data collected by the City. It should also be noted that the demand ratio for SLOMA reflects a blended demand ratio that includes the planned office space and other new land uses that will be available after the site has been redeveloped. Table 9, on page 10, details the program data and parking demand projections for the four developments in Phase I that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. The table reflects the City’s present understanding that the Garden Street Terraces will address its projected parking deficit by having twenty six (26) vehicles park in the Palm Nipomo garage. Table 10, on page 11, details the program data and parking demand projections for the three developments in Phase I that are anticipated to generate significant parking demand in t he proposed Palm Nipomo structure. Table 11, on page 12, provides a detailed summary by land use of the program data for Phase II. Base Parking Demand Drive Non-Captive Retail/Commercial Space 3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%90% Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 70% - 80%100% Restaurant 9 to 15.25 spaces per ksf GLA*60% - 70%76% - 88% Employee 1.5 to 1.75 spaces per ksf GLA*70% - 80%100% Family Active Entertainment 4.5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%85% Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100% Speciality Grocery 4 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%85% Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100% Spa 6.6 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%85% Employee .4 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100% Art Museum 5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%100% Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100% Peforming Arts Theater .3 spaces per seat 60% - 70%100% Employee .07 spaces per seat 65% - 75%100% Hotel 1 space per key 90%100% Employee .18 space per key 65% - 75%100% Office .3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%100% Employee 3 spaces per ksf GLA 70% - 80%100% Residential First space per unit is reserved. Studio 1 space per d.u. 1-bedroom 1.5 spaces per d.u. 2-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u. 3-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u. Visitor .15 space per d.u. * Values indicate ranges for three restaurant sub-categories: fine casual, family, and fast casual. 70% (All units) 100% (All units) Ratios Land use Shared Parking Adjustments Shared parking adjustments account for fluctations in parking demand by land use type. These fluctuaions generally center around hour of day, day of week, month, and season. These adjustments are performed by the Walker Parking Consultants Shared Parking Model. 1.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 10 Table 9: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Unlikely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo Structure Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. LAND USES Garden St. Terraces 1119 Garden St.Chinatown Pacific Courtyards 1321/1327 Osos St. Discovery San Luis Obispo (DSLO) Marsh & Chorro Total Retail (<400 ksf)15,542 s.f.43,750 s.f. s.f. s.f.59,292 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining s.f.3,000 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,000 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food s.f. s.f. s.f.7,500 s.f.7,500 s.f. Family Active Entertainment s.f. s.f. s.f.17,500 s.f.17,500 s.f. Spa 5,000 s.f.0 0 0 5,000 s.f. Hotel-Leisure 64 keys 78 keys keys 0 142 keys Residential Guest†8 d.u.32 d.u.9 d.u.0 49 d.u. 1 bedroom† d.u. d.u.1 d.u.0 1 d.u. 2 bedroom†8 d.u.17 d.u.6 d.u.0 31 d.u. >3 bedroom† d.u.15 d.u.2 d.u.0 17 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f.0%0 0 0 0 Planned Parking Supply 41 spaces 53 spaces*34 spaces 0 128 spaces Projected Parking Demand¥93 spaces 183 spaces 27 spaces 54 spaces 370 spaces Projected Adequacy/Deficit -52 spaces -130 spaces 7 spaces‡-54 spaces -236 spaces Projected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**26 vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles 26 vehicles Notes ‡ Surplus provided for reference only. The projected 236 space deficit excludes 7 space surplus. * Indicates stacked parking spaces † Dwelling units (d.u.) ^ Projected supply after loss of 15 parking spaces. ** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage ¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon. 1.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 11 Table 10: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Likely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo Structure Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. LAND USES Monterey Place 667/679 Monterey St. Creamery Additional/ Remodel SLOMA Total Retail (<400 ksf)6,270 s.f.756 s.f. s.f.7,026 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 3,700 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,700 s.f. Museum 0 0 23,000 s.f.23,000 s.f. Hotel-Leisure 11 keys keys 0 11 keys Residential Guest†23 d.u. d.u.0 23 d.u. 1 bedroom†3 d.u. d.u.0 3 d.u. 2 bedroom†20 d.u. d.u.0 20 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 14,030 s.f. s.f. s.f.14,030 s.f.0%0 0 0 Planned Parking Supply 29 spaces*0 spaces 0 spaces 29 spaces Projected Parking Demand¥94 spaces 1 space 39 spaces§134 vehicles Projected Adequacy/Deficit -65 spaces -1 space -39 spaces -105 spaces Projected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**65 vehicles 1 vehicle 39 vehicles 105 vehicles Notes § Total assumes that SLOMA parking demand will be approximately double the existing art gallery . † Dwelling units (d.u.) ¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon. * Indicates stacked parking spaces ** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage 1.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 12 Table 11: Phase II Program Data Assumptions Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. PHASE II LAND USES Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Total Retail (<400 ksf)8,500 s.f.1,440 s.f.4,500 s.f.14,440 s.f. Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f.6,500 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 2,167 s.f.1,440 s.f.3,607 s.f. Family Restaurant 2,167 s.f.1,440 s.f.3,607 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food 2,167 s.f.1,440 s.f.3,607 s.f. Performing Arts Theater 200 seats 200 seats Residential Guest†50 d.u.20 d.u.12 d.u.82 d.u. 1 bedroom†50 d.u.20 d.u.12 d.u.82 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 22,000 s.f.3,000 s.f.25,000 s.f. Planned Parking Supply 50 spaces 16 spaces 12 spaces 21 spaces 99 spaces Projected Parking Demand¥107 spaces 47 spaces 17 spaces 53 spaces 9 spaces 233 spaces Projected Adequacy/Deficit -57 spaces -31 spaces -5 spaces -32 spaces -9 spaces -134 spaces Projected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**57 vehicles 31 vehicles 5 vehicles 32 vehicles 9 vehicles 134 vehicles Notes † Dwelling Units (d.u.) ¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon. ** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage 1.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 13 Figure 1: Proposed Locations of Palm/Nipomo Structure and Phase I and Phase II Developments Source: Image, Google Earth Professional, 2015; development locations, City of San Luis Obispo, 2015; graphics, Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. 1.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 14 CONCLUSION Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445-space parking facility as currently envisioned, would have a parking space surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I , based on a projected demand for 204± spaces and effective supply factor of 0.92. Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects that a 445-space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase II , based on a projected demand for 364± spaces (combined phases I + 2) and effective supply factor of 0.92. The Palm/Nipomo structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces is significantly more than currently necessary to accommodate current parking demand. The likely demand for parking generated by Phase I development represents less than half the planned supply of parking. However for Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking for future development, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environme ntally friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. Given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to make a significant investment(or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared, public parking. However, if the projected Phase II development were not to occur as envisioned, the usefulness of the structure could be limited. 1.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: b - Downtown Parking Lot Map (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 2011 Preliminary Design1.c Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 2011 Urban Design Plan1.c Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure) was established by the Council as an “other” major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. The proposed parking structure site is currently occupied by City-owned surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Street and two single family residences on Monterey Street). The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site; 79 surface parking spaces currently exist on the site. They were directed to incorporate uses intended by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center. They were also asked to be mindful of the City’s height regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is the principal use. Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures: a self park structure, like the City’s current parking structures; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in the structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay. May 25, 2004 City Council Direction Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eight schematic design options. Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the “baseline” design options for further study. Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options: 1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing. 2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built. 3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street. 4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project. 5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground. 6. Proposing other possible uses (ie. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for the roof of the structure. 7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line. July 5, 2005 City Council Direction On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roof of the structure. At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of 1.e Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 providing access, added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use. Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components: 1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street. 2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.) on project plans. 4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design. 5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe detached “Dwelling over Garage”). 6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City’s Zoning Regulations and note where exceptions are needed. 7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings. 8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site. 9. Identify location of access/servicing area for “Future Use by Others”- if office use is developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street. 10. Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons for the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass. In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additional refinements to Self Park Option D3: a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible. b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access. c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey. To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine building heights. In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other uses on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing. The Council dismissed this idea after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements. These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure. The Council agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an already expensive parking structure. 1.e Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 April 24, 2007 City Council Direction In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options. All options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by “others” when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place. The three options were compared from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost and operational cost. Table 1 - Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3 Summary of Key Features Self park structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure oriented to reduce building height impact. Building Footprint 34,350 s.f. 20,500 s.f. 20,500 s.f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s.f. 118,750 s.f. 121,500 s.f. No. of Levels 4 ½ 5 ½ 6 Building Height (35 ft.) * Height exception needed? 39 ft. Yes 41 ft. Yes 37 ft. Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft.) Street yard exception needed? Other yard (10 ft.) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0-10 ft. Yes 25 ft. No Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Future Use by Others 11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f. 12,700 s.f. 19,800 s.f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 7,000 s.f. Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended, and the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as the preferred design. Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, 1.e Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 however much of the residence’s rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure. One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure’s roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe. Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required. Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing the structure. Site Diagram for Option D3 The parking structure’s height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers. Monterey Street = 33 feet Nipomo Street = 36 feet Palm Street = 44 feet Adjoining “Dwelling over Garage” = 21 feet March 17, 2009 City Council Direction On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The questions were: 1. Can we afford it? 2. And if we build it, will they come? 1.e Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration: 1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016-17. 2. Rename the project “Monterey Parking Structure.” 3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. 4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the General Plan. 5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces combined with increases in parking demand. Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure. However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking. Projects such as Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce public parking surface lots. In addition, parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/or converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown. Based on past consultant reports, parking demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years. Further, because the City is in the early phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantly upon creation of the district. To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years. December 1, 2009 City Council Direction Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental review with the assumption that a mitigated negative declaration would be prepared. The consultant team was hired, two public workshops held, and a preliminary urban design plan developed that has been well received by the community. The design assumes the removal of five City owned residences; two of which are located within a historic district. Environmental studies undertaken determined that removal of the two residences would cause a substantial diminishment of the Downtown Historic District and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be needed to allow for their removal. January 3, 2012 City Council Direction Council directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to prepare a focused environmental impact report to evaluate the cultural resource issue as well as potential issues such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic. Due to staff resources and other City priorities, this work effort was delayed. As part of the 2015 annual Parking Fund review, Council directed staff to return with a study session to present an update on the delivery of the project and bring forward financial issues. This decision was made in the midst of the Great Recession and assumptions of background private development that would drive the need for the structure continued to be questionable with many significant projects (Garden Street Terraces, Chinatown) being delayed by economic conditions. 1.e Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 The uncertain timing of new development and potential for major revisions to their parking demand led staff to conclude it would be prudent to defer work on the environmental impact report and the final project design until the economy recovered. In essence, issues that need to be determined in the structure’s final design (such as total number of spaces, height limitations and building footprint) could be affected if major shifts occurred in parking demand due to revised private development needs. January 19, 2016 – Project Reboot City Council Direction Staff is seeking additional council concurrence with project recommendations and moving forward with design and the EIR. In addition, staff is seeking Council direction on negotiating a new MOA with the SLO Little Theater for use of remnant area as part of the Palm Nipomo properties. 1.e Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 50 California Street Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 982-5544 415 982-4513 fax www.pfm.com October 14, 2015 Memorandum To: Tim Bochum, City of San Luis Obispo Jeff Brown, City of San Luis Obispo From: Sarah Hollenbeck, Public Financial Management, Inc. Re: Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations Public Financial Management, Inc. (“PFM”) has prepared the following memorandum as a high- level summary of some of the financing alternatives the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) may want to consider in determining its approach to the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage project. Assuming the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage will be a public, City-owned parking structure, the City has several options for financing the project. Two primary alternatives are lease revenue bonds and parking revenue bonds. As it has done in the past (e.g., Series 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds), the City could issue lease revenue bonds to fund the project, using either the project itself or another existing City asset as the security for the bonds. Lease Revenue Bond Considerations:  The General Fund is pledged to repayment (though the City can budget the debt payments from the Parking Fund, similar to what it has done with prior lease revenue bond issuances, where debt service is allocated to other enterprise funds depending upon the projects financed with the bond proceeds)  Lease revenue bonds carry a lower interest rate than parking revenue bonds  The City must have available of unencumbered asset(s) to pledge  If assets of sufficient value are not available, the City will need to use capitalized interest during construction Alternatively, the City could finance the Palm-Nipomo project using parking revenue bonds, pledging the net revenues of the Parking Fund to repay the debt. Parking Revenue Bond Considerations:  With a parking revenue bond, the obligation to repay is limited to the net revenues of the parking system, so there is no General Fund exposure 1.f Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations October 14, 2015 Page 2  Due to the limited pledge of revenue, this type of financing carries a higher borrowing cost than lease revenue bonds  Parking revenue bonds are uncommon, perhaps due to associated risks and the resulting cost of borrowing  Net revenues of the parking system (after O&M) will need to generate annual debt service coverage of approximately 2.0x  The City will have to covenant to set parking rates at levels sufficient to meet this coverage requirement  Unless existing system revenues are sufficient to pay debt service on the new garage (and generate required coverage), the City will need to capitalize interest during the construction/ramp up period For comparison, we have provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a lease revenue bond and a parking revenue bond, based upon a project cost of $17,600,000. Given that construction is not anticipated to begin until FY2017-18, we have assumed some increase in municipal bond interest rates, which are currently near historic lows. For both scenarios we have assumed that interest on the bonds during the construction period is capitalized, that the bonds have a debt service reserve fund, and that the term of the bonds is 30 years. Annual debt service on a lease revenue bond issuance is estimated at approximately $1.3 million and with the General Fund pledge on a lease revenue bond, there is no annual debt service coverage covenant. Annual debt service on a parking revenue bond is estimated at approximately $1.7 million. To generate 2.0x debt service coverage, the parking system would need to generate $3.4 million of net revenue in the Parking Fund. For either of the two security structures discussed above, the City could also consider financing the Palm-Nipomo parking structure through a loan from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (the “I-Bank”), as it did in 2001 for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure. The I-Bank may offer interest rates that are lower than the City could achieve though a public offering of bonds. There is an application process for I-Bank financing that can be lengthy, so this alternative should be explored well in advance of the funding need for the project. Should the City elect to pursue a project at the Palm-Nipomo site that involves a partnership with a private entity, plans for private use of a portion of the garage, or other modifications to the basic concept of a City-owned facility available for use by the public, the financing options may change and the costs differ from those described above. 1.f Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Page intentionally left blank. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, November 17, 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 17, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, 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. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM Mike King, expressed gratitude to staff and the City Council for their cooperation with the contract negotiations with the San Luis Obispo Fire Department; explained a brief history regarding fire fighter salaries, noting that there have been zero increases in salaries for the past five years; stating that the current fire fighter salaries have fallen below industry standards, anticipated that salaries will increase through negotiations. 5.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 17, 2015 Page 2 CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Katie Lichtig, Derek Johnson, Greg Zocher, J. Christine Dietrick, Jon Ansolabehere, Garret Olson, Rick Bolanos Represented Employee Organizations: San Luis Obispo City Employee’s Association (SLOCEA) San Luis Obispo Police Officer’s Association (POA) San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officer’s Association (SLOPSOA) International Association of Firefighters Local 3523 Unrepresented Employees: Unrepresented Management Employees Unrepresented Confidential Employees B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d). 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. RECESS The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. 5.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 17, 2015 Page 3 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, November 17, 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATION PROCLAMATION – TRAGEDY IN PARIS, FRANCE Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation submitted by President Barack Obama, entitled “Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy In Paris, France.” REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Dietrick advised that Council took no reportable actions for Closed Session Items A and B. PUBLIC COMMENT Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, expressed support of the quality of the City’s water supply, noting that his grandchildren and his pet commenced drinking water from the City’s water supply for the past two months; expressed concerns relating to creek maintenance and a flood control plan regarding the City’s creeks. Daniela Czerny, Cal Poly Associated Students Incorporated Board of Directors, expressed support to establish future collaborations and communication with the City Council and staff. 5.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 17, 2015 Page 4 Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns related to the economy and rights of the citizens; stated concerns with geoengineering. CONSENT AGENDA Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with waiving all readings of resolutions and ordinances; urged the City Council to contribute efforts in fighting the drought; suggested that the City Council visit the website entitled "geoengineeringwatch.org" to learn more about geoengineering and international concerns. MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 thru 4. 1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 2. INFLUENT PUMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT - SPECIFICATION NO. 91419 MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the purchase of two influent pump systems for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), Spec No. 91419. 2. Authorize the City Manager to award the pump purchase contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s estimate of $127,000. 3. Authorize the transfer of $47,000 from the WRRF Major Maintenance Account to the project. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1626 (SECOND READING) - AMENDING CHAPTER 17.87, THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE STANDARDS MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to: Adopt 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. 4. EXTENSION OF LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR ONGOING PERSONNEL DISCIPLINARY APPEAL MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to: Authorize the City Attorney to execute a second amendment to the October 1, 2014 Legal Services Agreement with the Law Offices of Jones & Mayer for a personnel disciplinary appeal increasing the “not to exceed” amount from $50,000 to $70,000. 5.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 17, 2015 Page 5 BUSINESS ITEMS 5. CITY COUNCIL INPUT ON LAND USE CONCEPTS FOR THE CAL POLY MASTER PLAN UPDATE Community Development Director Codron and Senior Planner Leveille narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “City Comments on the Cal Poly Master Plan Update,” and responded to Council inquiries. Mayor Marx recognized Dr. Linda Dalton at the podium; Dr. Dalton explained that the staff report provides a detailed report on the project description, noting that a specific date will be provided to the City Council in the upcoming year with further updates to the project. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, opined that students of Cal Poly need a location on campus for an alcohol outlet to detour students from engagement in the downtown; encouraged more jobs related with a focus in technology due to the increased number of students. Sharon Whitney, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, expressed gratitude to Cal Poly and City staff for listening to the recommendations that the community has provided; spoke on potential impacts on housing in the neighborhoods; spoke on the omission of the 1999 Neighborhoods Relations Task Force recommendations to Cal Poly in the staff report. Each Council Member disclosed communications with staff, expressing support to the Cal Poly Master Plan Update. Vice Mayor Ashbaugh spoke against the proposed motion as it fails to contend with two problems with the Master Plan: 1) Location of a proposed Wastewater Reclamation Facility and 2) Designating additional residential neighborhoods on the Cal Poly Campus to accommodate faculty and staff. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-1 (VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH VOTING NO), to adopt Resolution No. 10676 (2015 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, providing City input to Cal Poly for consideration in their Master Plan Update process (GENP-2088-2015).” 5.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 17, 2015 Page 6 STUDY SESSION 6. FUTURE SLO TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Public Works Deputy Director Bochum and Transit Manager Anguiano narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Study Session Transit Operations and Maintenance Contract Services,” and reviewed the contents of the Council Agenda Report. By consensus, the City Council directed staff to receive and file a presentation on the upcoming Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the City’s Transit Operations and Maintenance Contract Services and directed staff to make changes to the current RFP process, including these features: 1) New contract is for 4 years and includes 3 possible one – year extensions, 2) “Best-In-Value” vs. Lowest Price, 3) New RFP based on recommended RFP “template,” 4) Innovative RFP Evaluation Scoring Method, and 5) More robust language – standardized verbal arrangements, current practices and staff positions. Public Works Deputy Director Bochum announced that in support of small local businesses in the City, SLO Transit is offering free bus service to consumers on November 28, 2015. LIAISON REPORTS Council Liaison reports were received from Council Member Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Jon Ansolabehere Interim City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2016 5.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, December 1, 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, December 1, 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. PRESENTATION 1. PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO OUTGOING VICE MAYOR JOHN ASHBAUGH Mayor Marx presented a Certificate of Recognition and a token of appreciation from Palazzo Giuseppe to outgoing Vice Mayor Ashbaugh. 2. PROCLAMATION - GIVING TUESDAY Mayor Marx presented a proclamation to Lesley Santos Dierks, and Jenna Smith representing Spokes, declaring December 1, 2015 as "Giving Tuesday." 5.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 1, 2015 Page 2 APPOINTMENTS 3. VICE MAYOR APPOINTMENT FOR 2016 Assistant City Clerk Maier presented the contents of the City Council Agenda Report. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to appoint Council Member Dan Carpenter as Vice Mayor to serve a one-year term commencing upon appointment. 4. APPOINTMENT TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (HRC) Assistant City Clerk Maier presented the contents of the City Council Agenda Report. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to appoint Paul Orton to the Human Relations Commission, to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2017. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, inquired about his comments at the previous council meeting regarding geoengineering; opined that local government should not rubber stamp the citizens. Jason Wells, Templeton, spoke about Leadership San Luis Obispo’s 2016 Legacy Leadership project; stated that the leadership class will design phase one of the project; noted that input from the City Council and public is welcomed during the planning approval process. Stephanie Teaford, San Luis Obispo, spoke about her role as the community liaison for the President’s Office at Cal Poly; noted that her last day as community liaison will be at the end of January; announced that Courtney Kienow has accepted the role as Director of Community Relations. Jeffery Specht, San Luis Obispo, inquired about the recruitment process of the new Police Chief; stated that seniors have expressed concerns about disturbances at the bars located in the downtown area; identified that the City hired two Community Action Team (CAT) officers to help with the problems in the downtown. Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, thanked staff for providing him with an update about the City’s creeks; opined that the public has a lack of knowledge about the creeks and the potential problems associated with flooding; suggested that staff include information about the City’s creeks and creek maintenance requirements with the Fire departments annual utility billing notification. Bob Shanbrom, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns that the City has not prepared for the upcoming climate change; recommend that Council preserve the City’s water for the future. 5.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 1, 2015 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, requested that Item 7 be pulled and discussed; suggested utilizing City busses to display public art; stated that public art could be a tourist attraction which would add diversity to the City. In response to public comment, Council Member Ashbaugh explained the background for Item 7. In response to public comment, Mayor Marx stated that the Public Art Master plan is scheduled for Spring 2016, noting that public input is encouraged. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Consent Agenda Items 5 thru 12. 5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 6. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 2015 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of October 20, 2015. 7. ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC ART FUNDS FOR UTILITY BOX ART AND PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FOR 2015-17 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Approve the appropriation of $35,126 in 2015-16 Development Art-In-Lieu fees to the Public Art Fund in support of Public Art projects. 2. Approve the use of Public Art funds in the amount of $48,000 for the repainting of the Utility Box Art program Phase One; and 3. Approve the use of Public Art funds in the amount of $28,500 for the public art maintenance projects. 8. AMEND THE JOINT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (SLCUSD) MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Amendment Number One to the Joint Use Agreement between the City and the SLCUSD and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 5.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 1, 2015 Page 4 9. EXTENSION OF THE LAGUNA LAKE GOLF COURSE CONCESSIONAIRE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ACHIEVEMENT HOUSE, INC. AND REDUCTION OF RENTAL PAYMENT MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Eliminate rental payments during the initial term of the Amended Concessionaire Agreement between the City and Achievement House, Inc., and 2. Authorize Amendment Number 2 to Agreement which approves an extension of the Concessionaire Lease between the City and Achievement House through October 19, 2019 at a rental rate of $1,800 per annum. 10. SLO BASEBALL ALLIANCE (SLO BLUES) STADIUM USE AGREEMENT MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to approve a Stadium Use Agreement with the SLO Baseball Alliance, LLC (the “SLO Blues”) for the use of San Luis Obispo Baseball Stadium at Sinsheimer Park for 2015 to 2021 and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. 11. ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE COOPERATIVE WORK AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECTS MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10677 (2015 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute cooperative work agreements with the State of California Department of Transportation,” for Federal Aid projects and any subsequent program supplements. 12. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PARKING CITATION PROCESSING SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO 91430 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Parking Citation Processing Services, Specification No. 91430, and 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder should proposals be within the authorized budgeted amount. 5.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 1, 2015 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. CONSIDERATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR INTERIM WATER AND SEWER SERVICE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES OF PROPERTY ALONG FIERO LANE AND CLARION COURT - PROJECT INCLUDES AN ADDENDUM TO THE AIRPORT AREA AND MARGARITA AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Carloni narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Fiero Lane/Clarion Court ANNX -1166-2015” and responded to City Council inquiries. Each Council Member disclosed their ex-parte communications with the applicants regarding this project. Mayor Marx opened the Public Hearing. Matt Quaglino, Applicant, urged the City Council’s support for the annexation of Fiero Lane and Clairon Court area; opined that the City policy for the double-rate was intended to discourage outside users from requesting water service; noted that he disagreed with a Council Memorandum which stated that property values will increase if they are annexed; opined that property values are based on income not on utility companies; stated that if the project is unable to move forward then they will be forced to upgrade their system and water sources. Rob Miller, Applicant, explained the process of the interim water service; clarified that the infrastructure that provides the current water service will remain in place during the interim period; stated that the wastewater plant will not be relocated until 2019; noted that the Fiero Lane and Clairon Court areas are accustomed to be water efficient due to their limited water supply. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, opined that there is a need for additional water resources; suggested utilizing well water as a resource; recommended extending the City’s sewer line. Bob Shanbrom, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the applicant’s low water supply; opined that a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be a requirement for this project; urged Council to not move forward with the annexation. Rob Miller, Applicant, described the current water source for Fiero Lane Water Company, noting that the water quality was poor and costly to treat; stated that of the 20 acre feet of water use, 80% of the water will be sent back to the City as recycled water. There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. In response to public comment, Utilities Director Mattingly explained that the City does have enough water to handle the annexation; stated that the 20 acre feet of water use has been incorporated into the City’s long range water resource calculation. 5.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 1, 2015 Page 6 Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 10678 (2015 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the proposed annexation along Fiero Lane and Clarion Court and the provision of Interim Water and Sewer service (850 Fiero Lane),” with the following revisions: a. Amend Section 5, Interim Water and Sewer Service, Subsection A, Interim Hook-Up of the Memorandum of Agreement to read as follows: “…CITY shall have no obligation whatsoever to provide COMPANY with water or sewer service prior to Annexation. COMPANY further acknowledges and agrees that CITY shall have no obligation whatsoever to provide interim water and/or sewer service under this Section 5 unless and until COMPANY provides CITY with all necessary documents for the City’s Annexation application to initiate proceedings for the annexation of the Area into the City’s boundaries. During the Interim Service Period, COMPANY shall continue to provide its customers with…” 2. Approve an Addendum to the Airport Area and Margarita Area Environment Impact Report. 3. Introduce Ordinance No. 1627 (2015 Series) entitled “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).” BUSINESS ITEMS 14. ACTION FOR CITY CIVILITY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Police Captain Staley and Neighborhood Outreach Manager Wallace narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Implementation of Community Civility Report Recommendations” and responded to City Council inquiries. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the use of door hangers in the City; stated that door hangers are not encouraged in this town; questioned staff as to why the public would want to register their party; opined that City ordinances should not go into effect without a permanent Police Chief. Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, thanked staff and Cal Poly for the creation of the Neighborhood Civility Working Group; opined that noise is still a problem for the residents that live near Cal Poly; recommended that staff consider adding a noise abatement technician position in the Police Department; concurred with the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) letter regarding increasing the number of resident voting members for the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). 5.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 1, 2015 Page 7 Sandra Rowley, Residents Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), spoke in favor of adding a noise abatement technician positon in the Police Department; expressed disappointment that the City Council and City residents were not given enough time to review the language and recommendations of this report; spoke in support of not providing a map or listing of rental properties. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke on her past experience interacting with students in the neighborhoods in the evening; opined that Cal Poly needs to provide more student activities to prevent late night neighborhood parties. Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Approve implementation strategies for the City led Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility recommendations with the following revision: a. Section 10 to read as follows: “Work with the City to generate a neighborhood map of housing rental properties and provide outreach to student renters by funding welcome bags for neighbors to distribute to establish positive interactions. Action: Currently, SLOPD Neighborhood Outreach provides rack cards and door hangers to residents wishing to conduct focused outreach to various properties/residents. In addition, the Police Department and Code Enforcement “Walk and Talks” are the personal contacts and provision of educational materials to thousands of residents at the beginning of the academic year. Neighborhoods, such as Alta Vista, visit properties annually with a welcome letter sharing information and expectations with new residents. Given limited resources and funding, the City is not in a position to complete this objective. Further discussion to determine program viability is recommended.” 2. Request that the Student Community Liaison Committee consider modifying the Memorandum of Understanding to add two additional voting members who are non- student residents. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY MAYOR MARX, CARRIED, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH VOTING NO), to: make no changes to the City membership of the Student Community Liaison Committee. LIAISON REPORTS Council Liaison reports were received from Council Members Ashbaugh, Christianson and Mayor Marx. 5.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 1, 2015 Page 8 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, December 15, 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/2016 5.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: a - Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015 (1240 : Minutes of November 17 and December 1, 2015) Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Planning Technician SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE HOUSING RELATED PARKS PROGRAM. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) authorizing staff to apply to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for $288,650 of Housing Related Parks (Parks) Grant program funds to be applied towards the Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation project. DISCUSSION Background On October 26, 2015, HCD released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Housing Related Parks (Parks) Grant program. The NOFA included $30 million in new funds for the Parks program. This program is designed to encourage the development of lower income housing. The Parks Grant program makes awards to eligible jurisdictions, on a per -bedroom basis for each extremely-low, very-low and low income affordable residential units with documented building permits or a certificate of occupancy issued during the designated program period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. The Parks Grant program provides funds for eligible parks and recreation projects that benefit the community and add to the quality of life; grants are awarded on a non-competitive basis. The Parks Grant program guidelines are available for review in the Council Reading File. The City had five affordable housing projects that qualified during the designated program period. One eligible housing project was South Hills Crossing, located at 313 South Street, which includes 42 extremely-low, very-low and low income affordable units ranging from one to three-bedrooms. Another eligible housing project was Moylan Terrace, an 81 unit development with 16 very-low and low income units. The remaining qualifying projects included Habitat for Humanity’s three single family homes on Rockview, Transitions Mental Health’s eight affordable transitional dwelling units, and eight affordable units located at 3229/3239 Broad. Funding Amount Requested The grant requires the applicants to meet a minimum grant amount of $75,000. The City has exceeded the minimum $75,000 threshold requirement and will be applying for $288,650. HCD supplies a formula and chart to calculate the total award amount, which is based upon the affordability level and number of bedrooms constructed in each of the eligible projects. HCD 6 Packet Pg. 69 also offers four opportunities to collect bonus awards, including: 1. Infill projects; 2. Projects in conformance with the Regional Blueprint Plan; 3. Projects located within a park deficient community; and 4. Projects located within a disadvantage community. The HCD chart used for calculation of the potential award is shown below: Qualifying Park Project The Parks Grant funds must be used for creation or rehabilitation of parks and recreation facilities that meet the program guideline eligibility requirements. Staff recommends applying the grant funds toward the Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation (“Playground”) project. The Playground project, which is identified in the 2013-15 Capital Improvement Plan of the Financial Plan (page 3-395 through 3-398), includes complete renovation and expansion of the playground area. Amenities include new multi-level play equipment, protective surfacing, accessible walkways, picnic tables, benches, new irrigation, trees, and drought tolerant plantings. The new accessible walkways will allow access to the upper play area as well as the second level of the play “tower” structure and the hillside embankment. Additionally, the project will include improvements to the restroom facilities to bring them into compliance with current accessibility regulations. The preliminary estimate of construction costs is approximately $795,000. Applying for the Parks Grant makes sense because renovation or rehabilitation of a playground meets the Project Identifier from Project Summary Sheet Unit Count Bonus Awards TOTAL A B C D E F G Base Award Amount # of Extremely Low Income units # Very Low units # of Low units # of Extremely Low Income bedrooms # of Very Low bedrooms # of Low bedrooms Total # of bedrooms Infill units? Infill Supporting/ Regional Blueprint? Park Deficient Community? Disadvantaged Community? Total Bonus Funds Total Award Amount 3229/3239 Broad 8 12 11 $6,000 Yes Yes No Yes $13,800 $19,800 Transitions Mental Health (1306 Nipomo) 8 8 8 $6,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes $13,200 $19,200 South Hills Crossing 5 28 9 12 64 19 95 $69,500 Yes Yes No Yes $109,250 $178,750 Moylan Terrace 2 14 6 28 32 $17,000 Yes Yes No Yes $36,800 $53,800 3208 Rockview 1 3 3 $2,250 Yes Yes No Yes $3,450 $5,700 3210 Rockview 1 3 3 $2.250 Yes Yes No Yes $3,450 $5,700 3212 Rockview 1 3 3 $2,250 Yes Yes No Yes $3,450 $5,700 TOTAL 5 41 31 12 85 59 156 $105,250 $183,400 $288,650 6 Packet Pg. 70 eligibility requirements and since the total project cost of $799,000 exceeds the estimated grant amount of $288,650, the grant will be fully expended. Consistency with Grant Management Policy The City has adopted a grant management policy to insure that new grant projects are consistent with City goals and that there are sufficient resources to administer funds awarded through new grant programs. A copy of the City’s Grant Management Policy is available in the Council Reading File. In this case, staff recommends that the grant funds be applied to an existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, the Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation project. This project was first identified as one of Council’s 2013-15 Financial Plan goals for infrastructure maintenance and the construction documents are nearly complete. Therefore, the proposed new grant program applied to this existing CIP project would not create a substantial new work load, is consistent with City goals, and the full grant amount can be expended almost immediately upon receipt. City Manager or Assistant City Manager to Execute Program Related Documents The attached resolution provides the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager (or authorized designee) with the necessary authority to execute program related documents, including an application, standard agreement and any amendments thereto (Attachment A, Draft Resolution). To implement the program after award, the Director of Public Works is also specifically authorized to submit payment requests, provide status updates, and provide program/project closeout documents to facilitate program implementation. FISCAL IMPACTS The Parks Grant program can be administered using staff resources already programmed for the Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation project and, therefore; the program is not expected to impact the General Fund staffing costs. In fact, applying the Parks Grant to the Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation project may allow General Funds currently programmed for the project to be used for other playground or park maintenance projects. Any unused funding at the end of the project will be returned to the Playground Master Account for use on future park projects. CONCURRENCES The Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission at its April 1, 2015 meeting. The Public Works Department concurs with the use of Parks Grant funds to offset General Fund dollars for the playground renovation. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not apply for the grant. The Council could direct staff to not apply for the grant. Staff does not recommend this alternative. The City should take advantage of all available grant resources to supplement the General Fund revenues which will help accomplish City goals and objectives. 6 Packet Pg. 71 2. Choose a different qualifying park. The Council may propose a different qualifying park project instead of applying the grant to the Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation project. Other qualifying park projects could include park maintenance projects currently programed such as sport court resurfacing and bleacher replacements at Santa Rosa Park and Meadow Park. Staff does not recommend applying the grant to these other park maintenance projects as these projects are smaller in scale and may not require the full amount of the grant. Attachments: a - Resolution Authorizing Housing Related Parks Grant Application Council Reading File - City of San Luis Obispo Grant Management Policy Council Reading File - 2015 Housing Related Parks Program Guidelines 6 Packet Pg. 72 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. XXXX(2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $288,650 TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR HOUSING RELATED PARKS PROGRAM FUNDS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR PARK UPGRADES AT SINSHEIMER PARK WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, a charter city and municipal corporation, wishes to apply for and receive an allocation of funds through the Housing Related Parks (Parks) Grant program; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (hereinafter referred to as “HCD”) has issued a Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) for the Parks Grant program established by Chapter 8, Sections 50700 through 50704.5 of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code (the “statute”). Pursuant to the statute, HCD is authorized to approve funding allocation utilizing monies made available by the State legislature to the Parks Grant program, subject to the terms and conditions of the Parks Grant program Guidelines adopted as amended by HCD on October 26, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo wishes to submit an application to obtain from HCD an allocation of Parks Grant program funds in the amount of $288,650; and WHEREAS, HCD is authorized to approve funding allocations for the Parks Grant program, subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, Program Guidelines, Application Package, and Standard Agreement; and WHEREAS, at the time of application, the City of San Luis Obispo has a General Plan Housing Element that is certified by HCD; and WHEREAS, at the time of the application, the City of San Luis Obispo has a General Plan in conformance with the Regional Blueprint Plan as required by HCD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Application. The City of San Luis Obispo shall submit to HCD an application to participate in the Parks Grant program in response to the NOFA issued on October 26, 2015, which will request financial assistance to help in the purchase and installation of new multi-level play equipment, protective surfacing, accessible walkways, and other related park improvements at Sinsheimer Park. SECTION 2. Eligible Activities. If the application for funding is approved, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby agrees to use the Parks Grant program funds for eligible activities in the manner presented in the application as approved by HCD and in accordance with program 6.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: a - Resolution Authorizing Housing Related Parks Grant Application (1220 : Housing Related Parks Grant Application Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 2 Guidelines as cited above. The City of San Luis Obispo may also execute any and all other instruments necessary or required by HCD for participation in the Parks Grant program. SECTION 3. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager to execute in the name of the City of San Luis Obispo, the application, the Standard Agreement, and all other documents required by HCD for participation in the Parks Grant program, and any amendments thereto. In addition, the City Council hereby authorizes the Director of Public Works to submit payment requests, provide status updates and provide program/project closeout documents to facilitate program implementation. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ______ day of________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ 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 ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 6.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: a - Resolution Authorizing Housing Related Parks Grant Application (1220 : Housing Related Parks Grant Application Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, SPECIFICATION 91392, CONTRACT AWARD AND BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION 1. Award and approve a consultant services agreement with the firm MNS Engineers, Inc. (“MNS”) in an amount not-to-exceed $445,000 for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management pursuant to Request for Proposals Specification No. 91392; and 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request to move funds between phases within the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management CIP. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Pursuant to the City Council’s authorization to issue a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management project, staff has conducted the RFP process and recommends the contract be awarded to MNS Engineers, Inc. (“MNS”). In order for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project to achieve “shovel ready” status by the end of the 2015-17 Financial Plan period, a Budget Amendment Request will be necessary to fully fund the proposed contract with MNS, as shown below: Laguna Lake CIP Original Budget As Amended Study $25,000 $190,000 Environmental / Permit $50,000 $90,000 Land Acquisition $25,000 - Design / Specifications $100,000 $170,000 Construction $250,000 - TOTAL $450,000 $450,000 DISCUSSION Background The City of San Luis Obispo owns the 344 -acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve (“the Reserve”) that includes most of the lake itself, portions of Prefumo Creek and its outlet into the lake, and adjacent upland areas. The City Council adopted the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation 7 Packet Pg. 75 Plan (“Conservation Plan”) on July 15, 2014, to guide future management of the Reserve by offering a framework for conservation, restoration, recovery, and scenic recreational use. The City’s Financial Plan for 2015-17 identifies implementation of the Conservation Plan as an “Other Important Council Objective” and includes a work plan that contains all of the necessary steps to bring a dredging and sediment management project to “shovel ready” status. On August 18, 2015, the City Council authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management and also authorized the City Manager to award a consultant services agreement in an amount not-to-exceed the total project budget (Attachment A, Council Agenda Report; Attachment B, Council Minutes, August 18, 2015 Regular Meeting of the City Council). However, given the substantial change to the original budget described herein, coupled with significant Council and community interest in this project, staff have returned to Council for final authorization to proceed as proposed. Request for Proposals Process On August 24, 2015, the City issued a Notice Requesting Proposals for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management, Specification No. 91392 (Attachment C). The RFP was processed consistent with all applicable policies and state laws regarding purchasing and public bidding. Staff identified and assembled a “short list” of firms that the City has prior experience with or that appeared to have the appropriate experience and credentials based on our approved on-call list of engineering firms and environmental consulting firms. A pre-proposal conference was held in City Hall on September 10, 2015 that was attended by numerous interested firms. As directed, the Public Works Department received sealed proposal packages in response to the RFP that were opened at 4pm on September 25, 2015. Contract Award Selection Process Proposals and work-product examples were received from: 1) MNS Engineers; 2) Moffatt & Nichol; 3) Cannon Corporation; and, 4) Watson Planning Consultants (available in hard copy in the office of the Natural Resources Manager). A proposal evaluation team consisting of Natural Resources Manager Hill, City Biologist Otte, and Supervising Civil Engineer Athey separately ranked all four proposals and then met to discuss the results on October 6, 2015. Based on the review and ranking of proposals, MNS, Moffatt & Nichol, and Cannon were invited to interview with the proposal evaluation team on October 16, 2015. Both MNS and Moffatt & Nichol possess substantive prior experience with designing and permitting freshwater dredging projects; however, the MNS team distinguished itself as having the greatest understanding and experience of the financing aspects of the project that will be important to the ultimate success of the project’s subsequent construction phase. Moreover, MNS’ proposed compensation was the less expensive of the top two firms that were interviewed. Based on the foregoing, the proposal evaluation team recommends the contract be awarded to MNS (Attachment D). Next Steps If staff’s recommendations are approved, staff anticipates having MNS begin work in late January. The first step will be a project kick-off meeting with staff and the consultant team to ensure a well-coordinated project understanding and approach. Natural Resources Manager Hill will continue to lead the project and interface with the City Council and community, while administrative and technical support will be provided by the Public Works Department. Staff 7 Packet Pg. 76 members from the Finance Division and the Community Development Department will also be identified to support the internal project team. The Scope of Work is divided into four distinct phases, and staff will return to Council for further direction following the completion of each phase. The proposed project phasing is organized as follows: I. Baseline Information, Project Design Options, Project Cost Estimates, Project Financing Options. II. Complete Project Design, Environmental Document and Project Permitting, Pursue Financing. III. Additional Steps Necessary to Pursue Financing Option (all Phase III tasks not to proceed without Council authorization and no funding is included in the overall project budget for this phase at this time). IV. Final Steps Leading to “Shovel Ready” Status. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Community Development Departments concur with the proposed recommendations from the project evaluation team. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required to conduct the engineering, project permitting, and financial evaluation contemplated under the subject contract with MNS. The preparation of an environmental document that will support the subsequent implementation phase of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management project is a deliverable product of this work effort. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds to support the consultant services agreement are available in the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management CIP included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. However, Council should be aware that fully funding the proposed consultant services agreement will require use of funds identified in the CIP for land acquisition ($25,000) and construction ($250,000). Land acquisition costs (appropriate land tenure for a prospective disposal site) nor construction costs are necessary at this time since no actual construction or disposal is contemplated in the 2015-17 Financial Plan period for which these funds were originally designated (Attachment E). The goal of this phase of work as identified in the “Other Important Council Objective” work plan is to develop a “shovel ready” project by the end of the Financial Plan period (Attachment F). If staff’s recommendations are approved, a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) will be processed in accordance with the Financial Management Manual to move funds between phases within the CIP itself. 7 Packet Pg. 77 ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council could choose to authorize a consultant services agreement not to exceed the amount of funding identified in the CIP for design / engineering, studies, and environmental permitting only ($175,000), and direct staff to come back to Council for authorization to proceed with subsequent phases. This option is not recommended as it will not result in a timely path to “shovel ready” status and the proposed Scope of Work includes several occasions where staff will return to Council for direction. 2. The City Council could direct staff to develop new specifications and solicit new proposals. This is not recommended due to time constraints and the fact that the proposals received responded to the project specifications previously authorized by Council. Attachments: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work e - Laguna Lake CIP 15-17 f - Laguna Lake OIO Work Plan from 15-17 Budget 7 Packet Pg. 78 Meeting Date: 8/18/2015 FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR PHASE I OF THE LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for phase I of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project in furtherance of the City’s Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan pursuant to Specification No. 91392. (Attachment 1); and 2. Authorize the City Manager to award consultant services agreements if proposals are received within the available budget for the project. DISCUSSION Background The City of San Luis Obispo owns the 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve (“the Reserve”) that includes most of the lake itself, portions of Prefumo Creek and its outlet into the lake, and adjacent upland areas. The City Council adopted the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (“Conservation Plan”) on July 15, 2014 to guide future management of the Reserve by offering a framework for conservation, restoration, recovery, and scenic recreational use. Laguna Lake is primarily a naturally occurring lake, although the lake and its watersheds have been altered and manipulated. This has resulted in an increase in sediment deposition rates. Recent bathymetric surveys indicate accelerated changes in lake depth and morphology resulting in decreased water quality and aquatic habitat functions, as well as diminished aesthetic and recreational values associated with the lake. As a result, dredging and sediment management strategies are recommendations of the Conservation Plan. The City’s Financial Plan for 2015-17 identifies implementation of the Conservation Plan as an Other Important Council Objective” and includes a work plan that contains all of the necessary steps to make a dredging and sediment management project “shovel ready.” This RFP, therefore, is intended to facilitate the ultimate implementation of the project. Proposed Project Tasks The subject RFP solicits a project-specific proposal for phase I of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project (additional future phases include undertaking the physical 7 Packet Pg. 55 7.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract projects, as well as long-term monitoring and maintenance). It is expected that a multi- disciplinary consultant team will be assembled in order to facilitate bringing the overall project to “shovel ready” status by attending to the following main tasks: 1.) Prepare Design Plans and Engineering Specifications; 2.) Environmental Studies and Project Permitting; and 3.) Public Opinion Research and Financing Options. These tasks are detailed below: 1) Prepare Design Plans and Engineering Specifications a. Collect and analyze existing lake information including but not limited to bathymetry, topography, watersheds, and sedimentation rates and depths. b. Provide three dredging project options of varying sizes and depths, to be developed in consultation with City, for City Council and community consideration. c. Identify potential beneficial sediment re-use sites within ten miles of the project. Provide potential haul routes. d. Provide estimated dredging project costs based on disposal of material in Laguna Lake Park or adjacent property, and offsite locations within 10 miles of the lake. e. Provide an excavation alternative design and estimated costs for a project that assumes dry lakebed conditions. f. Upon project option selection, provide complete project dredging/excavation design plans and specifications suitable for permitting and contractor bid packages. g. Include time for a minimum of two City Council hearings in the proposed budget. 2) Environmental Studies and Project Permitting a. Review the existing lake sediment borings and determine if additional sampling is needed. The City will contract separately with the soils engineer to collect the additional information. b. Prepare a hydrology study that evaluates surface hydrology, hydrogeology, drainage basin management and water quality as it pertains to the lake and surroundings, as well as how the selected project option may affect these parameters. c. Analyze sedimentation and nutrient loading rates for each watershed. Provide recommendations for decreasing sediment and nutrient loading including the use of sediment basins and other best management practices. d. Provide a biological survey that details the existing aquatic species of the lake that may be affected by a dredging / excavation project. e. Traffic study (add-on option dependent on disposal site) f. Prepare a project-specific initial study and appropriate environmental document. The City assumes for the purposes of RFP costs that a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be required. Project proposals should include alternate cost proposals in the event the initial study concludes an EIR is required. g. Prepare and complete environmental permitting applications and complete permitting process with the Army Corps of Engineers, CA Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, NOAA Fisheries, and any other pertinent regulatory agencies. Include time for external meetings with agency personnel in the budget. 7 Packet Pg. 56 7.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 3) Public Opinion Research and Financing Options a. Facilitate two property owner and two stakeholder outreach meetings to gather information and gain input on the options for dredging/excavating lake sediments. b. Conduct a public opinion survey regarding lake dredging/exaction, the costs involved, and whether there is voter support for establishing a benefit assessment district, Community Facilities District, or other special funding district. c. Based on the outcome of the public opinion survey, provide an evaluation and detail report of financing options for City consideration. The consultant will present project options to the City Council for review. d. Pursue financing options (add-on option if public financing, i.e. CFD with bond counsel, underwriting, elections, etc.) based on the City’s chosen public financing option. e. Provide written materials such as an engineer’s report and other documentation supporting the establishment of a special district. f. Include time for at least one City Council hearing in the budget. Proposal Review and Project Schedule The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and project schedule: a. Issue RFP 8/24/15 b. Conduct pre-proposal conference 9/10/15 c. Receive proposals 9/25/15 d. Complete proposal evaluation 10/09/17 e. Conduct finalist interviews 10/16/15 f. Finalize staff recommendation 10/21/15 g. Award contract 10/30/15 h. Execute contract 11/06/15 i. Start work 11/16/15 j. Project option review 03/15/16 k. Final project design, disposal site and financing selection 05/15/16 l. Public hearings 05/16 to 07/16 m. Final work products due 6/30/17 FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds for this effort are available through the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management CIP approved by City Council with the 2015-17 Financial Plan. 7 Packet Pg. 57 7.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract As shown above, the phase of work covered by this RFP includes study, environmental/permit, land acquisition and design/specifications work budgeted at $200,000. The City’s financial policies allow the budget manager to transfer funding between phases if bids received cannot be accommodated within the budget identified for the current phase. Ultimately, construction of the project will require significant financial resources expected to be developed from multiple sources. The work that is proposed to occur with the current phase of the project will improve the City’s understanding of the total construction phase cost, and the feasibility of funding at least a portion through a new assessment district. ALTERNATIVES 1. Provide direction regarding an amended scope of work and provide authorization of the RFP. 2. Continue consideration of the scope of work and RFP with direction to staff on necessary changes. 3. Deny issuance of the RFP. Attachments: 1 - Laguna Lake RFP 7 Packet Pg. 58 7.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project Specification No. 91392 The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for phase I of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project in furtherance of the City’s Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan pursuant to Specification No. 91392. All proposals must be received by the Finance Division by 4 p.m., September 25, 2015 when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Division in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. A pre-proposal conference will be held at City Hall on Thursday, September 10, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., to answer any questions that the prospective proposers may have regarding the City's request for proposals. Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, (805) 781-7211 or rhill@slocity.org. David Athey, Supervising Civil Engineer, (805) 781-7108 or dathey@slocity.org. Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Specification No. 91392 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Description of Work 1 B. General Terms and Conditions 3 Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions 6 Contract Term Estimated Quantities Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Unrestrictive Brand Names Start and Completion of Work Accuracy of Specifications D. Agreement 9 E. Insurance Requirements 11 F. Proposal Submittal Forms 12 Proposal Submittal Summary References Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is requesting a project-specific proposal for phase I of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project. It is expected that a multi-disciplinary team will be assembled in order to facilitate bringing the overall project to “shovel ready” status, which is described below and shall include the following components: 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND The City of San Luis Obispo owns the 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve that includes most of the lake itself, portions of Prefumo Creek and its outlet into the lake, and adjacent upland areas. The City has adopted the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (“Conservation Plan”) to guide future management of the Reserve by offering a framework for conservation, restoration, recovery, and scenic recreational use. Laguna Lake is primarily a naturally occurring lake, although the lake and its watersheds have been altered and manipulated. This has resulted in an increase in sediment deposition rates. Recent bathymetric surveys indicate accelerated changes in lake depth and morphology resulting in decreased water quality and aquatic habitat functions, as well as diminished aesthetic and recreational values associated with the lake. Therefore, this Request for Proposal addresses a primary Conservation Plan recommendation to implement dredging and sediment management strategies. 2. PROJECT SPECIFIC TASKS a. TASK 1 – Prepare Design Plans and Engineering Specifications i. Collect and analyze existing lake information including but not limited to bathymetry, topography, watersheds, and sedimentation rates and depths. ii. Provide three dredging project options of varying sizes and depths, to be developed in consultation with City, for City Council and community consideration. iii. Identify potential beneficial sediment re-use sites within ten miles of the project. Provide potential haul routes. iv. Provide estimated dredging project costs based on disposal of material in Laguna Lake Park or adjacent property, and offsite locations within 10 miles of the lake. v. Provide an excavation alternative design and estimated costs for a project that assumes dry lakebed conditions. vi. Upon project option selection, provide complete project dredging/excavation design plans and specifications suitable for permitting and contractor bid packages. vii. Include time for a minimum of two City Council hearings in the proposed budget. b. TASK 2 - Environmental Studies and Project Permitting i. Review the existing lake sediment borings and determine if additional sampling is needed. The City will contract separately with the soils engineer to collect the additional information. ii. Prepare a hydrology study that evaluates surface hydrology, hydrogeology, drainage basin management and water quality as it pertains to the lake and surroundings, as well as how the selected project option may affect these parameters. Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract iii. Analyze sedimentation and nutrient loading rates for each watershed. Provide recommendations for decreasing sediment and nutrient loading including the use of sediment basins and other best management practices. iv. Provide a biological survey that details the existing aquatic species of the lake that may be affected by a dredging / excavation project. v. Traffic study (add-on option dependent on disposal site) vi. Prepare a project-specific initial study and appropriate environmental document. The City assumes for the purposes of RFP costs that a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be required. Project proposals should include alternate cost proposals in the event the initial study concludes an EIR is required. vii. Prepare and complete environmental permitting applications and complete the permitting process with the Army Corps of Engineers, CA Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, NOAA Fisheries, and any other pertinent regulatory agencies. Include time for external meetings with agency personnel in the budget. c. TASK 3 - Public Opinion Research and Financing Options i. Facilitate two property owner and two stakeholder outreach meetings to gather information and gain input on the options for dredging/excavating lake sediments. ii. Conduct a public opinion survey regarding lake dredging/exaction, the costs involved, and whether there is voter support for establishing a benefit assessment district, Community Facilities District, or other special funding district. iii. Based on the outcome of the public opinion survey, provide an evaluation and detail report of financing options for City consideration. The consultant will present project options to the City Council for review. iv. Pursue financing options (add-on option if public financing, i.e. CFD with bond counsel, underwriting, elections, etc.) based on the City’s chosen public financing option. v. Provide written materials such as an engineer’s report and other documentation supporting the establishment of a special district. vi. Include time for at least one City Council hearing in the budget. 3. CREDENTIALS AND QUALIFICATIONS a. At least one member of the team must be a Registered Civil Engineer and the team must have experience with natural water resource systems. b. Demonstrated experience with local, state, and federal permitting agencies. c. Demonstrated experience with municipal finance. 4. INTENDED USERS a. City of San Luis Obispo b. Property owners 5. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS a. It should be expected that reports will be subject to review and approval processes by the City that may result in requests for clarification or additional analysis. b. The project team may be requested to attend up to two hearings with City advisory bodies and the City Council. Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract c. The project team should assume that the City will supply pertinent background documentation of the subject properties (maps and surveys, relevant prior technical reports) where available. d. Exact timeline for milestones and deliverables to be coordinated with City upon award of contract. 6. DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS a. Four (4) complete, original color copies for each document. b. One (1) “flash drive” or similar data device with a complete copy of each document in Adobe .pdf format. Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a 7.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (proposer) shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of proposer, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted. 3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing: a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating. b. Scope of coverage and limits. c. Deductibles and self-insured retention. The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer’s insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E. 4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any proposer for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the proposer's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price. 5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. 6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub- proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals. Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will extend all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place of business and will be directly billed by the successful proposer. 8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. 10. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications. 12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution. 13. Business Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations. 15. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. 16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Contractor is required to pay. 17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary. Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 18. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 20. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the Contractor's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work. 21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 22. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons. 23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same. 24. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Contractor (Net 30). 25. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Contractor. Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. 28. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. 29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. 30. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof. In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope. The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 2. Sales Tax Reimbursement. For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 3. Labor Actions. In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 4. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made. 5. Contract Term. The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City between February 2015 and December 2016. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal. 6. Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional one-year timeframe. 7. Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis should be provided with the proposal submittal. 8. Contractor Invoices. The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail invoices as supporting detail, or in one lump-sum upon completion. 9. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term. 10. Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this determination. 11. Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to proceed by the City. 12. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract execution and shall be completed within 90 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated with City by mutual agreement. 13. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award. If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor. 14. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the RFP package. 15. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package. 16. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information: Submittal Forms a. Proposal submittal summary. b. Certificate of insurance. c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services. d. Professional work product example. Qualifications e. Experience of your firm in performing similar services. f. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub- consultants. Resumes should note required licensing (see Section A, above). g. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants. h. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project. i. Demonstrated conservation easement project work. Work Program j. Description of your approach to completing the work. k. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work. l. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including sub-consultants. Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract m. Services or data to be provided by the City. n. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. Proposal Length and Copies o. Proposals should include numbered pages, including identification of attachments and supplemental materials. p. Three copies of the proposal must be submitted. 17. Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee using a two-phase selection and contract award process as follows: Phase 1 – Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection A group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) will be selected for follow- up interviews and presentations based on the following criteria as evidenced in their written proposals: a. Understanding of the work required by the City. b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Proposed approach in completing the work. f. References. g. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. Phase 2 – Oral Presentations/Interviews and Consultant Selection Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about their proposal. The purpose of this second phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer’s ability to clearly and concisely present information orally. As part of this second phase of the selection process, finalist candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed payment schedule tied to accomplishing key project milestones or tasks. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of compensation. Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria described above; results of background and reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation. 18. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: a. Issue RFP 8/24/15 b. Conduct pre-proposal conference 9/10/15 c. Receive proposals 9/25/15 d. Complete proposal evaluation 10/09/17 e. Conduct finalist interviews 10/16/15 f. Finalize staff recommendation 10/21/15 Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract g. Award contract 10/30/15 h. Execute contract 11/06/15 i. Start work 11/16/15 j. Project option review 03/15/16 k. Final project design, disposal site and financing selection 05/15/16 l. Public hearings 05/16 to 07/16 m. Final work products due 6/30/17 19. Pre-Proposal Conference. A pre-proposal conference will be held at the following location, date, and time to answer any questions that prospective proposers may have regarding this RFP: Thursday, September 10, 2015, 10:00 a.m. City Hall, Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 20. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 21. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 22. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 23. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide: a. Four (4) copies of original, color copies of the appraisal reports addressing all elements of the workscope. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. b. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the workscope, the Contractor must provide the corresponding computer files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager: Adobe .pdf format Computer files must be delivered on a “flash drive”. Alternatively, files may be emailed to the City. 24. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is attendance by the Contractor at up to two (2) public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks. Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 25. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted. 26. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Proposers are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal. To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal. In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute. Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section D FORM OF AGREEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on [date], City invited requested proposals for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management, per Specification No. 91392. WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said Appraisal Services for Open Space Land Acquisition. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91392 and Contractor's proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the City’s specification and this Agreement and the Contractor’s proposal, the terms of the City’s specification and this Agreement shall prevail, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management, as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .00 ]. 4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council or City Manager of the City. Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City CityClerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contractor Name Address 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By:_____________________________________ City Clerk City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR By: _____________________________________ City Attorney Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant Services The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty 30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM Sample The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91392, which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full: Description Quantity Unit Price Total TOTAL BASE PRICE Other (provide detail below) TOTAL $ Delivery of equipment to the City to be within 90 calendar days after contract execution and written authorization to proceed. Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________. Firm Name and Address Contact Phone Signature of Authorized Representative Date Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract REFERENCES Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: . Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications. Reference No. 1 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 2 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 3 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances. Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes No If yes, explain the circumstances. Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t 1 L a g u n a L a k e R F P 1 0 5 0 L a g u n a L a k e D r e d g i n g a n d S e d i m e n t M a n a g e m e n t R F P A u t h o r i z a t i o n R e q u e s t 7.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Page intentionally left blank. 7.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: a - 08-18-2015 Council Agenda Report for Laguna Lake RFP (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Council Minutes City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, August 18, 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, August 18, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 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; Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager; and Anthony Mejia, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Rivoire led the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATION 1. PRESENTATION BY TIM MAHONEY. REPRESENTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE SOUTH HIGUERA GAS LINE PROJECT Tim Mahoney, representing Southern California Gas Company (SCG), provided an update on the status of the South Higuera Gas Line Project; advised that SCG's mission is to ensure that gas is delivered in a safe and reliable way; noted that when the project is completed the affected streets will be repaved and striped to the City's standards. INTRODUCTION 2. REBECCA GERSHOW, ASSOCIATE PLANNER Community Development Director Johnson introduced Rebecca Gershow newly -hired Associate Planner. 7.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council_ Minutes or August 18, 2015 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT Ken Meersand, California Clean Money Campaign, Pismo Beach, urged Council to endorse Assembly Bill (AB) 700 related to campaign disclosure requirements; asserted that large campaign contributions and special interest groups can negatively influence local elections. Ivana Yegng, San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department, San Luis Obispo, stated that grant funding is now available through Community Development Block Grants, Home Investment Partnership Program, and Emergency Solutions Grants; announced that open houses will be held to help determine which proposals will be awarded these grants. terry Vloltan„ San Luis Obispo, urged Council to move forward with seeking a court order to resolve the residential development project at 1179 San Carlos Drive; voiced opposition regarding the re- establishment of an agreement to allow Ryan Petetit to enter the property. Jane Eddy, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that personal shopping carts are no longer permitted on City buses; opined that disabled people are negatively impacted by this new policy. Dirk Anderson, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that the homeless are begin harassed, noting that he is a homeless veteran; stated that he does not create problems as a homeless person and the Police Department shnnld not confront him, Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, opined that local government should not rubber stamp development projects; asserted that foreign interest groups are influencing the elections; stated that the City needs to restore integrity in the election process. William Ostrander, Director of Citizens Congress, urged Council to agendize the "Integrity in Our Elections Ordinance "; voiced concern that a majority of campaign contributions come from wealthy donors which disenfranchises regular citizens in the electoral process. Michael Latner, San Luis Obispo, noted that he is a professor in political science and an expert in elections; stated that the proposed "Integrity in Our Elections Ordinance" improves participation, accountability, and enforcement as it relates to campaign financing; opined that clean elections should be a priority for the City and that contribution limits will become ineffective over time. Eric Veium, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to direct staff to agendize the proposed "Integrity in Our Elections Ordinance "; stated that the proposed ordinance enhances integrity, transparency, and accountability in elections. Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to implement flood protection measures before the winter storm season; voiced concern that potable water is being lost due to the City's declining water distribution system; noted that he is drinking bottled water until an update is provided regarding the recent water constituent violation. John Belsher, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the status of the residential project located at 1179 San Carlos Drive; noted that the City has had three Chief Building Officials in recent years which has led to confusion about the project. 7.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Sara Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 Page 3 In response to public comment, Utilities Director Mattingly advised that there is still a possibility that trihalomethane could spike and that sensitive persons should take necessary precautions; noted that water main breaks do occur on occasion, however, noted that the City has a robust Capital Improvement Plan. In response to public comment, Natural Resources Manager Hill advised that the City has a robust winterization plan to help prevent the potential for flooding in the creek systems, noting that an outline of the plan will be distributed to the Council soon. By consensus, Council directed staff to analysis Citizens Congress' proposed ordinance entitled An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to create a system `Democracy Vouchers' funding for municipal elections and to make other revisions to the City's Election Campaign Regulations" and to agendize the matter for future consideration in December 2015. CONSENT AGENDA Paul Buntour, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to repeal the ordinance regarding feeding of animals; asserted that the City is guilty of animal neglect at Laguna Lake by depriving food and water; advised that his neighbors are placing wade pools at the lake to assist the wildlife. John Smi eglski, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to create an advisory committee to assist with the restoration of Laguna Lake and to address the creek's capacity to support the heavy rainfall this winter; conveyed support for issuing a request for proposal (RFP) for Laguna Lake. Arnold Ruiz, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to take action to re- establish the ecosystem at Laguna Lake; opined that bureaucracy is preventing the City from addressing the situation at Laguna Lake in a timely manner. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, requested that Items 7, 11 and 15 be removed from the consent calendar; opined that ordinances should be considered individually for a roll call vote; stated that geoengineering is impacting the drought conditions at Laguna Lake and that now would be an appropriate time to dredge the lake. Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, questioned the propriety of holding Laguna Lake area residents financially responsible for open space maintenance through a special assessment district. MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to approve Consent Calendar Items 3 thru 15, with Council Member Carpenter registering a no vote on Item 12. 3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 7.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 Page 4 4. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF July 7, 9, AND 21, 2 ©15 MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of July 7, 9, and 21, 2015. 5. WATER AND WASTEWATER PORTABLE GENERATOR REPLACEMENT SPECIFICATION NO. 91332 MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to: I. Authorize the Finance Director to execute a purchase order to San Luis Powerhouse of San Luis Obispo, California, in the amount of $165,335.45 for the purchase of one 100 kW Multiquip DCA125SSJU4F, and one 200 kW Cummins C200D portable generators. 2. Authorize the surplus designation of Fleet Asset No. 0008, 0009, 0010, and 0010, 1999 Caterpillar HX100 portable generators, by sale, auction, trade -in or other method in accordance with the City's policies and procedures as prescribed in the Financial Management Manual Section 405 -L and 480. 6. UPDATE OF LONG -TERM AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to: 1. Appropriate $10,000 within the Affordable Housing Fund from unallocated reserves to an expenditure account to update the City's long -term affordable housing agreement documents. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the legal services agreement with Goldfarb & Lipman LLP in an amount not to exceed $10,000. 7. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR PHASE I OF THE LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, TO: 1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for phase I of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project in furtherance of the City's Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan pursuant to Specification No. 91392. 2. Authorize the City Manager to award consultant services agreements if proposals are received within the available budget for the project. 7.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 Page 5 8. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CURB RAMPS 2015, SPECIFICATION NO. 91308 MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, TO: 1. Approve Plans and Specifications for the Community Development Block Grant CDBG) Curb Ramps 2015 project, Specification No. 91308. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's Estimate of $170,000. 9. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING EXCLUSION AND CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR THE PROPOSED HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to adopt Resolution No. 10652 (2015 Series) entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving an Inclusionary Housing exemption and Citywide Transportation Impact Fee credit for the proposed Homeless Service Center." 10. AMEND SCOPE OF WORK WITH JOHNSON AVIATION TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO CITY DURING COUNTY UPDATE TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to authorize the Community Development Director to sign a contract amendment to amend the scope of work of an existing contract with Johnson Aviation for an amount not to exceed $50,000 in fiscal year 2015 -16 and 50,000 in fiscal year 2016 -17 to provide technical assistance to the City during review of the County's update to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan. 11. APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXAMINATION OF PREPAID TELEPHONY SERVICE SURCHARGE AND LOCAL CHARGE RECORDS AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE MOBILE TELEPHONY SURCHARGE MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to: 1. Approve an agreement between the City and the State Board of Equalization for the collection and distribution of Mobile Telephony Surcharge assessed on prepaid wireless service fees and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Council action continued on the next page) 7.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 _ Page 6 2. Adopt Resolution No. 10653 (2015 . Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the agreement with the State Board of Equalization for implementation of the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City." 3. Adopt Resolution No. 10654 (2015 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the examination of Prepaid Mobile Telephony Service Surcharge and Local Charge Records." 4. Adopt Resolution No. 10655 (2015 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the City Manager and City Attorney to execute certain documents required by the Board of Equalization to collect the City's Utility Users Tax on Prepaid Wireless Service." 12. SUPPORT NEW SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION MODES BY SUPPORTING EFFORTS OF THE FIX OUR ROAD COALITION AND 511 -16 (BEALL) MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4 -1 (COUNCIL MEMBER CARPENTER VOTING NO), to adopt Resolution No. 10656 (2015 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, urging the State to provide new sustainable funding for state and local transportation infrastructure, participation in a statewide - Fix Our Roads Coalition, and endorsing SB -16 (Beall)." 13. SINSHEIMER POOL RE- PLASTER AND RE -TILE SPECIFICATION NO. 91208 MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to: Award a contract to Condor, Inc. in the amount of $487,460.00 for the Sinsheimer Pool Re- plaster and Re -tile project, Specification No. 91208. 2. Approve a transfer of $51,000 from the construction management phase of the project account to the construction phase of the project account. 14. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to: 1. Rescind and replace Resolution No. 10625 (2015 Series). 2. Adopt Resolution No. 10657 (2015 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Auditor to assess amounts due on delinquent Administrative Fines as special assessments against properties pursuant to California Government Code Section 53069.4(A)." 7.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 Page 7 15. ORDINANCE NO. 1621 (SECOND READING) - AMENDING CHAPTER 9.13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO UNRULY GATHERING MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to adopt !Ordinance No. 1621 (2015 Series) entitled An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Chapter 9.13 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding unruly gatherings," as amended to include the work "welfare" in Section 9.13.020 (Definitions). PUBLIC HEARING 16. SOLID WASTE BASE YEAR RATE APPLICATION WHICH INCLUDES THE COST OF A NEW ORGANICS DIVERSION /COMPOSTING PROGRAM Utilities Director Mattingly and Utilities Services Manager Munds narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Solid Waste Base Year Rate Application "; requested that Council continue consideration of the franchise agreement to a date uncertain while staff continues to finalize the agreement with San Luis Garbage Company; responded to Council inquires. Mayor Marx opened and closed the Public Hearing, there being no others desiring to speak on this item. City Clerk Mejia reported a total of 7 validated written protests were submitted in advance of the public hearing; advised that based on the total percentage needed, this does not amount to a legally sufficient protest. Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5 -0, to: 1. Conceptually approve an expanded organics diversion program that includes food waste, ends the use of green waste as alternative daily cover at Cold Canyon Landfill and uses Kompogas Anaerobic Digestion technology. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 10658 (2015 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing integrated solid waste rates," provided there is not a majority protest against such increase, as follows: a) Base Year Rate Increase Effective January 1, 2016, a 5.25% rate increase b) Interim Year Consumer Price Index rate Increase Consumer Price Index publish by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) Based on the annual increase (if any) in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Consumers based on All U.S. City Average Effective January 1, 2017: June 2016 CPI increase (if any) Effective January 1, 2018: June 2017 CPI increase (if any) c) Annual Landfill Expansion Rate Increase Pass- through of Count- approved annual tipping fee increase at Cold Canyon Landfill) Effective January 1, 2017: 0.85 percent Effective January 1, 2018: 0.82 percent 7.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obisp City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 Page S BUSINESS ITEM 17. STRATEGY TO UPDATE THE DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN AND REQUEST FOR CONSL]LTANT ASSISTANCE Carpenter announced that he is recusing himself because he owns property within the boundaries of the Downtown Concept Plan; left the Chamber at 7:31 p.m. Community Development Director Johnson and Community Development Deputy Director Murry narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Downtown Concept Plan Update" and responded to Council inquires. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that outside special interest groups and consultants are influencing the development of the downtown and negatively impacting the viewshed. Jacub Rogej-s, San Luis Obispo, opined that at least one member of the Creative Vision Team should be a student representative from Cal Poly. lames Lopes, San Luis Obispo, noted that he submitted correspondence recommending revisions to the request for proposal (RFP) for consultant services; suggested that Council request a 3D model of the Downtown Concept Plan; suggested that the completed plan should be a policy document or a reference document to the General Plan. Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of expanding the membership of the Creative Vision Team; noted the Chamber's desire to see active community engagement in developing the plan. Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for establishing an ad -hoc Council subcommittee for the purpose of interviewing Creative Vision Team applicants with a recommendation forwarded to the full Council. In response to public comment, Community Development Deputy Director Murry pointed out that the RFP includes an optional deliverable for a sketch model of the new Downtown Concept Plan, noting that a 31) model would likely be over budget; advised that the consultants will help ensure that the project moves forward on schedule, maximize public engagement, and provide specialized experience in urban design. Council expressed its desire for the Downtown Concept Plan to return to Council prior to December 2016. By consensus, Council appointed Council Members Christianson and Rivoire to an ad- hoc subcommittee for the purpose of interviewing candidates and forwarding to Council recommendations for appointment to the Creative Vision Team; Council agreed that the Creative Vision Team should be expanded to include five new members for a total of a nine member team. 7.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18. 2015 Page 9 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4 -0 (COUNCIL MEMBER CARPENTER RECUSED), to: 1. Approve the Scope of Work and Request for Proposal for consultant services associated with updating the Downtown Concept Plan Specification No. 91364 and authorize staff to advertise for proposals. 2. Authorize the Community Development Director to execute the agreement with the selected consultant if costs are within the approved budget. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 10659 (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." RECESS Council recessed at 8:26 p.m. and reconvened at 8:38 p.m., with all Council Members present. PUBLIC HEARING 18. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND NOTICING MANUAL Assistant City Manager Codron and Principal Analyst David narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Public Engagement & Noticing Manual, Community Engagement: A Guide to Outreach Planning" and responded to Council inquires. Mayor Marx opened the Public Hearing. Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo; recommended that noticing periods be expanded from 5- days and 10 -days to 10 -days and 14 -days, respectively; recommended that at a minimum all adjacent properties and properties across the street should receive notifications. James Lopcs, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of Residents of Quality Neighborhoods RQN) recommendations to extend noticing periods; suggested that advisory body public hearings need longer noticing periods; recommended that an online database be created to allow residents receive notifications and review development applications. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the importance of engaging citizens and providing adequate notice. Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of increasing public engagement and utilizing new technologies to engage a larger audience. Sandra Rowley, RQN, requested that Council not endorse the Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) manual at this time; reviewed RQN's recommendations as it relates to expanded notification periods and distances. There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. 7.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 Page 10 By consensus, Council directed staff to analyze potential impacts of expanding notification periods for development projects and tree removal applications and to agendize the matter for future consideration in late 2015. MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to: Endorse the new Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual as a strategy guide for staff when engaging the public on City projects and policy initiatives. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 10660 (2015 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting revised development review notification requirements," with the following revision to Exhibit A (revision in underlined font): Procedures Legal Legal Ad Postcards and Adjacent Owners Postcards to Signs Ad with Map and Occupants (including all ahuttiii Owners and on -site properties and those across the street) Occupants notifications) within 300' BUSINESS ITEM 19. ADOPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM Community Development Director Johnson and Associate Planner Gershow narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Neighborhood Matching Grants, Enhancing and Strengthening Neighborhoods" and responded to Council inquires. Heidi Hannon, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the pilot program and the requirement for matching funds to ensure that citizens are engaged; suggested having block parties throughout the community, including having first responders provide first aid and emergency preparedness training. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, questioned if program funds could be used for installing a street light on Sacramento Drive; opined that the pilot program does not have adequate funding. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5 -0, to adopt Resolution No. 10661 (2015 Series) entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the Neighborhood Matching Grant Pilot Program for Fiscal Year 2015 -17, with $5,000 authorized in Fiscal Year 2015 -16 and $10,000 in Fiscal Year 2016 -17." Council Member Ashbaugh noted that he would prefer to separately consider allocating funding specifically for neighborhood block parties; expressed that it is his desire that the Neighborhood Match Grants be used for projects with a long - lasting impact. 7.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 18, 2015 Page 11 STUDY SESSION 20. CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CAL POLY MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Community Development Director Johnson and Community Development Deputy Director Murry narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "City Participation in the Cal Poly Master Plan Update Process" and responded to Council inquires. Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 5 -0, to establish a City Council ad -hoc subcommittee consisting of Council Member Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx with direction to develop Guiding Principles for the City's participation in the Cal Poly Master Plan Update process for discussion by the full Council on September 15, 2015. LIAISON REPORTS A Council liaison report was received from Vice Mayor Ashbaugh. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting will be held on September 1, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. /17 APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 09/15/2015 7.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) 7.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: b - 08-18-2015 Council Meeting Minutes (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) 990 Palm Street  San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project Specification No. 91392 The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for phase I of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project in furtherance of the City’s Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan pursuant to Specification No. 91392. All proposals must be received by the Public Works Department by 4 p.m., September 25, 2015 when they will be opened publicly in the Main Conference Room 1, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. A pre-proposal conference will be held at City Hall on Thursday, September 10, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., to answer any questions that the prospective proposers may have regarding the City's request for proposals. Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, (805) 781-7211 or rhill@slocity.org. David Athey, Supervising Civil Engineer, (805) 781-7108 or dathey@slocity.org. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 7.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Specification No. 91392 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Description of Work 1 B. General Terms and Conditions 3 Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions 6 Contract Term Estimated Quantities Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Unrestrictive Brand Names Start and Completion of Work Accuracy of Specifications D. Agreement 9 E. Insurance Requirements 11 F. Proposal Submittal Forms 12 Proposal Submittal Summary References 7.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is requesting a project-specific proposal for phase I of the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project. It is expected that a multi-disciplinary team will be assembled in order to facilitate bringing the overall project to “shovel ready” status, which is described below and shall include the following components: 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND The City of San Luis Obispo owns the 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve that includes most of the lake itself, portions of Prefumo Creek and its outlet into the lake, and adjacent upland areas. The City has adopted the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (“Conservation Plan”) to guide future management of the Reserve by offering a framework for conservation, restoration, recovery, and scenic recreational use. Laguna Lake is primarily a naturally occurring lake, although the lake and its watersheds have been altered and manipulated. This has resulted in an increase in sediment deposition rates. Recent bathymetric surveys indicate accelerated changes in lake depth and morphology resulting in decreased water quality and aquatic habitat functions, as well as diminished aesthetic and recreational values associated with the lake. Therefore, this Request for Proposal addresses a primary Conservation Plan recommendation to implement dredging and sediment management strategies. 2. PROJECT SPECIFIC TASKS a. TASK 1 – Prepare Design Plans and Engineering Specifications i. Collect and analyze existing lake information including but not limited to bathymetry, topography, watersheds, and sedimentation rates and depths. ii. Provide three dredging project options of varying sizes and depths, to be developed in consultation with City, for City Council and community consideration. iii. Identify potential beneficial sediment re-use sites within ten miles of the project. Provide potential haul routes. iv. Provide estimated dredging project costs based on disposal of material in Laguna Lake Park or adjacent property, and offsite locations within 10 miles of the lake. v. Provide an excavation alternative design and estimated costs for a project that assumes dry lakebed conditions. vi. Upon project option selection, provide complete project dredging/excavation design plans and specifications suitable for permitting and contractor bid packages. vii. Include time for a minimum of two City Council hearings in the proposed budget. b. TASK 2 - Environmental Studies and Project Permitting i. Review the existing lake sediment borings and determine if additional sampling is needed. The City will contract separately with the soils engineer to collect the additional information. ii. Prepare a hydrology study that evaluates surface hydrology, hydrogeology, drainage basin management and water quality as it pertains to the lake and 7.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract surroundings, as well as how the selected project option may affect these parameters. iii. Analyze sedimentation and nutrient loading rates for each watershed. Provide recommendations for decreasing sediment and nutrient loading including the use of sediment basins and other best management practices. iv. Provide a biological survey that details the existing aquatic species of the lake that may be affected by a dredging / excavation project. v. Traffic study (add-on option dependent on disposal site) vi. Prepare a project-specific initial study and appropriate environmental document. The City assumes for the purposes of RFP costs that a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be required. Project proposals should include alternate cost proposals in the event the initial study concludes an EIR is required. vii. Prepare and complete environmental permitting applications and complete the permitting process with the Army Corps of Engineers, CA Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, NOAA Fisheries, and any other pertinent regulatory agencies. Include time for external meetings with agency personnel in the budget. c. TASK 3 - Public Opinion Research and Financing Options i. Facilitate two property owner and two stakeholder outreach meetings to gather information and gain input on the options for dredging/excavating lake sediments. ii. Conduct a public opinion survey regarding lake dredging/exaction, the costs involved, and whether there is voter support for establishing a benefit assessment district, Community Facilities District, or other special funding district. iii. Based on the outcome of the public opinion survey, provide an evaluation and detail report of financing options for City consideration. The consultant will present project options to the City Council for review. iv. Pursue financing options (add-on option if public financing, i.e. CFD with bond counsel, underwriting, elections, etc.) based on the City’s chosen public financing option. v. Provide written materials such as an engineer’s report and other documentation supporting the establishment of a special district. vi. Include time for at least one City Council hearing in the budget. 3. CREDENTIALS AND QUALIFICATIONS a. At least one member of the team must be a Registered Civil Engineer and the team must have experience with natural water resource systems. b. Demonstrated experience with local, state, and federal permitting agencies. c. Demonstrated experience with municipal finance, public outreach methods, and public opinion research. 4. INTENDED USERS a. City of San Luis Obispo b. Property owners 7.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 5. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS a. It should be expected that reports will be subject to review and approval processes by the City that may result in requests for clarification or additional analysis. b. The project team may be requested to attend up to two hearings with City advisory bodies and the City Council. c. The project team should assume that the City will supply pertinent background documentation of the subject properties (maps and surveys, relevant prior technical reports) where available. d. Exact timeline for milestones and deliverables to be coordinated with City upon award of contract. 6. DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS a. Four (4) complete, original color copies for each document. b. One (1) “flash drive” or similar data device with a complete copy of each document in Adobe .pdf format. 7.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 7.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and 7.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (proposer) shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of proposer, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted. 3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing: a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating. b. Scope of coverage and limits. c. Deductibles and self-insured retention. The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer’s insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E. 4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any proposer for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the proposer's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price. 5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. 6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub- proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals. 7.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will extend all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place of business and will be directly billed by the successful proposer. 8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. 10. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications. 12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution. 13. Business Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations. 15. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. 16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Contractor is required to pay. 7.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary. 18. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 20. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the Contractor's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work. 21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 22. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons. 23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same. 24. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Contractor (Net 30). 25. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 7.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Contractor. 27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. 28. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. 29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. 30. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof. In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope. 7.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. 7.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 2. Sales Tax Reimbursement. For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 3. Labor Actions. In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 4. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made. 5. Contract Term. The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City between February 2015 and December 2016. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal. 6. Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional one-year timeframe. 7. Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis should be provided with the proposal submittal. 8. Contractor Invoices. The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail invoices as supporting detail, or in one lump-sum upon completion. 9. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term. 7.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 10. Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this determination. 11. Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to proceed by the City. 12. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract execution and shall be completed within 90 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated with City by mutual agreement. 13. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award. If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor. 14. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the RFP package. 15. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package. 16. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information: Submittal Forms a. Proposal submittal summary. b. Certificate of insurance. c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services. d. Professional work product example. Qualifications e. Experience of your firm in performing similar services. f. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub- consultants. Resumes should note required licensing (see Section A, above). g. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants. h. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project. i. Demonstrated conservation easement project work. Work Program j. Description of your approach to completing the work. 7.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract k. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work. l. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including sub-consultants. m. Services or data to be provided by the City. n. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. Proposal Length and Copies o. Proposals should include numbered pages, including identification of attachments and supplemental materials. p. Three copies of the proposal must be submitted. 17. Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee using a two-phase selection and contract award process as follows: Phase 1 – Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection A group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations based on the following criteria as evidenced in their written proposals: a. Understanding of the work required by the City. b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Proposed approach in completing the work. f. References. g. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. Phase 2 – Oral Presentations/Interviews and Consultant Selection Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about their proposal. The purpose of this second phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer’s ability to clearly and concisely present information orally. As part of this second phase of the selection process, finalist candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed payment schedule tied to accomplishing key project milestones or tasks. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of compensation. Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria described above; results of background and reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation. 18. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: a. Issue RFP 08/24/15 b. Conduct pre-proposal conference 09/10/15 7.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract c. Receive proposals 09/25/15 d. Complete proposal evaluation 10/09/15 e. Conduct finalist interviews 10/16/15 f. Finalize staff recommendation 10/21/15 g. Award contract 10/30/15 h. Execute contract 11/06/15 i. Start work 11/16/15 j. Project option review 03/15/16 k. Final project design, disposal site and financing selection 05/15/16 l. Public hearings 05/16 to 07/16 m. Final work products due 06/30/17 19. Pre-Proposal Conference. A pre-proposal conference will be held at the following location, date, and time to answer any questions that prospective proposers may have regarding this RFP: Thursday, September 10, 2015, 10:00 a.m. City Hall, Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 20. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 21. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 22. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 23. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide: a. Four (4) copies of original, color copies of the appraisal reports addressing all elements of the workscope. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. b. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the workscope, the Contractor must provide the corresponding computer files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager: • Adobe .pdf format Computer files must be delivered on a “flash drive”. Alternatively, files may be emailed to the City. 7.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 24. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is attendance by the Contractor at up to two (2) public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks. 25. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted. 26. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Proposers are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal. To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal. In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute. 7.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section D FORM OF AGREEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on [date], City invited requested proposals for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management, per Specification No. 91392. WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91392 and Contractor's proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the City’s specification and this Agreement and the Contractor’s proposal, the terms of the City’s specification and this Agreement shall prevail, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management, as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .00 ]. 4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council or City Manager of the City. 7.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City Project Manager Public Works Department City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contractor Name Address 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ________________________________ By:_____________________________________ City Clerk City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR ________________________________ By: _____________________________________ City Attorney 7.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant Services The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 7.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. 7.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM Sample The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91392, which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full: Description Quantity Unit Price Total TOTAL BASE PRICE Other (provide detail below) TOTAL $ Delivery of equipment to the City to be within 90 calendar days after contract execution and written authorization to proceed.  Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________. Firm Name and Address Contact Phone Signature of Authorized Representative Date 7.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract REFERENCES Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: . Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications. Reference No. 1 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 2 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 3 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome 7.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.  Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes  No   If yes, explain the circumstances. Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. ______________________________________ Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative 7.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org ADDENDUM DATE: September 9, 2015 RFP: Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management SPECIFICATION NO. 91392 ADDENDUM NO.: 1 BID DATE: September 25, 2015, 4:00 PM NOTICE TO ALL CONSULTANTS SUBMITTING PROPOSALS: You are hereby notified of the following changes, clarifications or modifications to the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents. This addendum shall supersede the original RFP documents and prior addenda. Wherein this addendum contradicts the original RFP and previous addenda, this addendum shall take precedence. All other conditions shall remain unchanged. A. GENERAL CLARIFICATIONS: 1. Remove from Section C – Special Terms and Conditions, No. 16 Proposal Content ‐ Qualifications: The following item has been removed from the Proposal Specifications: Item i.) DEMONSTRATED CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROJECT WORK Revised Section C has been attached in its entirety. Consultants are required to base their response to the City’s Request for Proposals on any issued addenda. To do otherwise shall be at the Consultants own risk. If you have any questions contact Robert Hill at (805) 781‐7211 or David Athey at (805) 781‐7108. Sincerely, Robert Hill NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER 7.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 2. Sales Tax Reimbursement. For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 3. Labor Actions. In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 4. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made. 5. Contract Term. The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City between February 2015 and December 2016. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal. 6. Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional one-year timeframe. 7. Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis should be provided with the proposal submittal. 8. Contractor Invoices. The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail invoices as supporting detail, or in one lump-sum upon completion. 9. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term. 7.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 10. Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this determination. 11. Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to proceed by the City. 12. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract execution and shall be completed within 90 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated with City by mutual agreement. 13. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award. If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor. 14. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the RFP package. 15. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package. 16. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information: Submittal Forms a. Proposal submittal summary. b. Certificate of insurance. c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services. d. Professional work product example. Qualifications e. Experience of your firm in performing similar services. f. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub-consultants. Resumes should note required licensing (see Section A, above). g. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants. h. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project. Work Program i. Description of your approach to completing the work. 7.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract j. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work. k. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including sub-consultants. l. Services or data to be provided by the City. m. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. Proposal Length and Copies n. Proposals should include numbered pages, including identification of attachments and supplemental materials. o. Three copies of the proposal must be submitted. 17. Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee using a two-phase selection and contract award process as follows: Phase 1 – Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection A group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations based on the following criteria as evidenced in their written proposals: a. Understanding of the work required by the City. b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Proposed approach in completing the work. f. References. g. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. Phase 2 – Oral Presentations/Interviews and Consultant Selection Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about their proposal. The purpose of this second phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer’s ability to clearly and concisely present information orally. As part of this second phase of the selection process, finalist candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed payment schedule tied to accomplishing key project milestones or tasks. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of compensation. Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria described above; results of background and reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation. 18. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: a. Issue RFP 08/24/15 7.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract b. Conduct pre-proposal conference 09/10/15 c. Receive proposals 09/25/15 d. Complete proposal evaluation 10/09/15 e. Conduct finalist interviews 10/16/15 f. Finalize staff recommendation 10/21/15 g. Award contract 10/30/15 h. Execute contract 11/06/15 i. Start work 11/16/15 j. Project option review 03/15/16 k. Final project design, disposal site and financing selection 05/15/16 l. Public hearings 05/16 to 07/16 m. Final work products due 06/30/17 19. Pre-Proposal Conference. A pre-proposal conference will be held at the following location, date, and time to answer any questions that prospective proposers may have regarding this RFP: Thursday, September 10, 2015, 10:00 a.m. City Hall, Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 20. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 21. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 22. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 23. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide: a. Four (4) copies of original, color copies of the appraisal reports addressing all elements of the workscope. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. b. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the workscope, the Contractor must provide the corresponding computer files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager:  Adobe .pdf format 7.c Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Computer files must be delivered on a “flash drive”. Alternatively, files may be emailed to the City. 24. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is attendance by the Contractor at up to two (2) public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks. 25. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted. 26. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Proposers are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal. To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal. In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute. 7.c Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org ADDENDUM DATE: September 22, 2015 RFP: Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management SPECIFICATION NO. 91392 ADDENDUM NO.: 2 OPENING DATE: September 25, 2015 NOTICE TO ALL CONSULTANTS SUBMITTING PROPOSALS: You are hereby notified of the following changes, clarifications or modifications to the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents. This addendum shall supersede the original RFP documents and prior addenda. Wherein this addendum contradicts the original RFP and previous addenda, this addendum shall take precedence. All other conditions shall remain unchanged. A. GENERAL CLARIFICATIONS: 1. Question: Can the City please elaborate on the level of public outreach envisioned for this project by the consulting team? For example, does the City anticipate a public opinion survey with statistically valid results (i.e. formal execution by a PR firm, resulting in extensive City-wide data)? Or is the City anticipating a more community interactive process, such as community meetings, online surveys, etc.? Answer: The City envisions a fairly involved public outreach process consistent with our recently adopted Public Engagement and Notification (PEN) Manual at the “Collaboration” level (see: http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7369). A public opinion survey with statistically valid results is also expected; this is envisioned primarily to test support for a Community Facilities District (CFD) or similar, CFD boundaries and potential tiers, and level of “willingness to pay”. 2. Question: Per information presented at the pre-bid meeting, please confirm that the City is currently collecting comprehensive topographic/bathymetric data from the full extents of the lake basin and surrounding shoreline. Please provide approximate date that this information will be available. Answer: Yes, we are currently working to collect comprehensive topographic/ bathymetric data for the full extent of the lake basin and surroundings. We don’t have an exact date at this time, but expect to have it available about the same time as the start of work for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management phase I project. 3. Question: If the City decides to pursue formation of a CFD, do you (the City) anticipate managing the process yourself with support from the team, or shall comprehensive CFD formation and implementation tasks be included in the proposal? Answer: The City would certainly want to be involved with the CFD formation process, but will need a high degree of support from the team, especially with respect to the engineer’s report, resolutions of intent / formation, etc. If the CFD is successful, the need for ongoing administration, underwriting, bond counsel etc. would be anticipated over the long-term beyond the duration of the subject RFP scope of work. 7.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract 4. Question: Can the City provide information from the previous sediment removal episodes (dates, volumes, etc.), as mentioned during the pre-bid meeting? Answer: Yes, this information is available in Appendix E, Table 2, Page 15 of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4771). Please note that these figures are for the Prefumo Arm inlet only; sediment hasn’t been removed from the main body of the lake itself since the Southeast Arm was excavated in the early 1960s. 5. Question: Please confirm that the proposal shall include an estimation of man-hours for each task, but that a final cost agreement will be negotiated with the winning team. Answer: Our preference would be to understand the winning team’s expected total compensation, but yes, the way the RFP is set up we can negotiate a final cost agreement based on the final agreed scope of work. 6. Question: Please confirm that we can rearrange and/or add tasks to those enumerated in Section A.2? Answer: Yes, we are willing to consider alternative approaches to the scope of work. 7. Question: Please confirm that a total of four (4) hard copies of the proposal package are required, including examples of previous and related work products? Answer: Yes, please provide four (4) hard copies of the complete package, as well as digital format. 8. Question: Please confirm or correct the address to be used for shipment of the proposal if via Federal Express. Answer: Bob Hill or David Athey Public Works Department City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7211 or 781-7108 9. Question: Regarding the RFP enclosed form “Proposal Submittal Form,” are we required to complete the table reporting total base price? The proposal will include hours per task, and billing rates as requested. Answer: The City will accept alternative forms reporting total base price. Consultants are required to base their response to the City’s Request for Proposals on any issued addenda. To do otherwise shall be at the Consultants own risk. If you have any questions contact Robert Hill at (805) 781‐7211 or David Athey at (805) 781‐7108. Sincerely, Robert Hill NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER 7.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: c - 91392 Laguna Lake RFP Final + Addendum No. 1 and 2 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 1 of 23 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on December___,2015 by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City, and MNS ENGINEERS, INC., hereinafter referred to as Consultant. W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, City requested proposals for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management per Specification No. 91392. WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services. 2. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin within 10 calendar days after contract execution and shall be completed by June 30, 2017. 3. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the c ompletion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and makin g a finding as to the causes of same. 4. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Consultant's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof. In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope. The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until com pletion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. 7.d Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 2 of 23 The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract for convenience, providing a 30 (thirty) calendar day notice, at any time upon a determination by the Director that termination of the contract is in the best interest of the City. In this case the Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination. 5. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations. 6. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement. 7. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. 8. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, sha ll be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 9. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with vari ous laws and regulations as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract, including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested. 10. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project which will follow. The Consultant staff shall provide a Conflict of Interest Statement where determined necessary by the City. The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest —direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant and not an agent or employee of the City. 11. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actual ly performed; to deduct from the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration. 12. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona f ide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability; pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or 7.d Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 3 of 23 consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. 13. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. This includes compliance with prevailing wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph, “construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction , including but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work. 14. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is required to pay. 15. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check. 16. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 17. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 18. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work. 19. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub -consultants engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 20. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub -consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law. 21. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the s pecifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal. To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided therefor in the proposal. 7.d Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 4 of 23 In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted b y City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or amb iguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute. 22. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall indemnify, and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, and employees (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. 23. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from other consultants during the contract term. 24. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used. 25. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the Consultant where required. 26. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using City’s standardized title blocks and coversheets. Draft plans may be submitted for review using either the full D (24x36) format or a reduced 11x17 format. Consultant shall ensure that drawings and notes are clearly legible if using the reduced format. Specifications and bid documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. The City’s current Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. Submittals shall include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriate. 2 copies of the draft preliminary reports, technical studies and 50% plans and estimate 1 copy of the final preliminary reports, technical studies plus markups 2 copies of the 90% plans, specifications and estimate plus 50% markups 1 copy of the 100% plans, specifications and estimate plus 90% markups 1 copy of the final plans, specifications and estimates plus 100% markups Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies. Final documents shall be submitted as camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproduction AND one electronic copy submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all original stamps and signatures In the event the City will be compiling the final specifications, incorporating the Consultant’s work, the final specifications will also be required to be submitted in Microsoft Word format. In the event the City will be completing the Record Drawings, the final plans will also be required to be submitted in AutoCAD Electronic files shall be submitted on CD and all files must be compatible with the Microsoft operating system. Each CD must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. Files may be emailed to the City in lieu of putting them on CD. 27. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports, documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process. 7.d Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 5 of 23 It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or machine readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been entered into. The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilit ies, or losses arising out of, or connected with any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing by the Consultant. 28. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior written approval of the City. The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations it em of any nature, whatsoever, regarding work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City and receipt of the City’s written permission. 29. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense. 30. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is attendance by the Consultant at public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks. 31. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or contractor RFI’s within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City. 32. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail. 33. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed $445,000. Should the Consultant’s designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be requi red to correct them at no increase in cost to the City. Progress payments shall be made on a monthly basis as invoiced by the Consultant for expenses incurred on each task, not to exceed the budget by task per Exhibit A. For Scope of Work tasks 1.ii., 1.iv., 1.v., and 1.vi., which total $99,761, cumulative monthly payments shall not exceed: $ 84,797 (85%) Prior to submittal of 50% documents; and $ 94,773 (95%) Prior to submittal of final documents; and $ 99,761 (100%) Prior to completion of construction or as noted below The 5% retention until completion of construction shall be released upon completion of design if the City fails to authorize the advertising for construction within 6 months following the acceptance of a complete final subm ittal by the Consultant. For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project by project basis. The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this agreement. Hourly rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this 7.d Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 6 of 23 agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that currently authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules. 34. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the City of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Consultant (Net 30). 35. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans, specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract. 36. Agreement Parties. City: Katie Lichtig, City Manager City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Consultant: James A. Salvito, CEO MNS Engineers, Inc. 201 N. Calle Cesar Chavez, Ste. 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93103 All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as shown above. 37. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Proposal Specification No. 91392 and Consultant's proposal dated September 25, 2015, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 38. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Engineer. 39. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense. 40. Complete Agreement. This written agreem ent, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein s hall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said specification and incorporated documents. 7.d Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 7 of 23 Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT: ___________________________________ MNS Engineers, Inc. By: ___________________________________ Katie Lichtig, City Manager James A. Salvito Its: President & CEO APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney 7.d Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 8 of 23 Exhibit A Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project Workscope PHASE I. Baseline Information, Project Design Options, Project Cost Estimates, Project Financing Options Task 1.i.: Collect and analyze existing lake information including but not limited to bathymetry, topography, watersheds, and sedimentation rates and depths. A detailed survey of the lake and surrounding shoreline will be needed in order to study, quantify and design the dredging parameters for the project. City supplied or available public domain topographic mapping will be used for reviewing the Laguna Lake watersheds and existing shoreline. Supplement current topographic information within the lake shoreline either by traditional survey methods (if dry) or by bathymetric methods (if full/partially full). These points will include spot elevations on culverts, bridges and locations of concern, such as high points, confluents or other identified critical features wit hin the path of the water flow. Provide a detailed survey of the Prefumo Arm, in order to study and/or design an ongoing sedimentation control effort along this arm. Sedimentation rates and depths can be quantified and analyzed based upon the historical su rveys and imagery collected and maintained by the City through the years. A model of anticipated future sedimentation accumulation based on rational assumptions will be prepared to determine a sediment management strategy that considers cost - benefit analysis and prioritization of work. Budget: $40,742 Task 1.ii.: Provide three dredging project options of varying sizes and depths, to be developed in consultation with City, for City Council and community consideration. Three options will be developed with the City considering this goal as well as other goals for restoring and enhancing the lake. Public input received by the City will be examined and evaluated with City staff in determining the three options to be studied. Overall cost-benefit analysis will also be considered in each of the three options. JND will provide input on methods and costs for the options and methods considered. The dredging and / or use of portions of the Prefumo Arm as a sedimentation basin will be performed separately. Leighton will review existing geotechnical and environmental studies to synthesize and summarize the current understanding of geotechnical and environmental conditions in Laguna Lake. The data summary (to be presented in a technical project memorandum) will describe the sources of existing site sediment, conditions, sediment characterization, sedimentation rate, and baseline conditions for any recommended additional field studies. A two - day site reconnaissance and geological assessment of these areas will be performe d. Leighton will provide geotechnical and environmental input to the design team to assess the best available dredging methods. Budget: $27,280 (subject to withholding, per Agreement paragraph 33) Task 1.iii.: Identify potential beneficial sediment re-use sites within ten miles of the project. Provide potential haul routes. MNS will review with the City the feasibility of using any portion of Laguna Lake Park for this purpose. 7.d Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 9 of 23 The proposed geotechnical work includes chemical and agricultural analysis of the soils to assist in determining acceptable and legal re-use options. Leighton will provide geotechnical and environmental input to the design team to evaluate both sediment reuse and disposal options. Farm and development re-use options for sediment will be considered. The default disposal option is landfill disposal (typically for daily cover use), which will be explored as well. Haul routes will be considered for traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, and other impacts, with appropriate recommendations made. Budget: $16,723 Task 1.iv.: Provide estimated dredging project costs based on disposal of material in Laguna Lake Park or adjacent property and offsite locations within 10 miles of the lake. Dredging project costs will be determined and presented in a useful, graphical format to facilitate the decision process. These options will consider the dry excavation and hydraulic dredging costs to account for either eventuality. Additionally, variations in dewater, haul, and disposal costs as a function of dredged volum e will be considered, so each of the three options may be fine-tuned to meet budget goals. A similar approach will be used for mechanical excavation options. Budget: $13,610 (subject to withholding, per Agreement paragraph 33) Task 1.v.: Provide an excavation alternative design and estimated costs for a project that assumes dry lakebed conditions. MNS will provide this alternative including project costs. Budget: $21,875 (subject to withholding, per Agreement paragraph 33) Task 1.vii.(a): Include time for a minimum of two City Council hearings in the proposed budget. MNS will support City staff in preparation of hearing materials and presentations for City Council meeting No 1. Budget: $3,633 Task 2.i.: Review the existing lake sediment borings. Leighton will perform this work, with an additional scope and cost item that is detailed under Phase II as necessary to complete the design of the selected project option. Budget: $2,875 Task 2.ii.: Prepare a hydrology study that evaluates surface hydrology, hydrogeology, drainage basin management, and water quality as it pertains to the lake and surroundings, as well as how the selected project option may affect these parameters. Using the existing mapping provided by the City, a basic hydrograph for each of the three drainage basins and their flows into the lake will be prepared. These will be correlated to recorded sedimentation inflow rates as documented by the City. Correlations to major storm ev ents will be noted. This exercise will be useful to model historic sedimentation rates and project future sedimentation rates. This review will be performed during Phase I and recommendations will be included in the technical memorandum summarizing existing baseline data Evaluation of dredging operations for permitting includes necessary testing to evaluate dredging decanted water; this requires additional sampling and analysis. 7.d Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 10 of 23 Budget: $37,304 Task 2.iii.: Analyze sedimentation and nutrient loading rates f or each watershed. Provide recommendations for decreasing sediment and nutrient loading including the use of sediment basins and other best management practices. Sediment loading rates will be estimated as described in Tasks 2.i and 2.ii. Nutrient loading rates will be determined based on core samples taken at three watershed term ination points at the lake as part of the geotechnical effort. Leighton will collect two water samples from each drainage to characterize the sediment and nutrient loading. One sample from each drainage will be collected during low flow conditions and then during high flow (or storm event) conditions. These samples will be analyzed for water chemistry, organics, and total dissolved solids. Leighton will provide this information to MNS to be included in their hydrology and drainage studies. Additionally, based upon the results of testing and other existing studies, Leighton will provide technical input and recommendations for decreasing the sediment and nutrient loading of the lake. Leighton will provide geologic, geotechnical, and environmental input for sediment management and preventive dredging maintenance alternatives to evaluate and reduce sediment accumulation in Laguna Lake. Budget: $2,635 Task 2.iv.: Provide a biological survey that details the existing aquatic species of the lake that may be affected by a dredging/excavation project. The scope of work for a biological resources assessment consists of data procurement, literature and database reviews, field surveys, and report preparation that will include a summary of our findings upon completion of the survey efforts. The objectives of the resultant biological report is to support analysis of impacts and development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in accord ance with the CEQA, as well as to present effects determinations and facilitate Section 7 Consultations with and issuance of Biological Opinions (BOs) from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance with the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Data Procurement. Obtain and evaluate baseline data (e.g., aerial photograph, topographic quadrangle, soil survey). Literature and Database Reviews. Review and evaluate background information regarding biologi cal resources in the vicinity of the project (e.g., primary literature, Rincon project files, resource agency guidelines, and technical reports). Review the official online species list from the USFWS identifying federally listed, proposed, or candidate species that may potentially occur, or be affected by projects, in the vicinity of the project. Review the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Rare Find [otherwise known as the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)] for reported occurrences of special status species within approximately five miles of the project site. In addition to the aforementioned database reviews, Rincon will review the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for reported occurrences of special status plant species within the project vicinity. Field Survey. Rincon will conduct a reconnaissance -level biological survey to evaluate the site’s existing conditions, and the site’s potential to support special status species an d vegetation communities. Terrestrial and aquatic habitat types present onsite and their suitability to support special status species will be documented. Rincon will also characterize and map the habitat types and vegetation communities present and docume nt all plants and animals observed on the project site. Reporting. Rincon will prepare a report describing the methods and results of the biological resources assessment, including a figure depicting terrestrial vegetation communities, habitat types, and o ther biological features observed 7.d Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 11 of 23 during the field reconnaissance survey. The intent of this report is to assist with future project design and/or mitigation planning efforts. A draft report will be submitted to the City for review and comment. Following C ity review, the report will be finalized and up to two (2) final copies and an electronic copy in Portable Document File (PDF) format of the report will be delivered. Cultural Resources Evaluation: Rincon understands the project will require a Section 404 Permit in accordance with the Clean Water Act; therefore, the project is under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and will be required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). Rincon’s cultural resources study will be completed in accordance with Section 106 and CEQA. Area of Potential Effects Map. Rincon will prepare an Area of Potential Effects (APE) map that delineates both an area of direct impacts (e.g., all areas of project ground dist urbance including staging areas) and area of indirect effects (e.g., visual effects). For the purposes of this scope and cost, Rincon assumes the direct and indirect APEs will not extend beyond the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve property. Cultural Resources Records Search. Rincon will conduct a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search of the project APE and a 0.5-mile radius around the APE at the Central Coastal Information Center (CCIC) located at University of California, Santa Barbara. The primary purpose of the records search is to identify any previously recorded cultural resources known to exist within or near the APE. In addition to the archaeological inventory records and reports, an examination will be made of historic maps, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Resources Inventory, and the listing of California Historical Landmarks. The records search will also reveal the nature and extent of any cultural resources work previously conducted within the APE and adjacent vicinity. A map showing the results of the literature search including areas previously inventoried and previously recorded sites will be provided. Rincon assumes that CCIC will conduct this records search within a maximum direct expense of $500. Section 106 Consultation. Rincon will request a records search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The SLF search will indicate w hether cultural resources important to Native Americans are present within the vicinity of the APE. The NAHC will also provide a contact list of Native American contacts for the project that they believe should be contacted for additional information. Rinc on will prepare and mail a letter to each of the NAHC-listed contacts, requesting they contact us if there is any know Native American cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Rincon will follow -up with each contact by telephone. As many as two telephone calls will be made to each of the contacts to document “good-faith” efforts to follow-up and the results will be documented in a table. Rincon will also contact individuals and/or organizations who may have knowledge of, or con cerns with, historic properties in the area. Consultation will include inquiries to local governments and local historic groups regarding their knowledge of historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the APE. As many as two telephone calls will be made to each of the groups to document “good-faith” efforts to follow-up. Field Survey. Upon completion of the CCIC records search, Rincon will conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey of the project APE. A Rincon cultural resources specialist will conduct the survey using transects spaced at maximum intervals of 10-15 meters with transect accuracy maintained through use of a hand -held global positioning system (GPS) unit. For the purposes of this proposal and cost estimate, Rincon assumes the survey will not iden tify any archaeological resources that require recordation or updating. Should any archaeological resources be identified during the survey, the budget will need to be augmented to record or update the resources. No subsurface testing will be conducted, nor will any artifacts, samples, or specimens be collected during the survey. Deliverable. Cultural Resources Technical Study Report. Rincon will prepare a technical report documenting the results of the cultural resources analysis, as well as provide manage ment recommendations for cultural resources within or near the project APE. The report will be prepared following the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format, and will include a historic context, methods and impacts considerations. The report will include figures depicting the area surveyed and studied for cultural resources. The DPR forms will be included as an appendix. Draft copies of the report 7.d Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 12 of 23 (digital PDF) will be submitted to the lead agency for review and approval. Rincon assumes two rounds of comments from the local and federal lead agencies will be necessary. Once reviewed, digital copies of the final report will be prepared and submitted. Assumptions: •Rincon assumes the CCIC will conduct this records search within a maximum direct expense of $500. •Rincon assumes the survey will not identify any archaeological resources that require recordation or updating. Should any additional cultural resources be identified during the survey, the budget will need to be augmented to record or update the resources. No subsurface testing will be conducted, nor will any artifacts, samples, or specimens be collected during the survey. •Rincon assumes the project APE will include the reserve property and no surrounding parcels will be included in the indirect APE. Note that although the RFP indicates the study is to be within the boundaries of the lake, Rincon feels it essential to include the reserve area, as there will be areas r equired for dewatering and sediment handling. Regulatory Permitting Assistance: Jurisdictional Delineation. Rincon will conduct a jurisdictional delineation of waters of the US and State of California, including wetlands, at the proposed project site using the most current guidance provided by the regulatory/resource agencies. Wetlands will be classified, documented, and mapped in general accordance with Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (2008a). The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of San Luis Obispo Creek and any other drainages will be delineated in general accordance with the methods prescribed in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Or dinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (2008b) and Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (2010). Rincon will delineat e the boundaries of jurisdictional features and the results of the delineations will be incorporated into a stand -alone report that will be suitable as an attachment to the permit applications for project preparation. In the essence of efficiency, Rincon will conduct the delineation field work in conjunction with the field survey associated with Biological Resources Assessment task. Deliverable. Rincon will submit the draft jurisdictional delineation report to the City for review and comment. Following City review, the report will be finalized and up to two (2) final copies and an electronic copy in PDF format of the report will be delivered. Agency Coordination. Rincon will informally consult with the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, and NMFS as necessary and appropriate, to confirm the type of permits and permit requirements for the project. Much of this communication will take place during preparation of the environmental document. Upon finalization and adoption of the IS-MND (or certification of the EIR), Rincon will inform responsible and trustee agency staff and convey any changes in the project description. In particular, Rincon will confirm the permit process and requirements of the City-approved project with agency staff. The majority of this agency comm unication will be accomplished through email, telephone calls, and conference calls; however, Rincon has scoped for a total of up to two (2) meetings with agency and/or City staff, if any such meetings are requested or advisable. Rincon will inform and con fer with City staff and the project team throughout this process through regular progress reports and updates. Deliverable. Rincon will prepare and submit to City staff all meeting minutes and emails that summarize substantive meetings and/or conversations with all agency staff throughout the permitting process. Respond to Agency Comments. While it is Rincon’s intention to provide complete permit applications/notifications to the agencies, one or more agencies may deem them incomplete. It is assumed agency staff will require additional information or clarification, such that agency coordination will be ongoing post -submittal and resubmittals may be necessary. Upon receipt of any comments on completeness of the permit applications/notifications, Rincon will prepare for City review and then submit responses and/or resubmittals to agency staff. It is assumed that all supplemental information provided will be sufficient to have the applications/notifications deemed complete, such 7.d Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 13 of 23 that a third submittal will not be required. Upon the determination of permit applications/notifications completeness, Rincon will coordinate with agency staff on the timing for issuance of the permits. Rincon’s participation at up to a total of two (2) meetings is assumed in this subtask . Additional meeting and/or hearing attendance will be completed by Rincon’s staff on a time and expense basis. Deliverable. Rincon will provide two (2) copies to the City of written response to comments in a cohesive letter or spreadsheet format. Budget: $8,895 Task 3.i.: Facilitate two property owner and two stakeholder outreach meetings to gather information and gain input on the options for dredging/excavating lake sediments.: Terrain will facilitate this task. Terrain will begin by making use of a ‘Situation Assessment’ to develop a plan of action that is thoughtful, sequenced, structured and adaptable to community values. This assessment will evaluate the current situation through individual interviews with community leaders, elected officials, and sen ior level agency management to structure an effective process that is inclusive, solution-oriented, community-focused, and relevant to the unique challenges this project faces. •Residents and resident groups •Businesses and business organizations •Elected officials and decision makers •Minority and underrepresented groups •Educational institutions Terrain will create a set of recommendations pertaining to how best to achieve the desired outcomes of these public meetings. Within this assessment, there will b e an understanding of all of the factors, both technical and logistical, that make up the need for public outreach and interaction. Such factors may be: •Client requirements •Project issues and timing •Prior public input •Inter-agency dynamics •Existing/future public opposition/support Recommendations that come from this exercise will frame the public meeting activities that should be implemented specifically for this project as it relates to the needs and concerns of the community. Budget: $13,963 Task 3.ii. Conduct a public opinion survey regarding lake dredging/exaction, the costs involved, and whether there is voter support for establishing a benefit assessment district, Community Facilities District, or other special funding district. In order to provide a comprehensive analysis of this issue, it is of fundamental importance to appreciate the two potentially viable types of revenue measures that can be placed before voters or property owners: •Parcel tax 7.d Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 14 of 23 •Benefit assessment •General purpose or specific sales tax •General obligation bond There are benefits and challenges associated with each funding mechanism and subsequent voting process. Terrain's approach addresses these issues and seeks to identify the most advantageous path to success. Rather than arbitrarily select one financial mechanism (parcel tax or benefit assessment), Terrain recommends structuring the methodology for the Baseline Survey so that all options can be evaluated. Accordingly, Terrain recommends using their proprietary, overlapping sampling methodology of voters and property owners that draws upon information in the voter file, assessor’s file, and our prior experience. The scope of services Terrain proposes to perform for the City encompasses all tasks needed to complet e the study and includes many tasks that are unique to their proven approach. These services include: •Meet with the client to thoroughly discuss the research objectives and methodology for the study, as well as discuss potential challenges, concerns, and issues that may surround the study. •Conduct an initial voter file and property-base analysis which will play an important role in understanding the ‘political landscapes’ for a special tax and a Proposition 218 benefit assessment. This task will shape how the sample will be selected. •Using Terrain's proven sampling methodology that draws information from the voter file, assessors file, property - base analysis, and past election outcomes, develop a stratified and clustered sample that will —through separate modeled simulations—produce results for both parcel tax and benefit assessment scenarios. •Develop a draft questionnaire for the client’s review and make revisions as needed until all parties approve of the instrument. •Pre-test the survey instrument to ensure its integrity. •Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) program the finalized survey instrument to ensure accurate and reliable data collection using live telephone interviewers. •Collect quality telephone interviews according to the sampling plan and a strict interviewing protocol. Interviewers will be professional, high quality interviewers. Terrain has prepared cost estimates for sample sizes of 500 respondents. •Process the data, which includes conducting validity checks, cleaning, recoding , coding open-end responses, and adjusting for strategic oversampling (if used) through a statistical procedure known as ‘weighting.’ •Analyze the survey results and conduct modeled simulations to reliably estimate election outcomes using different financing mechanisms. •Prepare a thorough report on the findings, including a detailed question-by-question analysis, description of the methodology, an executive summary of the key findings and conclusions/recommendations, as well as a comprehensive set of cross-tabulations showing how the answers varied by subgroups of respondents. The report will include extensive full-color graphics displaying the findings, as well as insightful narrative discussion of the results, their implications, and Terrain's recommended next steps. •Prepare an electronic copy of the Final Report to allow the City to reproduce the report as needed. •Prepare a PowerPoint presentation of the results. 7.d Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 15 of 23 Methodology: Length of Survey. Terrain recommends a survey length of 15 minutes that will achieve the City's goals without being so lengthy that too many respondents will opt out of the survey mid -call. This helps deliver the broadest scope of information within the study. Sample Data and Fielding the Poll. Terrain will develop a sample of poten tial survey respondents that reflects the makeup of voters who will participate in the variety of elections we identify for the study. This data set is the basis for a sampling plan that will mirror the demographics of your voters. Terrain will NOT, to the greatest extent possible, “skew” the polling data after we are out of the field. As the interview data is being collected, Terrain will pull the demographics out of the sample so as to not over or under represent individual voter populations. Additionally, Terrain WILL NOT use Random Digit Dialing (RRD) and WILL NOT ask individuals to self -identify as voters/parcel owners in a particular election, but rather call individual votes/parcel owners within our sample. Terrain asks for a voter/parcel owner by name and only seeks a response from them. For example, Terrain will ask for Jane Doe, an identified registered voter/parcel within the City of San Luis Obispo likely to participate in the targeted election/s. If she is not available, we move onto the next cal l. This ensures Terrain knows with the greatest level of confidence who they are speaking with and what their underlying voter demographic are for accurate data collection. Budget: $32,706 Task 3.iii.: Based on the outcome of the public opinion survey, provide an evaluation and detail report of financing options for City consideration. The consultant will present project options to the City Council for review. Based on the recommended institutional structure and results of the public opinion survey, Water C onsultancy will identify potential financing and funding mechanisms that may be utilized for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project. It is important that the financing and funding plan consider the immediate restoration activities but als o future ongoing maintenance requirements. Funding sources must be sustainable and supportable over the project life. Because the available financing and funding options are limited by the institutional structure utilized to implement the project, Water Co nsultancy will identify the options available to the institutional alternatives under consideration. Potential financing options will include potential grant or low interest loan programs as well as general obligation, assessment, or tax increment bonds. F unding options will include the City’s general fund, property taxes, and formation of benefit assessment districts. The results of this evaluation will be summarized in a draft report and submitted to the City for review. After incorporating City comments a final report will be submitted. Budget: $22,080 TOTAL PHASE I BUDGET: $244,321 Council Hearing No. 1 – Project Selection PHASE II. Complete Project Design, Environmental Document and Project Permitting, Pursue Financing Task 1.vi(a).: Upon project option selection, provide project dredging/excavation design plans and specifications suitable for permitting. Leighton will provide geotechnical engineering input for plans and specifications. JND will provide constructability review and will also support construction cost development. MNS will prepare plans and specifications customized for dredging work. Of special concern is quantity measurement and final dredge configuration verification. Intermediate and final surveys are recommended to verify and confirm the desired dredge result and to validate quantity goals and payment. This generally includes both survey of the water body and stockpile areas to validate truckload counts and other forms of quantity accounting. Budget: $18,498 (subject to withholding, per Agreement paragraph 33) 7.d Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 16 of 23 Additional geotechnical work needed for final design: The Following Cores are needed and will be provided to assure adequate design: Budget: $53,544 Task 1.vii.(b): Include time for a minimum of two City Council hearings in the proposed budget. MNS will support City staff in preparation of hearing materials and presentations for City Council meeting No 2. Budget: $3,632 Task 2.vi. Prepare a project-specific initial study and appropriate environmental document. The City assumes, for the purposes of RFP costs, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be required. An alternate cost proposal will be provided in the event the initial study concludes an EIR is required. Task 2.vii. Prepare and complete environmental permitting applications and complete the permitting process with the US Army Corps of Engineers, CA Fish & Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, NOAA Fisheries, and any other pertinent regulatory agencies. Include time for external meetings with agency personnel in the budget. For items 2.vi. and 2.vii., the scope was prepared with the assistance of RPS (subsidiary of UPC). The project will be under the jurisdiction of the City as lead agency for review and approval of the environmental review for the project. Due to the nature of the project, several issues are anticipated to require involvement of various state and federal agencies in their respective permitting proces ses. Issue areas are anticipated to include biological, water quality, geologic resources, recreation, traffic, and land use. 7.d Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 17 of 23 The following public agencies are responsible agencies and require consideration and/or coordination with respect to this project: Permitting Process: Pursuant to Government Code §53090, the City may qualify as a local agency exempt from permit requirements from the County. It is anticipated the environmental review will eventually consist of the development of a CEQA compliant MND . This recommendation is tentative and dependent on the final product generated by engineering. The following areas will be assessed in the document: •Air Quality. Prepare an CalEEMod analysis of NOx emissions and vehicular pollutants to verify conformance with the regional attainment plan and federal/state greenhouse gas emission standards. •Biological Resources. To be prepared by the biological resource consultant as part of the team. Initial Study will assess the biological studies performed for the site including adherence to the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, jurisdictional delineations. Analysis of potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat. •Traffic. To be prepared by the traffic engineer as part of the team. Construction traffic impact will be assessed and mitigation developed as to minimize said impacts to the public. •Hydrology. To be prepared by the team's civil engineer to assess impacts to water quality. •Geologic. To be prepared by soil engineer. Sediment generation and loading will be assessed as well as an exploration into suitable export sites. Environmental Document Preparation: RPS will thoroughly review all consultant materials and investigate the site in order to provide the necessary background to prepare the Initial Study. During this time period, RPS will also initiate contacts with applicable federal and state agencies to begin consultations. Initial Study: RPS will prepare the Initial Study fulfilling the following tasks: •Work with the project design team and the City, prepare the project description for evaluation. •Thoroughly investigate the existing site to develop an effective baseline for the environmental setting. It is this setting that impacts will be assessed. •Review and assess all pertinent studies, reports, and plans for impact analysis. 7.d Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 18 of 23 •Develop mitigation to minimize anticipated impacts. Local thresholds of significance will be used to identify potentially significant impacts. •Promptly complete the Initial Study and submit to City for review and comme nt prior to public comment. MND •Assist the City in developing proper noticing protocols in accordance with existing City procedures. •Submit environmental document to Clearinghouse for State review. •Serve as Environmental Hearing Officer for one environmental hearing to solicit public input, if requested by City.. •Develop response to comments and revise MND as warranted based on public input. •Represent environmental document to decision maker. •Process and obtain the necessary NOD to complete documentation. Environmental Impact Report: Since the City is the lead agency, it is anticipated sufficient environmental review will result in an MND. In the unlikely event the project is either taken to court and a judge requires an EIR or a stat e agency requires an EIR, RPS will provide the following services: •Develop EIR scope of work. •Administer a scoping hearing for the public to address potential issues. •Working with the design team, RPS will serve as project manager for the development of the EIR ensuring all areas of analysis are thorough and defensible. •Assist in preparing pertinent sections of technical analysis of the EIR by environmental consultants (biological, hydrology, geology, etc.). •Prepare and write the following portions of the EIR: ––Executive summary ––Project description ––Environmental setting ––Summary of environmental impacts ––Aesthetics ––Land use ––Recreation ––Policy consistency ––Not significant impact areas of analysis ––CEQA discussions ––Alternative analysis ––Response to comments 7.d Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 19 of 23 •Assist the City in developing the noticing protocols per the City’s noticing procedures. •Submit the EIR to Clearinghouse for state review. •Advise or serve as the Environmental Hearing Officer for the environmental hearing , if requested by City. •Develop response to comments and revise the EIR. •Represent the EIR to the decision maker for approval. •Process and obtain necessary NOD. 404/401/1600 Permitting: Upon certification of the environmental document and approval of the project by the Cit y, applications will then be submitted to the USACE and the RWQCB for Section 404 and Section 401 permits respectively. It is anticipated the USACE will exert jurisdictional authority over the site and initiate Section 7 consultation under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act during the 404 permitting process if warranted. Prior to application submittal, a pre-consultation meeting will be scheduled with the responsible agencies. A site visit will accompany the meeting. Input as to the permit path is sues will be identified so as to be incorporated in the permit applications. It is anticipated the studies prepared for the environmental document process will also be used for the 404/401 process. RPS will prepare the following materials in support of the applications: •404 Permit application to the USACE •401 Permit application to the RWQCB •1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW •Determination of biologically equivalent or superior preservation RPA will provide consultation services to the agencies and serve as the lead consultant working in tandem with the project team to procure the necessary approvals. Should a Section 7 consultation be enacted by the USACE, RPS will proactively engage USFWS/NOAA Fisheries/CDFW for a timely B.O. to finalize the permit. Budget: $80,303 Task 3.iv.: Pursue financing options (add-on option if public financing, e.g. CFD with bond counsel, underwriting, elections, etc.) based on the City’s chosen public financing option in Phase I. Water Consultancy will assist the other members of the project team in pursuing the City -selected financing option. The specific option that is chosen will likely require supporting documentation, such as information and analyses to be included in official statements or other supporting information, interaction with bond counsel and financial advisors, and responses to City questions. Budget: $24,840 TOTAL PHASE II BUDGET: $180,817 Council Hearing No. 2 – Adopt Environmental Document, Authorize Financing [Grant application(s) and / or Resolution of Intent and Enhanced Public Relations (if public financing is pursued)] PHASE III. Additional Steps Necessary to Pursue Financing Option (all Phase III tasks not to proceed without Council authorization) 7.d Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 20 of 23 Task 3.v. Provide written materials such as an engineer’s report and other documentation supporting the establishment of a special district. Water Consultancy will provide the written materials to support the activities of the financing team. These materials may include written information for official statements or public outreach, Engineer’s Reports for assessment financing, or assistance with special district formation. Because the specific level of effort is difficult to determine at this time, no budgetary estimate is provided at this time. Budget: TBD Task 3.vi.: Include time for at least one City Council hearing in the budget. In this subtask, Water Consultancy will attend one City Council hearing to consider the project financing plan. A brief presentation will be prepared and delivered at the request of City staff. Budget: TBD Task 3.vii: Additional, Enhanced Public Relations Scope, including enhanced research and outreach.: Phase I: Project Due Diligence & Research Tasks: 1. Due Diligence – upfront information gathering with client and team to assist in the development work products for conducting Stakeholder interviews and subsequent public opinion research. a. One in person meeting b. Follow-up information gathering, research, and product development 2. Stakeholder Interviews a. 6 to 12 Interview in San Luis Obispo (locations TBD) from each of the following areas: i. Council – select member/s ii. Planning Commission – select member/s iii. State and/or Fed Elected Officials iv. Parks & Recreation/Users v. Environmental Organization/s vi. Education (local schools) vii. Non-Profit viii. Service Clubs (Rotary, Lions, etc.) ix. Community VIP’s/Influencers x. Home Owners xi. Other client recommended 3. Public Opinion Research a. Survey Instrument Drafting – assume 2 in person meetings i. Assemble all info from Tasks 1 and 2 ii. Develop scope of research based on information collected iii. Define issue areas and potential questions iv. Draft survey instrument for client approval (do we need to take this to city council?) v. Field Survey 4. Project Deliverables a. Final Report including: i. Finding from stakeholder interviews ii. Findings from public opinion research iii. Recommended next steps – Public Outreach Plan (may include depending on findings) 1. Community Outreach a. Public Meetings b. Presentations to Business, Service Organizations, Community Groups, Etc. c. Strategic Partnerships 2. Earned Media (Print, Radio, TV) a. Press Releases b. Opinion Editorial & Letters-to-the-Editor c. Place Stories 3. Outreach Materials a. Print, Radio, TV 7.d Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 21 of 23 4. Electronic Media a. Website b. Social Media c. SEO & Advertising b. Initial Project Messaging and Information i. Provide recommended public information for: 1. Webpage to city’s website 2. Collateral materials (one page leave behind, presentations, earned media, etc.) 3. Other client needs TBD Budget: TBD City Council Hearing No. 3 – Resolution of Formation (if public financing is pursued) PHASE IV. Final Steps Leading to “Shovel Ready” Status Task 1.vi(b).: Upon final project option selection (as determined by available financing), provide project dredging/excavation design plans, specifications, and estimates suitable for contractor bid packages. Leighton will provide geotechnical engineering input for plans and specifications (bid package su pport). JND will provide constructability review and will also support construction cost development. MNS will prepare plans and specifications customized for dredging work. Of special concern is quantity measurement and final dredge configuration verification. Intermediate and final surveys are recommended to verify and confirm the desired dredge result and to validate quantity goals and payment. This generally includes both survey of the water body and stockpile areas to validate truckload counts and oth er forms of quantity accounting. Budget: $18,498 (subject to withholding, per Agreement paragraph 33) City Council Meetings – 2017-19 Financial Plan Process; Authorize RFP for construction (City staff only) Task 1.viii.: Assistance with project construction advertisement and award. MNS will assist City with scoping its project construction Request for Proposals process and review. Budget: $1,364 TOTAL PHASE IV BUDGET: $22,737 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET: $445,000 7.d Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 22 of 23 Exhibit B Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Insurance Requirements The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001), or equivalent. 2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto), or equivalent. 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other f orm with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the C ontractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its off icers, official, employees, or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or sui t is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4. Each insurance policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by mail has been given to the City. 7.d Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management – MNS Engineers Agreement Page 23 of 23 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. 7.d Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: d - MNS Agreement and Scope of Work (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) &$3,7$/,03529(0(173/$1± &20081,7<'(9(/230(17/$*81$/$.('5('*,1*$1'6(',0(170$1$*(0(17Project Description7KH/DJXQD/DNH'UHGJLQJDQG6HGLPHQW0DQDJHPHQWSURMHFWZLOOSURYLGHRQHRIWKHNH\LPSOHPHQWDWLRQVWHSV FRQWHPSODWHGE\ WKH&LW\&RXQFLODGRSWHGLaguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan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³VKRYHOUHDG\´SURMHFW E\WKDWWLPH$QDGGLWLRQDOILQDOSKDVHLVDQWLFLSDWHGLQDVXEVHTXHQW&,3F\FOH WRFRPSOHWHWKHSURMHFWRYHUDWRWDORI\HDUV40DLQWHQDQFH5HSODFHPHQW41HZSURMHFW…)OHHW5HSODFHPHQW…1HZ)OHHW5HTXHVW4&RXQFLO*RDO0HDVXUH*3ULRULW\/LVW7KH SURMHFWLVFXUUHQWO\DQDGRSWHG2WKHU,PSRUWDQW&RXQFLO2EMHFWLYHDQGLVDQLGHQWLILHG0HDVXUH*SULRULW\ 2SHQ6SDFH3UHVHUYDWLRQDQGYLWDOFDSLWDOLPSURYHPHQWSURMHFW Need and Urgency/DJXQD/DNHLVSULPDULO\DQDWXUDOO\RFFXUULQJODNHORFDWHGLQWKHHDVWHUO\HQGRI/RV2VRV9DOOH\$OOODNHVHYHQWXDOO\ILOOLQRYHUWKHFRXUVHRIJHRORJLFWLPH%XW/DJXQD/DNHKDVDOVREHHQVXEVWDQWLDOO\DOWHUHGDQGPDQLSXODWHGWRLQFOXGHWKHUHURXWLQJRI3UHIXPR&UHHNLQWRWKHODNHDQGWKHH[FDYDWLRQRIWKH6RXWKHDVW$UPRIWKHODNHGXULQJWKH¶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¶VDQGZDVHYDOXDWHGLQGHWDLOLQWKH\HDUVOHDGLQJXS$WWKDWWLPHKRZHYHUTXHVWLRQVUHPDLQHGDVWR ZKHWKHUWKHSURMHFWLVDQRYHUDOOFRPPXQLW\SULRULW\KRZWRSD\IRUWKHSURMHFWDQGKRZWKHSURMHFWPLJKWILWLQZLWKDODUJHUQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHFRQVHUYDWLRQSODQ7KHVHTXHVWLRQVKDYHEHHQDGGUHVVHGWKURXJKWKH&LW\&RXQFLO¶VDGRSWLRQRIWKHLaguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan ³//15&3´ DQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGSXEOLFSDUWLFLSDWLRQSURFHVVOHDGLQJXSWRLW7KH//15&3ZDVZHOOVXSSRUWHGE\WKHFRPPXQLW\DQGQHLJKERUVWRLQFOXGHWKHLULQGLFDWLRQRIVXSSRUWIRUSXUVXLQJD&RPPXQLW\)DFLOLWLHV'LVWULFWWRDVVLVWWKH&LW\LQILQDQFLQJWKHSURMHFWZKLOHDOVRGHWDLOLQJWKHLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVIRXQGLQDQGDURXQGWKHODNH DQGGHVFULELQJSURWHFWLYHVWUDWHJLHVIRUWKHP7KHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH//15&3FRPELQHGZLWKGURXJKWLQGXFHGGU\FRQGLWLRQVLQWKHODNHKDYHJDOYDQL]HGWKHFRPPXQLW\DURXQG /DJXQD/DNHOHDGLQJWRVWURQJVXSSRUWDQGDXQLTXHDQGWLPHO\RSSRUWXQLW\WRLQLWLDWHWKLVSURMHFW 7.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: e - Laguna Lake CIP 15-17 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) &$3,7$/,03529(0(173/$1± &20081,7<'(9(/230(17/$*81$/$.('5('*,1*$1'6(',0(170$1$*(0(17Readiness to Build4 6WXG\FRPSOHWHEXWDGGLWLRQDOVWXGLHVQHFHVVDU\… (TXLSPHQWSXUFKDVHGRU4QD4 3URSHUW\RZQHGRUSURSHUW\DJUHHPHQWLQSODFHEXWODQGWHQXUHIRUDGLVSRVDOVLWHLVQRWLQSODFH…(QYLURQPHQWDODSSURYDODQGSHUPLWVFRPSOHWHRU4QD…6SHFLILFDWLRQVRUFRQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVFRPSOHWH4QD…,76WHHULQJ&RPPLWWHHUHYLHZ4QDEnvironmental Review and Permits Required4 (QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZ…%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW4QD4:DWHUZD\3HUPLWV )LVK :LOGOLIH:DWHU4XDOLW\$UP\&RUSV …QD…5DLOURDG4QD42WKHU 12$$)LVKHULHVDQG86):6%LRORJLFDO2SLQLRQ…QDOperating Program Number and Title:±1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHVProject Phasing and Funding Sources61HZ6SHFLILFDWLRQ1RInitial Project Costs by Phase%XGJHWWR'DWH      7RWDO6WXG\  (QYLURQPHQWDO3HUPLW  /DQG$FTXLVLWLRQ  6LWH3UHSDUDWLRQ'HVLJQ6SHFLILFDWLRQV  &RQVWUXFWLRQ  &RQVWUXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW(TXLSPHQW$FTXLVLWLRQTotal $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,0007.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: e - Laguna Lake CIP 15-17 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) &$3,7$/,03529(0(173/$1± &20081,7<'(9(/230(17/$*81$/$.('5('*,1*$1'6(',0(170$1$*(0(17'HWDLORILQLWLDOFRVWV,QLWLDOFRVWV GXULQJSKDVH,FRQVLVWRIFRQWUDFWVHUYLFHVIRUHQJLQHHULQJHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZDQGSHUPLWVDQGHFRQRPLFDGYLVRUV7KHVHFRQVXOWDQWVHUYLFHVFRVWVDUHSUHIHUUHGFRPSDUHGWR³VWDIILQJXS´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otal $0 $450,000 $0 N/A N/A N/A $450,000Project Funding by Source7.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: e - Laguna Lake CIP 15-17 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) &$3,7$/,03529(0(173/$1± &20081,7<'(9(/230(17/$*81$/$.('5('*,1*$1'6(',0(170$1$*(0(17Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives…$OWHUQDWH SURMHFWLVIHDVLEOHRUDGYDQWDJHRXV±&RVWRIDOWHUQDWLYH SURMHFW43URMHFWFDQEHSKDVHG±1XPEHURI\HDUVIRUSKDVLQJ7KHSURMHFWLVDQWLFLSDWHGWREHSKDVHGRYHUWKHFRXUVHRI\HDUVProject Team Assignment Program Estimated Hours3URMHFW3URSRQHQW 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV 3URMHFW0DQDJHU &,3(QJLQHHULQJ± 'HVLJQ 7HFKQLFDO6WXGLHV 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV (QYLURQPHQWDO&OHDUDQFH &RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW &RQWUDFW0DQDJHPHQW &,3(QJLQHHULQJ± $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ &RQVWUXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW &,3(QJLQHHULQJ± &RQVWUXFWLRQ 7.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: e - Laguna Lake CIP 15-17 (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES LAGUNA LAKE RESTORATION OBJECTIVE Initiate implementation of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. BACKGROUND The 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve is a place of exceptional beauty, blending a rich ecosystem with spectacular views and recreational opportunities. The City has adopted the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (“LLNRCP”) to guide future management of the Reserve by offering a framework for conservation, restoration, recovery, and scenic recreational use. Laguna Lake is primarily a naturally occurring lake, although it has also been substantially altered and manipulated resulting in sedimentation rates into the lake that have been significant over time. Recent bathymetric surveys indicate dramatic changes in lake depth and morphology resulting in decreased water quality and aquatic habitat functions, as well as diminished aesthetic and recreational values associated with the lake. Accordingly, one of the primary recommendations of the LLNRCP is to implement dredging and sediment management strategies: “The option of dredging portions of the lake is also accommodated by the framework laid out in this plan, when coupled with erosion and sedimentation strategies… in order to make such a project both more feasible from a regulatory standpoint and more sustainable over the long-term” (p. 5). OUTCOME—FINAL WORK PRODUCT The work products for the Laguna Lake Restoration project during the 2015-17 Financial Plan period will address the key beginning steps contemplated by the LLNRCP. The Implementation section of the LLNRCP (p. 34) describes four main project components for years 1-3. An additional task pursuant to the Fiscal Statement section of the LLNRCP (p.34-35) is a detailed evaluation, feasibility tests, and the initiation of a Community Facilities District or similar financing mechanism(s). Given that the 2015-17 Financial Plan period is two years and that the initial implementation phase of the LLNRCP is three years, it is expected that the first two components (trail signs and accessible paths) will be completed within the Financial Plan period, while also beginning to set aside funding for project implementation. The second two components (sediment basins and begin dredging) will have all of the necessary conditions precedent to beginning the physical stages of these projects completed so that they are “shovel ready” at the beginning of year three during the 2017-19 Financial Plan period. The preliminary tasks to be completed during the upcoming two-year period include updated soil samples and water quality studies, project design and engineering, project specifications, disposal site land tenure, regulatory agency permits, and an updated project-specific environmental document. Following the 2015-17 Financial Plan period, a second phase that initiates the physical dredging project and installation of sediment basins, as well as an additional, final phase, are anticipated in subsequent CIP cycles. These projects will complete the Laguna Lake Restoration project over a total of 10 years. LLNRCP Implementation Components (3 years) Final Work Product at End of Financial Plan (2 years) 1. Install new, updated signage at trailheads and along trails Completed 2. Install accessible paths Completed 3.Install sediment basins “Shovel Ready” 4.Begin a dredging project “Shovel Ready” 5.Initiate financing mechanism(s)“Shovel Ready” C-38 7.f Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: f - Laguna Lake OIO Work Plan from 15-17 Budget (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES LAGUNA LAKE RESTORATION ACTION PLAN Install new, updated signage at trailheads and along trails Date 1. Complete site-specific design 2. Complete requisition signs and attendant materials 3. Installation of updated signs at trailheads and along trails June 2016 Sept 2016 Dec 2016 Install accessible paths Date 1.Complete Site-specific design and project specifications 2. Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) and Contractor selection 3. Installation of accessible path along lake front Dec 2016 Feb 2017 June 2017 Install sediment basins Date 1. Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design / Engineering consultant 2.Complete Site-specific designs and project specifications 3. Complete Project permitting and environmental document July 2015 March 2016 June 2017 Begin a dredging project Date 1. Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design / Engineering consultant 2.Site-specific designs and project specifications completed 3. Soil samples and water quality tests 4. Evaluate disposal site options and secure land tenure agreements, if necessary 5.Final project design selection with City Council 6. Project permitting and environmental document completed July 2015 March 2016 March 2016 May 2016 June 2016 June 2017 C-39 7.f Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: f - Laguna Lake OIO Work Plan from 15-17 Budget (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES LAGUNA LAKE RESTORATION RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT The Natural Resources Program in City Administration will serve as the lead responsible department with the support from Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Finance and IT, and the City Attorney’s Office. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE Three separate Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects have been prepared in order to facilitate the Action Plan for the Laguna Lake Restoration objective in 2015-17. The trailhead signs for Laguna Lake Natural Reserve are supported by a portion of the Open Space Enhancement and Maintenance CIP, while the ADA paths and Dredging and Sediment Management components are both supported by project-specific CIPs. Overall, the Laguna Lake Restoration objective in 2015-17 is largely consultant driven, and existing staff resources within the departments listed above are expected to be sufficient to oversee and coordinate these various work efforts. Cost Summary 2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17 Open Space Enhancement and Maintenance CIP * Laguna Lake ADA Paths CIP 250,000 Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Mgt CIP 450,000 Total $0 $0 $700,000 $0 Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan Evaluate Project Financing Options and Mechanisms Date 1. Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for economic / municipal finance and public opinion research consultant(s) 2. Evaluate financing options and feasibility 3. Conduct study session with City Council on financing options and feasibility 4. Conduct focused public workshops and community outreach 5. Final selection of preferred financing option(s) by City Council and resolution of intention as appropriate and legally required. 6. Public Hearing with City Council to create financing mechanism and adopt resolution of formation as appropriate and legally required. 7. Conduct registered voter election consolidated with general election, if needed. 8. If step 7 is successful, proceed with any and all action necessary to fund sediment basin and dredging project implementation in 2017-19. July 2015 January 2016 Feb 2016 April 2016 May 2016 July 2016 Nov 2016 Feb 2017 C-40 7.f Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: f - Laguna Lake OIO Work Plan from 15-17 Budget (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) OTHER IMPORTANT COUNCIL OBJECTIVES LAGUNA LAKE RESTORATION Funding Sources 2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17 General Fund - Open Space Enhancement & Maint. CIP 2015-17 * Parkland Development Fee Fund - Laguna Lake ADA Paths CIP 2015-17 250,000 General Fund - Laguna Lake Dredging & Sediment Mgt CIP 2015-17 450,000 Total $0 $0 $700,000 $0 *A $10,000 portion of the CIP found in the Open Space Preservation Major City Goal also supports this work program  Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan C-41 7.f Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: f - Laguna Lake OIO Work Plan from 15-17 Budget (1227 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Contract Award) Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director, Water Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager SUBJECT: WELL SITE RELINQUISHMENT AT 1460 CALLE JOAQUIN RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed and Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale (Attachments A and B) for the well located at 1460 Calle Joaquin. DISCUSSION Background The City’s well at 1460 Calle Joaquin was installed in 1989 when the City was actively pursuing groundwater development to supplement its surface water supply. Improvements include: underground waterline, building, vault, concrete pad and well and other related equipment. Groundwater contamination (PCE and nitrates) forced the shutdown of the well in June 1993. The regulatory status of the well was changed to “inactive” in July 1995. Although it has been out of service for many years, the well remains connected to the City’s water distribution system and is viewed as a potential water quality liability. The City does not currently utilize groundwater as a potable water source. Though groundwater could be available during water shortage periods, it would require extensive treatment and infrastructure modifications. Because of these limitations, groundwater was removed from the water availability calculation with the update of the 2010 amendment of the Water and Wastewater Management Element. Use of Non-Potable Water Request The property at 1460 Calle Joaquin, previously occupied by Denny’s and later Zaki’s Waffle House, changed ownership in June 2014. The current owner, ARH Quiky Investments, LLC, is in the process of constructing a Quiky Car Wash and seeks to use the well as a water source for the car wash. Since the City does not intend to use the well in the future, relinquishing the well for this use would be beneficial for the City, in that: (1) the water to support the car wash would be from this non-potable source; and (2) the City would no longer have to maintain this unneeded infrastructure. In addition, the City does not have an express easement for the well site and related improvements. At best, the City would have a prescriptive easement; however, due to non-use for the past twenty years, the scope of those rights would be severely limited even assuming the City desired the well for future use. 8 Packet Pg. 182 The owner has provided the attached Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property, Bill of Sale, and Quitclaim Deed. Staff recommends the relinquishment of the well property through those instruments. FISCAL IMPACT No resources had been identified for the abandonment of the existing well. The owner of the overlying property will pay for all costs related to the disconnection of the well from the City’s water system. The disconnection of the well from the City’s water distribution system would be reducing potential maintenance costs. Attachments: a - Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale b - Quit Claim 8 Packet Pg. 183 1 INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY AND BILL OF SALE (Quiky Car Wash Well) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED, BE IT KNOWN that, upon recordation of the executed Quitclaim Deed in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “1”, the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation (“City”) hereby sells, transfers, conveys and assigns forever to ARH Quiky Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Quiky”) and Quiky’s transferees, grantees, assigns and successors in interest, all of City’s right, title and interest in and to the underground waterline, building, vault, concrete pad and well and any other related equipment, improvements or personal property attached thereto situated in the location depicted in Exhibit B to the Quitclaim Deed (“Transferred Property”). Quiky acknowledges and agrees that City makes no representation or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, as to the quality of water underlying the property, the sufficiency of the well or the condition of the Transferred Property and Quiky accepts the Transferred Property on an “AS-IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS” basis. Quiky, and its transferees, grantees, assigns and successors in interest, agree to indemnify, defend and hold City harmless from and against, any and all losses, damages, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable legal fees and costs) arising out of or incurred with respect to any claims, demands, causes of action of any nature, any expense incident to defense, for injury to or death of persons or loss of or damage to property, including any alleged damages or liability resulting from the pumping and drawing of water from the above-described well, occurring subsequent to the execution of this Bill of Sale resulting from the use, operation or maintenance by Quiky, or its officers, agents, employees, transferees, grantees and successors in interest of the Transferred Property. Quiky acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless City as set forth herein is a covenant that shall run with the land described in said Quitclaim Deed and shall be binding on Quiky’s transferees, grantees, assigns and successors in interest. Quiky and City agree that upon recordation of the Quitclaim Deed a Memorandum of Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “2” shall be recorded in the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County. Quiky shall pay for all recording fees, if any. 8.a Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: a - Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) 2 Signed January _____, 2015 City of San Luis Obispo By: Jan Marx, Mayor Attest: ____ Jon Ansolabehere, Interim City Clerk Approved as to Form: _________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney ARH Quiky Investments, LLC By: Its: 8.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: a - Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) 3 EXHIBIT “1” Form Quitclaim Deed with Attachments RECORDING REQUESTED BY: and WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ARH Quiky Investments, LLC c/o Westpac Investments 835 Aerovista Place Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER $_____________________ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ( ) Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ( ) Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances *________________________________ _______________ ( ) remaining at time of sale. Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax - Firm Name - 053-412-017 QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, hereby QUITCLAIMS, GRANTS, and CONVEYS to ARH Quiky Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company, Any and all rights, title and interests of record or arising by prescription, in and to the underground waterline, building, vault, concrete pad and well and any other related equipment, improvements or personal property attached thereto, including the right to draw water from the above-described well, situated in the location described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” attached hereto. Dated: __________________, 20____ City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation, By: _________________________________ MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Same address as shown above 8.a Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: a - Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) 4 Exhibit A PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. SL 91-227 IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED APRIL 20, 1992 IN BOOK 49, PAGE 40 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Exhibit B 8.a Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: a - Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) 5 Exhibit 2 Memorandum of Agreement RECORDING REQUESTED BY: and WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ARH Quiky Investments, LLC c/o Westpac Investments 835 Aerovista Place Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 053-412-017 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (this “Memorandum”) is made and entered into this day of __________, 2016 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, (“City”) and ARH Quiky Investments, LLC (“Quiky”). Notice is hereby given that the City and Quiky entered into an Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale dated _________, 2015 (“Agreement”), which is a covenant that runs with the land described herein below and is binding on Quiky’s transferees, grantees, assigns and successors in interest. Real Property: PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. SL 91-227 IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED APRIL 20, 1992 IN BOOK 49, PAGE 40 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. The terms and conditions of the Agreement is incorporated herein by this reference. Should any party require information concerning said Agreement, they should contact City or Quiky at the following addresses: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ARH Quiky Investments, LLC c/o Westpac Investments 835 Aerovista Place Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 8.a Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: a - Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum on the day and year first above written. City of San Luis Obispo By: Jan Marx, Mayor Attest: ____ Jon Ansolabehere, Interim City Clerk Approved as to Form: _________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney ARH Quiky Investments, LLC By: Its: 8.a Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: a - Indemnification Agreement Affecting Real Property and Bill of Sale (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) RECORDING REQUESTED BY: and WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ARH Quiky Investments, LLC c/o Westpac Investments 835 Aerovista Place Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER $_____________________ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ( ) Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ( ) Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances *_______________________________________________ ( ) remaining at time of sale. Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax - Firm Name - 053-412-017 QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, hereby QUITCLAIMS, GRANTS, and CONVEYS to ARH Quiky Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company, Any and all rights, title and interests of record or arising by prescription, in and to the underground waterline, building, vault, concrete pad and well and any other related equipment, improvements or personal property attached thereto, including the right to draw water from the above-described well, situated in the location described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” attached hereto. Dated: __________________, 20____ City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation, By: _________________________________ __________________________________ MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Same address as shown above 8.b Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: b - Quit Claim (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) Exhibit A PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. SL 91-227 IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED APRIL 20, 1992 IN BOOK 49, PAGE 40 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 8.b Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: b - Quit Claim (1232 : Well Site Relinquishment) Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director - Water Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FINAL 2015 POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION Approve the Final 2015 Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan and adopt a Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION Background City staff worked with The Wallace Group in the development of the 2015 Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan includes recommendations to address existing health and safety deficiencies within the water distribution system based on today’s standards and requirements, as well as accommodate future development. Key highlights of the Master Plan are listed below. 1. The City is fortunate to have an abundance of operational, fire, and emergency water storage. 2. Replacing and downsizing the City’s largest reservoirs will offer greater reliability. 3. The City has an opportunity to consolidate pressure zones, while improving fire flow, retiring aged pump stations and water tanks rather than replacing them. 4. The hydraulic modeling effort produced numerous recommendations that will make the City’s water distribution system more resilient. 5. The hydraulic model will be used to evaluate future development projects and has already been used for water main sizing for the projects in the Airport Area and Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and contribute to the design of capital improvement projects. Implementation of the Plan will eventually lead to the removal of assets such as pump stations and tanks (Bishop pump station, Serrano pump station/ Bressi tank, McCollum pump station/Slack tank, and Ferrini pump station and Ferrini tank). The Plan recommends numerous pressure zone consolidation projects to reduce operational and long-term infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs. 9 Packet Pg. 192 On May 5, 2015 in a study session, the City Council reviewed the Master Plan . The recommendations in the 2015 Water Master Plan will assist the City in prioritizing both current and future water system needs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Following the May 5, 2015 Study Session, an Initial Study was prepared for the Master Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this report and the recommended action. Water distribution system improvements are incorporated into and prioritized through the water fund’s capital improvement plan process. This process takes place during the development of each financial plan. The Master Plan will inform the 2016 update of water development impact fees and future rate setting. Attachments: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND b - Resolution for Water Master Plan Adoption Council Reading File - Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan - 1_19_2016 9 Packet Pg. 193 9.a Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) 9.a Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: a - Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan IS_ND (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) R ______ RESOLUTION NO. (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THE POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a complex potable water distribution system comprised of sixteen distribution zones, ten potable water storage tanks, two reservoirs, five hydro‐pneumatic tanks, eight pump stations, and 18 pressure reducing valves; and WHEREAS, the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, consisting of text, tables, and figures, was presented to the City Council in draft form on May 5, 2015 and in final form on January 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan provides a roadmap that will allow the City to make knowledge based decisions to meet the financial, infrastructure, and regulatory requirements of the City’s potable water distribution system; and WHEREAS, the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan addresses existing deficiencies and future build‐out needs within the water distribution system based on today’s standards and requirements; WHEREAS, the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan; and BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Section 2. Action. The City Council does hereby adopt the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. Effective Date. The Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. 9.b Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: b - Resolution for Water Master Plan Adoption (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2 ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC 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 ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 9.b Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: b - Resolution for Water Master Plan Adoption (1233 : Master Plan Environmental Review) Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Prepared By: Dave Hix, Deputy Director, Wastewater Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FINAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL STRATEGY RECOMMENDATION Approve the Negative Declaration and the Final Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy. DISCUSSION Background City staff worked collaboratively with Water Systems Consulting, Inc., (WSC) to prepare the Draft Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (Renewal Strategy). The key issues addressed by the Renewal Strategy are the aging collection system, inflow and infiltration (I/I), and capacity assurance. The Renewal Strategy: 1. Develops a method the City can use to identify and prioritize pipelines for rehabilitation; and 2. Determines the length of pipeline the City should rehabilitate/upgrade each year to keep the collection system functional, assure capacity and minimize Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs); and 3. Identifies programs the City can implement to reduce I/I, especially I/I from private sewer laterals; and 4. Recommends monitoring to assess the performance of the Renewal Strategy to assure the money being spent is achieving the desired goals. The City Council previously reviewed the Renewal Strategy at a study session on May 5, 2015. The Renewal Strategy presents a plan to guide policy, operations, and asset management planning decisions in an efficient and cost effective manner. The Renewal Strategy features a framework to be utilized with future budgeting and capital planning to address the aging collection system and capacity assurance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Following the May 5, 2015, study session, an Initial Study was prepared by staff for the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy in accordance with the California 10 Packet Pg. 210 Environmental Quality Act. No potentially significant environmental impacts were identified for this project and a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this recommended action. Wastewater collection system improvements are incorporated into and prioritized through the sewer fund’s capital improvement plan process. This process takes place during the development of each financial plan. The Master Plan will inform the 2016 update of sewer development impact fees and future rate setting. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE 1. Final Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, December 2015, prepared by Water Systems Consulting Inc. 2. Negative Declaration, dated December 16, 2015. Attachments: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND b - Resolution for Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Adoption Council Reading File - Final Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 10 Packet Pg. 211 10.a Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) 10.a Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: a - WWC Infrastructure Renewal Strategy IS_ND (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) R ______ RESOLUTION NO. (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL STRATEGY WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a wastewater collection system comprised of nine lift stations and over 140 miles of sewer pipe with portions of the system that are over 100 years old; and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, consisting of text, tables, and figures, was presented to the City Council in draft form on May 5, 2015 and in final form on January 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy is consistent with the City’s Sewer System Management Plan and the State adopted General Waste Discharge Requirements, specifically for the development of a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system deficiencies and implement short -term and long-term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency; and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy provides a roadmap that will allow the City to make knowledge based decisions to meet the financial, infrastructure and regulatory requirements of the City’s wastewater collection system; and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy is consistent with other goals and policies of the General Plan; and BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Section 2. Action. The City Council does hereby adopt the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, which is incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. Effective Date. The Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 10.b Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: b - Resolution for Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Adoption (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2 Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC 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 ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 10.b Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: b - Resolution for Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Adoption (1234 : Infrastructure Renewal Strategy Final) Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Prepared By: Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager Anne Russell, Temporary Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT OF THE PALM DEVELOPMENT SITE RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution (Attachment A) approving the first amendment and changes to the conditions and authorize the City Manager to sign the revised agreement , authorizing the sale of the property and authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to execute closing documents and the Mayor to execute the grant deed. DISCUSSION Background Copelands Properties (operating as SLO Chinatown LLC for purposes of this transaction, but referred to as Copelands for consistency) has been working toward completion of the Monterey Street phase of the Chinatown project, which is now well under construction, but not complete. The developer recently approached the City with a proposal to move forward with the hotel ph ase of the Chinatown development. The proposal to move forward, however, includes components that require amendment and changes in conditions to the December 19, 2011 Agreement for Purchase and Sale of the Palm Development Site. Most significantly, the developer’s proposed agreement with the hotel operator contemplates the developer assigning rights under the agreement to the hotel operator via a new developer/entity in which Copelands would have a minority interest . The existing Purchase and Sale Agreement requires a majority ownership position. Additionally, Copelands are requesting that the City amend other contractual conditions precedent to the sale. The City entered into exclusive negotiations with the Copelands over a decade ago for the purchase and development of City-owned property in the block between Palm and Monterey Streets, and Morro and Chorro Streets (mainly a parking lot but also including the 955 Morro St. building). The Council policy authorizing the exclusive negotiations was based on the Copelands ownership of some of the adjacent property, with the understanding that the property would be developed into a single project by a local, known developer. The City and the Copelands entered into a series of option agreements tying up the entire property with the first one dated November 5, 2003. 11 Packet Pg. 228 On December 19, 2011, the City and the Copelands entered into sever al purchase and sale agreements, which superseded the option agreements entirely. Two of those sales closed escrow on July 31, 2012. At that time, Copelands purchased the Monterey Parcels (portions of the City parking lots fronting on Monterey), and sold 861/863 Palm St. to the City for $1 and Copelands leased 955 Morro St. The last sale agreement is the Agreement of Purchase and Sale -Palm Development Site (“Agreement”), which Copelands now seeks to amend. A copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement is available in the Council reading file. The Palm Development Site includes the remaining parking lot, including 861/863 Palm St., acquired from Copelands in 2012, and the building at 955 Morro (collectively the “Property”). Copelands wishes to close escrow on the Property in January 2016. Requested Amendments 1. Assignment to New Developer in which Copelands have a Minority Interest. The most noteworthy requested amendment is to Section 11.11 which currently prohibits assignment, except for three limited transfer exceptions, without the prior approval of the City, which may be granted or denied in the City’s sole discretion. The exceptions are: (a) a transfer directly resulting from security interest from a construction loan; (b) a transfer directly resulting from foreclosure of a security interest allowed under (a); or (c) a transfer to any entity that is 100% owned by Copelands, or a “majority of the beneficial interests” are owned by Copelands and the entity is controlled by the Copelands. The Copelands have requested to assign the Property to newly formed entit ies (Hotel SLO LLC and Sutter Tustin SLO LLC). Hotel SLO LLC will be the majority and controlling interest. A review of the draft and unsigned Amended and Restated Operating Agreement for Hotel SLO LLC indicates that the managers will be two other California limited liability companies, Metrovation LLC and Piazza Hotel Management, LLC. In order to ensure the financial capabilities of these additional parties to perform the city engaged an independent qualified financial analyst with Kosmont Companies to conduct a thorough assessment of the managing partners who will be majority int erest holders of Hotel SLO LLC and personal guarantors of the loan , as well as their associated LLCs (Attachment F). Based on the review of the financials (for the Project, the LLCs and the Managers) and confirmation of the ability of the new entities to complete the Hotel phase of the project by a Kosmont Companies, Staff recommends approving the amendment with the following conditions: 1. The Copelands must retain at least the minimal 13 .3% equity interest and remain involved in the construction and pre-opening management services; 2. Confirmation that the construction loan documents have been executed and deed of trust recorded concurrently with the close of escrow and that the structure of the funding for the project is substantially consistent with what was reviewed by the City’s financial consultant; 3. Amendments to various conditions in Section 6.02 (c) that change the name of the entity but do not change the substance of the condition, relating to operating agreement and construction contracts; 11 Packet Pg. 229 4. Require a $1,000,000 security (Section 6.02(c)(vi)) to ensure the diligent progress of all permits and construction; 5. Deletion of Section 4.08, which allowed early termination by either party if substantial completion of the Monterey Parcels improvements did no t occur within four years on the closing on the Monterey Parcels (i.e. by 7/31/16) or if the developer did not submit construction plans within 8 years from the date of the original agreement (i.e. by 12/19/2019); 6. Grant Deed Reverter Requirement Section 7.01 of the Agreement requires that the Grant Deed (Exhibit B to the Agreement) from the City to Copelands to “reflect” that, until substantial completion of the Project in accordance with the permits,(i) the use of the Property be restricted to construct ion of the project, (ii) Copelands shall not encumber the Property except with construction loans for the project, (iii) the City has the right of reverter and a power of termination (Civil Code section 885.010) to cause the title of the Copelands to the Property to terminate and revert to the City (a) if the construction of the project does not commence within 6 months of permit issuance, or (b), construction is commenced but is not diligently pursued to completion with 24 months of the close of escrow (or additional time as City reasonably consents in writing). This section also required the City to repay the purchase price, less its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in recovering title, as well as the parking mitigation fee (unless any parking had been removed, in which case the City would be entitled to retain the parking mitigation fee ). In addition to property restrictions, the lender has required addition of significant lender protections to the Grant Deed, including that the power of termination be subordinate to the construction loan. The buyer has agreed to an additional requirement that the power of termination may be triggered if construction permits are not obtained within 12 months of the close of e scrow (Section 6.02(c)(vi)). Additionally, the City’s obligation to repay the purchase price and/or parking mitigation fees was deleted in return for waiving a right to recover attorney’s fees incurred. Staff further recommends the following: a. Grant deed with reverter/power of termination similar to that set forth in Agreement Section 7.01 and the aforementioned changes, subject to City Attorney approval, recognizing that even with the power of termination , there may be serious practical hurdles to execution, and other factors that could result in its nullification due to financing requirements, subordination and foreclosure circumstances. b. A more detailed construction schedule be secured and subject to the approval of the City Manager, City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to the closing of Escrow. 2. Significant Progress instead of Substantial Completion of Monterey Parcels Improvements Section 4.02(d) of the Agreement requires, as a condition before Copelands can purchase the Property that the construction of the Monterey Improvements on the Monterey Real Property be “substantially complete” within four years of the closing under the Monterey Parcels Agreement (i.e. by July 31, 2016, since escrow closed on July 31, 2012) and Copelands diligently pursue completion 11 Packet Pg. 230 thereafter. The improvements are not substantially complete as of the date of this Council Agenda Report, although construction is well under way. Copelands estimates that the building shell will be ready for tenant improvements in July and available for tenant occupancy by November 2016. Copelands are requesting that this condition be amended to require only significant progress as opposed to substantial completion in order to minimize ambiguity. Staff recommends approving this amendment since there has been considerable progress and construction continues to advance at a rapid pace. 3. Issuance of Demolition and Grading Permits instead of full Building Permits for the Hotel Project. Section 4.02 (c) (i) of the Agreement requires, as a condition before Copelands can purchase the Property, that Copelands have obtained construction permits for the project and that the permits have not expired. Copelands are requesting that this language be amended to require only demolition and grading permits be issued before they can buy the Property. Copelands recently resubmitted plans for the construction permits for a second review. Staff estimates that all building permits could be issued by April 2016, assuming all necessary information is provided and plan comments are timely addressed by the developer team. This request is consistent with the City’s approach to Garden Street Terraces. Staff recommends approval of this change in the condition with the requirement that the developer execute an agreement to ensure construction is timely started and diligently pursued, secured by certificate of deposit or other form of security ($1,000,000) acceptable to City Attorney. All other conditions required prior to the transfer of ownership in the current agreement will remain in effect. CONCURRENCES The Finance and Information Technology and Public Works Departments concur with this report. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City as a result of the amendments or changes in conditions. ALTERNATIVES The Council can rejects some or all of the changes. This alternative is not recommended due to the possible delay or abandonment of the project. Attachments: a - Resolution Authorizing Sale b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) c - Exhibit B to the First Amendment to the Agreement (PalmDevSiteLegalPreliminary Report -120915) 11 Packet Pg. 231 d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement e - Exhibit F-2 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (from PalmDevGrantDeedHotel- 010615) f - Due Diligence report from Kosmont to SLO Council Reading File - Final Agreement of Purchase and Sale 11 Packet Pg. 232 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE-PALM DEVELOPMENT SITE, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CITY PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CLOSING DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale-Palm Development Site with SLO Chinatown LLC, a California limited liability company, which agreement was approved by the Council on December 13, 2011, and dated December 19, 2011 (the ”Agreement”) ; and WHEREAS , the Agreement authorized the sale of City owned property between Morro and Chorro Streets and Monterey and Palm Streets to SLO Chinatown LLC upon certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, SLO Chinatown LLC has requested amendment of certain terms and conditions in order to expedite development of the property, including assignment to Hotel SLO LLC, a California limited liability company and Sutter Tustin SLO LLC, a California limited liability company; and WHEREAS, amendment of the Agreement to expedite the sale and development of the property supports the City’s planning goals for development of the downtown area and is in the City’s best interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The First Amendment to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale-Palm Development Site, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “1”, (the “First Amendment”) is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute the same. SECTION 2. Upon satisfaction of all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, the City is authorized to sell the property legally described in Exhibit “B”, attached to the First Amendment. SECTION 3. The Mayor or the City Manager is authorized to execute all escrow instructions and other closing documents necessary to complete the transaction; provided, the Mayor, or Vice-Mayor in her absence, shall execute the grant deed on behalf of the City. 11.a Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: a - Resolution Authorizing Sale (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2 Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of January, 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC 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 ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 11.a Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: a - Resolution Authorizing Sale (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE Palm Development Site This First Amendment to Agreement (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of January 19, 2016, by and between SLO CHINATOWN, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Copelands”), HOTEL SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Hotel LLC”) and Sutter Tustin SLO, LLC ,a California limited liability company (“ST SLO”; and collectively with Hotel LLC, “Hotel Developer”), and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation and charter city (“City”), with respect to that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale – Palm Development Site, dated as of December 19, 2011 (the “Agreement”), by and between the Copelands and the City. City, Hotel Developer, and Copelands are each a “Party” hereto, and are sometimes collectively referred to as “Parties”. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement. RECITALS A. Copelands has requested City consent to the assignment of the Agreement because the assignment, in the absence of City’s consent, would violate the Agreement, would be null and void and would confer no right or benefit upon Hotel Developer or any other party. B. In connection with the proposed Assignment, Copelands and Hotel Developer have requested that certain terms of the Agreement be amended to expedite the start and subsequent completion of the planned hotel project. C. In consideration of the representations, warranties and covenants herein made by Copelands and Hotel Developer in favor of the City, the City is willing to consent to the proposed assignment to Hotel Developer, and to amend the Agreement, pursuant to the provisions and subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. Now therefore, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Effective Date of Assignment. The assignment of Copelands’ interest in the Agreement to Hotel Developer, and the assumption thereof by Hotel Developer, shall take effect on or before January 19, 2016 (the “Effective Date”). 2. Assignment and Assumption. 2.01 Assignment. As of the Effective Date, Copelands as assignor assigns all of its rights under the Agreement to Hotel Developer. 2.02 Assumption. As of the Effective Date, Hotel Developer accepts the assignment from Copelands and assumes, in favor of each of Copelands and the City, all obligations under the Agreement, which obligations Hotel Developer hereby covenants to perform fully and timely. 3. Consent. As of the Effective Date and provided that the representations and warranties made in Section 5 of this Amendment shall be true and correct as of the Effective Date, the City hereby consents to the foregoing assignment from Copelands to Hotel Developer and accepts Hotel Developer as the purchaser under the Agreement. 4. No Implied Consent or Waiver. The City’s consent to the assignment of the Agreement from Copelands to Hotel Developer is specifically limited to this assignment in particular on all the terms set forth in this Amendment. The City has granted this consent upon the understanding and agreement 11.b Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 2 of Copelands and Hotel Developer, which understanding and agreement Copelands and Hotel Developer hereby ratify and confirm, that the City’s consent to this assignment: (a) is not a consent to any future assignment of the Agreement; and (b) shall in no way diminish or waive the City’s right, as set forth in the Agreement, to restrict any subsequently proposed assignment or other transfer of the rights under the Agreement. 5. Representations and Warranties by Copelands and Hotel Developer. 5.01 Representations and Warranties of Copelands. Copelands makes the following representations and warranties to City: (a) Copelands is a California limited liability company duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, and is qualified to do business in the State of California. (b) Copelands has the right, power and authority to enter into this Amendment and to perform its obligations hereunder, and the person(s) executing this Amendment on behalf of Copelands have the right, power and authority to do so. (c) This Amendment constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of Copelands enforceable against Copelands in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium and other principles relating to or limiting the rights of contracting parties generally. Neither this Amendment nor the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated hereby violates or shall violate any provision of any agreement or document to which Copelands is a party or to which Copelands is bound. (d) Copelands is not bankrupt or insolvent under any applicable Federal or state standard. Copelands has not filed for protection or relief under any applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute. Copelands has not been threatened by creditors with an involuntary application of any applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute. Copelands is not entering into the transactions described in this Amendment with an intent to defraud any creditor or to prefer the rights of one creditor over any other. City and Copelands have negotiated this Amendment at arms-length and the consideration to be paid represents fair value for the assets to be transferred. All representations and warranties of Copelands in this Amendment are made as of the date of this Amendment, and shall survive the Closing and the recordation of the Grant Deed. 5.02 Representations and Warranties of Hotel Developer. Hotel LLC and ST SLO each make the following representations and warranties to City: (a) Hotel LLC and ST SLO are each a California limited liability company duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, and each is qualified to do business in the State of California. (b) Hotel LLC and ST SLO each have the right, power and authority to enter into this Amendment and to perform its obligations hereunder, and the person(s) executing this Amendment on behalf of Hotel LLC and ST SLO each have the right, power and authority to do so. (c) This Amendment constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of Hotel LLC and ST SLO enforceable against each of them in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium and other principles relating to or limiting the rights of contracting parties generally. Neither this 11.b Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 3 Amendment nor the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated her eby violates or shall violate any provision of any agreement or document to which Hotel LLC or ST SLO is a party or to which Hotel LLC or ST SLO is bound. No consent from any third party is required before the Palm Development Site may be purchased by Hotel Developer. (d) Neither Hotel LLC nor ST SLO is bankrupt or insolvent under any applicable Federal or state standard. Neither Hotel LLC nor ST SLO have filed for protection or relief under any applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute. Neither Hotel LLC nor ST SLO have been threatened by creditors with an involuntary application of any applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute. Neither Hotel LLC nor ST SLO is entering into the transactions described in this Amendment with an intent to defraud any creditor or to prefer the rights of one creditor over any other. City and Hotel Developer have negotiated this Amendment at arms- length and the consideration to be paid represents fair value for the assets to be transferred. All representations and warranties of Hotel Developer in this Amendment are made as of the date of this Amendment and as of the Closing, and shall survive the Closing and the recordation of the Grant Deed. It shall be a material default if Hotel Developer is unable to make such representations and warranties truthfully as of the Closing Date. 6. Amendments to Agreement. As of the Effective Date, the Agreement is amended as follows: 6.01 Purchaser. All references in the Agreement to Copelands shall be understood to mean Hotel Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all references in this Amendment to Copelands shall continue to mean SLO Chinatown, LLC, a California limited liability company. 6.02 Conditions to Closing. Section 4.02(c). Construction on Palm Development Site: Section 4.02(c) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced as follows: (c) Construction on Palm Development Site. Hotel Developer shall have provided evidence reasonably satisfactory to the City that it is prepared to commence construction on the Palm Development Site in accordance with San Luis Obispo City Council Resolution No. 10128 (2009 Series), adopted November 17, 2009, and in conformity with the 2009 EIR (including without limitation the reuse of the Shanghai Low Restaurant sign), or as such entitlements subsequently may be modified and approved by the City in the normal exercise of its development review authority following request therefor by Hotel Developer or its predecessors in interest (the “Project”) as follows: (i) Hotel Developer has obtained such demolition and grading permits for Project as may be reasonably needed to prepare for construction of the Project (the “Demolition Permit”) and the Demolition Permit has not expired; (ii) Hotel Developer shall have submitted evidence to the City’s reasonable satisfaction demonstrating sufficient financial resources, from construction lenders and from equity funds and investors as may be necessary, to complete the construction and equipping of the Project in accordance with a budget prepared by Hotel Developer; (iii) Hotel Developer shall have submitted evidence to the City’s reasonable satisfaction that Hotel Developer has entered into construction contracts for the Project evidencing that the work of construction can be completed within the budget; and (iv) Hotel Developer has submitted evidence to the City that a binding contract has been entered into, or is not appropriate, between Hotel Developer and an operator of the completed Project. 11.b Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 4 (v) The Closing on the Palm Development Site is conditioned on closing concurrently with the closing of the construction loan from the construction lender referenced in subsection (ii) above; (vi) Hotel Developer has provided security in the amount of $1,000,000 to City to ensure diligent progress in construction of the Project, which shall be available for restoration of the Palm Development Site if Hotel Developer fails to diligently commence and p ursue construction. The security shall be forfeited to City, (a) if Hotel Developer does not obtain all building permits for the Palm Development Site and commence construction within twelve (12) months of the Closing Date, and (b) if Hotel Developer does not diligently pursue construction; provided, City shall release three-fourths of the security when all building permits are issued, and the remaining one-fourth when the foundation is signed off by the City. 6.03 Conditions to Closing. Section 4.02(d). Construction on Monterey Parcels: Section 4.02(d) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced as follows: (d) Construction on Monterey Parcels. Significant progress on the construction of the Monterey Improvements on the Monterey Real Property has been made and Copelands is diligently pursuing completion thereof. 6.04 Early Termination. Section 4.08. Early Termination: Section 4.08 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and not replaced. 6.05 Post Closing Obligations. Section 7.01. Limitations and Restrictions on the Use of Palm Development Site; Reverter. Section 7.01 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced as follows: After the Closing, Hotel Developer agrees to promptly commence construction on the Project and to diligently pursue such construction to completion thereafter in accordance with the Demolition Permit and the construction Permits (collectively, the “Permits”).The parties agree, and the Grant Deed shall contain property restrictions and conditions, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in substantively the same form as Exhibit F-1 attached hereto (the “Property Restrictions”). The Property Restrictions shall reflect, that until Substantial Completion(as defined below) of the Project in accordance with the Permits: (i) the use of the Palm Development Site shall be limited and restricted to the construction of the Project in accordance with the Permits; (ii) Hotel Developer shall not encumber the Palm Development Site except as security for construction loans to finance the construction of the Project: and (iii) the City has the right of reverter and a power of termination (Civil Code section 885.010) to cause the title of Hotel Developer to the Palm Development Site to terminate and to revert to the City under the conditions set forth in the next sentence. The Grant Deed or other document shall reflect that City may exercise its right of reverter and power of termination described above (a) if Hotel Developer does not obtain all of the Permits required to construct the Project within twelve (12) months of the Closing Date and (b)if Hotel Developer does not commence work on the Project in accordance with any of the Permits within six (6) months of the Closing Date; or (c) if construction is commenced but construction is not diligently pursued by Hotel Developer to Substantial Completion within twenty-four (24) months of the Closing Date, or within such additional period of time to which the City may consent in writing upon demonstration by Hotel Developer of diligence and good cause, including time diligently spent in archaeological review and remediation, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. “Substantial Completion” shall be deemed to have occurred when the Project is complete in accordance with the construction contract ,the Permits and Project approvals, including the exterior shell(s) roofed, exterior windows and doors installed, final exterior siding/stucco with finishes applied, all public improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, relocated parking and driveways, required by the Permits or Project approvals, have been accepted by the City or other applicable public 11.b Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 5 entity, and all debris, construction fencing ,materials or equipment that encroach in the right of way removed. Substantial Completion does not include, and excepts, interior improvements, a final punch list of construction items related to the above work and a final issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. If the City exercises its power of termination and right of reverter, in return for waiving its right to recover attorneys ’ fees and costs incurred in the exercise of such power and right, as set forth in the Grant Deed, City shall not be required to repay the Purchase Price, the Palm Parking Mitigation Payment, or any other sums expended or incurred by Hotel Developer or any other person or entity in connection with Hotel Developer’s purchase or development of the Palm Development Site. In the event the City, being entitled to do so, causes the title to the Palm Development Site to revert to the City, the City shall be entitled permanently to retain title to the Palm Development Site, including but not limited to 861/863 Palm Parcel and shall have no obligatio n to offer, return or to sell title to the Palm Development Site to Hotel Developer, any co-tenant or any other person or entity. Upon the timely substantial completion of the Project in accordance with the Permits, the City shall execute and deliver to Hotel Developer a Certificate of Completion in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F-2, which shall acknowledge that the deed restriction and any right of reverter in favor of the City have terminated. 6.06 Assignment. Section 11.11. Successors and Assigns: The following subsection (d) shall be added to Section 11.11 of the Agreement and thereafter, shall collectively be referred to, along with subsections (a), (b) and (c), as “Permitted Assignments”: (d) The assignment of the Agreement to Hotel Developer as provided herein in which: (i)the Copelands have no less than a 13.3% equity interest in the Project ; and (ii) Hotel LLC will have at least a 75% majority and controlling interest in the Project; and (iii) Hotel LLC is the manager of the project and the managers of Hotel LLC are Metrovation LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and Piazza Hotel Management LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and (iv) the Copelands continue to provide construction and pre-opening management services, including without limitation working as the primary liaison with the City, and the Copelands deliver to the City satisfactory evidence of such ownership and management. 6.07 Attachment of Exhibit B – Legal Description A copy of the legal description for the Palm Development Site is attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this reference. 6.08 Effect of Amendment. Any and all terms and provisions of the Agreement are hereby modified wherever necessary, and even though the same may not be specifically addressed herein, so as to conform to the amendment(s) set forth in the preceding paragraph(s) hereof. 7. Address for Notices to Hotel Developer. If to Hotel SLO, LLC: Metrovation, LLC its Manager 580 Second Street, Suite 260 Oakland, CA 94607 With a copy to: 11.b Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 6 Delphi CRE Funding LLC c/o ACORE Capital Mortgage, LP 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 2A Larkspur, CA 94939 Attn: Stew Ward, Managing Partner If to Sutter Tustin SLO, LLC: Louis Lipset, its Manager 2590 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94115 With a copy to: Steven D. Seiler Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 With a copy to: Delphi CRE Funding LLC c/o ACORE Capital Mortgage, LP 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 2A Larkspur, CA 94939 Attn: Stew Ward, Managing Partner 8. Miscellaneous. Authorization. The person executing this Amendment on behalf of Copelands and Hotel Developer hereby warrant and represent to City that all necessary legal prerequisites to that party’s execution of this Amendment have been satisfied and that he or she is fully authorized to do so and to bind the party of whose behalf he or she signs. The person executing this A mendment on behalf of City claims to do so to the extent the authority to do so has been duly delegated to that person by the City Council of the City in accordance with applicable law. Counterparts. A counterpart of this Amendment with separate but fully executed signature pages attached thereto shall have the full force and effect of an original executed instrument. [signature blocks begin on next page] 11.b Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 7 This Amendment is executed by the parties as of the date first written above. SLO CHINATOWN, LLC, a California limited liability company By: _____________________________________ James C. Copeland Its: Manager HOTEL SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Metrovation, LLC, a California limited liability company, its Manager __________________________ Mark Seiler, Manager By: Piazza Hotel Management, LLC, a California limited liability company, its Manager __________________________ Paolo Patrone, Manager SUTTER TUSTIN SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Sutter Tustin, a California limited liability company, its Manager _________________________ By: Louis Lipset CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation and Charter City By:_____________________________________ Katie Lichtig, City Manager Approved as to Form: By:____________________________________ City Attorney 11.b Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: b - Exhibit 1 to Resolution (First Amendment to the Agreement) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Order Number: NCS-692048-CC Page Number: 7 First American Title Insurance Company LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 14 OF THE MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 01, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, IN SAID CITY, DISTANT THEREON, NORTH 54° 06' EAST, 109.31 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF CHORRO AND MONTEREY STREET, THENCE NORTH 35° 54' WEST, 80.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 54° 06' EAST 12.67 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 35° 54' WEST, 34.17 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 33° 02' WEST, 148.54 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22' WEST, 86.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 12.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22' EAST, 70.25 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 81° 22' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST 36.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8° 38' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22' WEST, 12.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 50° 13' EAST, 38.16 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 35° 54' EAST, 148.56 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 54° 06' WEST, 45.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 35° 54' EAST, 146.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID MONTEREY STREET, THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 54° 06' WEST, 72.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SLO CHINATOWN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, RECORDED JULY 31, 2012, IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2012042357, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL TWO: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 14 OF THE MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 01, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, IN SAID CITY, DISTANT NORTH 54° 6' EAST, 227 FEET 6 INCHES FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF CHORRO AND MONTEREY STREETS; THENCE RUNNING NORTH 54° 6' EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, 52 FEET AND 6 INCHES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE LOT FORMERLY OWNED BY MRS. N. E. CALL; THENCE NORTH 33° 22' WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT OF MRS. N. E. CALL, 351 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 107 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE LOT FORMERLY OWNED BY B. BRIZZOLARA; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22' EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID BRIZZOLARA LOT, 56.36 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 38.08 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF A LOT CONVEYED BY NATHAN AND ISSAC GOLDTREE TO W. J. OAKS, BY DEED DATED AUGUST 21, 1882 AND RECORDED IN BOOK O, PAGE 431 OF DEEDS AND FOLLOWING; THENCE SOUTH 35° 54' EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID OAKS LOT, 296 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Exhibit B to Palm Development Site PSA Page 1 of 3 12/9/2015 11.c Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: c - Exhibit B to the First Amendment to the Agreement (PalmDevSiteLegalPreliminary Report -120915) (1224 : Chinatown Order Number: NCS-692048-CC Page Number: 8 First American Title Insurance Company EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SLO CHINATOWN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, RECORDED JULY 31, 2012, IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2012042357, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL THREE: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 OF THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF PART OF BLOCKS 14 & 18, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 1 AND 2, 89.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; WHICH POINT BEARS NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 0.35 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE SOUTH 33° 23' 50" EAST, 100.1 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 0.56 FEET FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38' WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 0.56 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 33° 16' 30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 3 AND 2, 100.14 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, 0.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOUR: LOTS 4 AND 10 OF THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF PART OF BLOCKS 14 & 18, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIVE: INTENTIONALLY DELETED PARCEL SIX: LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF PART OF BLOCKS 14 & 18, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO C. A. MAINO, ET UX, RECORDED APRIL 07, 1953 IN BOOK 704, PAGE 439 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 7: ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 14 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 01, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 143.33 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO FERDINANDO Exhibit B to Palm Development Site PSA Page 2 of 3 12/9/2015 11.c Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: c - Exhibit B to the First Amendment to the Agreement (PalmDevSiteLegalPreliminary Report -120915) (1224 : Chinatown Order Number: NCS-692048-CC Page Number: 9 First American Title Insurance Company CHIESA BY DEED DATED JULY 01, 1912 IN BOOK 93, PAGE 136 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22' EAST, 70.25 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO SERAFINO J. MARTINELLI AND CARMEL MARTINELLI BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 08, 1966 AND RECORDED APRIL 01, 1966 IN BOOK 1391, PAGE 479 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 81° 22' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 36.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8° 38' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22' WEST, 70.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET SOUTH 53° 38' WEST, 48.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRESENT LINES OF PALM STREET. APN(S): 002-416-031, 002-416-035 and 002-416-038 (new # 002-416-040) Exhibit B to Palm Development Site PSA Page 3 of 3 12/9/2015 11.c Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: c - Exhibit B to the First Amendment to the Agreement (PalmDevSiteLegalPreliminary Report -120915) (1224 : Chinatown When recorded return to: Steven D. Seiler, Esq. Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 GRANT DEED For valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grant CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation and a chartered city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California ("Grantor"), hereby grants to HOTEL SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company, as to a 79.2% undivided interest, and SUTTER TUSTIN SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company, as to a 20.8% undivided interest, as tenants-in-common (collectively, the “Grantee”), certain real property (herein called "Palm Development Site") specifically described on the attached Exhibit A incorporated herein by this reference, on the terms and conditions set forth herein. The Palm Development Site is conveyed to carry out the public purposes of that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale –Palm Development Site (as amended, the “Agreement”), a public document in the records of the Clerk of City of San Luis Obispo, dated December 19, 2011, which was amended by that certain First Amendment to Agreement of Purchase and Sale -- Palm Developments Site, dated as of January __, 2016. The Agreement was approved by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on December 13, 2011. Palm Development Site Restrictions and Conditions Until the Project (as that term is defined in the Agreement has been substantially completed in the time and manner required by the Agreement or as otherwise provided herein, the terms set forth in this paragraph and the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 8 (hereinafter, the “Palm Development Site Restrictions”) shall govern the ownership and use of the Palm Development Site. Grantor, upon request of the owner of the Palm Development Site and submission to Grantor of evidence reasonably satisfactory to Grantor that the Project has been substantially completed in accordance with the Agreement, shall deliver the Certificate of Completion in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Certificate of Completion”), which is suitable for recordation in the Official Records and the terms of these Palm Development Site Restrictions shall automatically cease and terminate. Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 11.d Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 1. Prior to the date Grantor is required to issue the Certificate of Completion, Grantee hereby covenants for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Palm Development Site or any part thereof that: a. The Palm Development Site shall not be used for any purpose other than the construction, development and operation of the Project; b. Grantee shall commence construction of the Project as required by the Agreement and shall diligently pursue such construction to completion thereafter as required by the Agreement. The Grantee shall be deemed to be in default: (a) if Grantee does not obtain all of the permits required to construct the Project within twelve (12) months of the Closing Date and (b)if Grantee does not commence work on the Project in accordance with any of the Permits (as that term is defined in the Agreement) within six (6) months of the Closing Date; or (c) if construction is commenced but construction is not diligently pursued by Grantee to Substantial Completion (defined below) within twenty-four (24) months of the Closing Date, or within such additional period of time to which the City may consent in writing upon demonstration by Grantee of diligence and good cause, including time diligently spent in archaeological review and remediation, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. “Substantial Completion” shall be deemed to have occurred when the Project is complete in accordance with the construction contract ,the Permits and Project approvals, including the exterior shell(s) roofed, exterior windows and doors installed, final exterior siding/stucco with finishes applied, all public improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, relocated parking and driveways, required by the Permits or Project approvals, have been accepted by the City or other applicable public entity, and all debris, construction fencing ,materials or equipment that encroach in the right of way removed. Substantial Completion does not include, and excepts, interior improvements, a final punch list of construction items related to the above work and a final issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. c. Grantee shall have no power to make, and shall not make or attempt to make, any total or partial sale, transfer, conveyance, encumbrance, lease or assignment of the Palm Development Site or any part thereof without the prior written consent of Grantor, except for (i) any mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback or other form of conveyance or encumbrance for financing, including without limitation the lien created by that certain Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement, and Fixture Filing dated as of January [___], 2016 and recorded on or about the date hereof (“Deed of Trust”) by Grantee for the benefit of Delphi CRE Funding LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (together with its successors and assigns, the “Lender”) together with any other deed of trust or mortgage (collectively, "Mortgage"), for the purpose of securing loans whose proceeds shall only be used for financing the direct and indirect costs (including, without limitation, financing costs, tenant improvement allowances, interest and commissions) of designing, constructing and developing the Project , (ii) the sale or conveyance of the Palm Development Site or any portion thereof pursuant to the exercise of its remedies by Lender or another lender under a Mortgage (each, a “Mortgage Lender”) under the relevant loan documents or a deed given in lieu of the exercise of such remedies; (iii) the conveyance or dedication of any portion of the Palm Development Site to the City, or other appropriate governmental City or municipal corporation; (iv) the granting of easements or permits to facilitate the construction, development or operation of the Project, including without limitation, utility easements; and (v) the leasing of space in the ordinary 11.d Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) course of business in the Project for occupancy by retail, restaurant, office or other commercial businesses following completion of the Project.. In the absence of specific written agreement by Grantor, no such unauthorized sale, transfer, conveyance or assignment of the Palm Development Site shall be deemed to relieve Grantee or any other party from any obligations under these Palm Development Site Restrictions; d. Grantee shall not place or suffer to remain undischarged on the Palm Development Site for more than sixty (60) days after notice from Grantor any lien or encumbrance other than a Mortgage unless such lien or encumbrance, or the amount thereof, is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted; e. Grantee shall pay prior to delinquency all real property taxes and assessments assessed and levied on or against the Palm Development Site subsequent to the conveyance of the Palm Development Site to Grantee by Grantor unless such tax or assessment is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted; f. Grantee shall remove, or shall have removed, any levy or attachment made on the Palm Development Site, or shall assure the satisfaction thereof within a reasonable time but in any event prior to a sale thereunder unless such levy or attachment, or the amount thereof, is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted; g. If Grantee shall fail perform or observe any term or covenant in any loan document or other obligation secured by the Mortgage, Grantee shall cure such failure within sixty (60) days after notice thereof to Grantee from the Mortgage Lender; h. Grantee, its successors and assigns, and any successor-in-interest to the Palm Development Site shall hold the Palm Development Site as one parcel and shall not subdivide the Palm Development Site without the prior written consent of Grantor; and i. Grantee shall cure any violation of the provisions of this paragraph 1 within 60 days after the date of receipt of written notice of such violation by Grantor to Grantee, or, if such violation is of a nature that it cannot be cured within 60 days, then Grantee shall have commenced to cure such violation within 60 days after the date of receipt of written notice of such violation and shall diligently continue to act to cure such violation. Grantor shall provide Mortgage Lender with notice of the breach or default by Grantee hereunder (the “Default Notice”). After Mortgage Lender receives a Default Notice, Mortgage Lender shall have a period of thirty (30) days beyond the time available to Grantee hereunder or the Agreement (whichever is longer) in which to cure the breach or default by Grantee. Mortgage Lender shall have no obligation to cure (and shall have no liability or obligation for not curing) any breach or default by Grantee, except to the extent that Mortgage Lender agrees or undertakes otherwise in writing. In addition, as to any breach or default by Mortgage Lender the cure of which requires possession and control of the Palm Development Site, Mortgage Lender’s cure period shall continue for such additional time as Mortgage Lender may reasonably require to either: (i) obtain possession and control of the Palm Development Site with due diligence and thereafter cure the breach or default with reasonable diligence and continuity; or (ii) obtain the appointment of a 11.d Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) receiver and give such receiver a reasonable period of time in which to cure the default. The foregoing shall not be construed to limit or modify Section 5 below. 2. Prior to the date Grantor is required to issue the Certificate of Completion and subject to the Deed of Trust, Grantor hereby reserves and shall retain for exercise at its option, the additional right and power of termination of the estate conveyed by this Grant Deed and to re-enter and take possession of the Palm Development Site hereby conveyed with all improvements thereon, and to terminate Grantee’s ownership interest in, and revest in Grantor, the Palm Development Site (the “Power of Termination”) in the event that Grantee is in violation of any subparagraph of paragraph 1 of these Palm Development Site Restrictions and such violation is not cured by Grantee in a timely manner. 3. The Power of Termination of Grantor with respect to the Palm Development Site shall be interpreted in light of the fact that Grantor would not have agreed to the Purchase Price and Palm Parking Mitigation Payment (each as defined in the Agreement) for the Palm Development Site and would not have agreed to convey the Palm Development Site to Grantee except for the covenant and promise of Grantee to construct and develop the Project on the Palm Development Site and the trust and confidence placed by Grantor in the good faith intent and abilities of the Grantee, and that Grantor hereby conveys the Palm Development Site to Grantee for development of the Project to benefit and enhance the planning goals of the City of San Luis Obispo for the benefit of its citizens, and not for speculation in undeveloped land. 4. In the event title to the Palm Development Site conveyed by Grantor to Grantee by the Grant Deed is revested in Grantor by reason of the exercise by Grantor of its Power of Termination as provided in these Palm Development Site Restrictions: (i) Grantee shall have delivered to Grantor a quitclaim deed in recordable form for the Palm Development Site naming Grantor as the grantee; (ii) a land title insurance company satisfactory to Grantor shall commit to issue a title insurance policy to Grantor as the insured, showing fee title vested in Grantor subject to no liens, encumbrances or third party claims incurred by or through Grantee, its successors and assigns, except for a Mortgage or as otherwise allowed by these Palm Development Site Restrictions (the “Allowable Exceptions”), with coverage in a reasonable amount to be determined by Grantor; and (iii) Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for any payment made or necessary to be made to discharge or prevent any current or delinquent taxes, encumbrances, liens, levies or attachments or third party claims incurred by or through Grantee, except for the Allowable Exceptions, from attaching to the title at the time it is revested in Grantor by the exercise of its Power of Termination. 5. No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions or limitations contained in these Palm Development Site Restrictions, or exercise of any Power of Termination, shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the lien or charge of any Mortgage permitted by these Palm Development Site Restrictions and made in good faith and for value. For the avoidance of doubt, the Mortgage is a first priority lien and the Power of Termination is subordinate to the Mortgage in all respects. Further, the terms of these Palm Development Site Restrictions shall automatically cease and terminate ninety (90) days after a Mortgage Lender has provided Grantor with written notice of a default (the “Mortgage Default Notice”) in the obligations under any agreement secured by the Mortgage, if such default has not been cured within such ninety (90) day 11.d Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) period, as to Mortgage Lender or any owner of the Palm Development Site who has acquired the Palm Development Site pursuant to a Mortgage Lender's exercise of its remedies under the relevant loan documents or pursuant to a deed given in lieu of the exercise of such remedies (a “Successor Owner”). Further, Grantor shall forbear from exercising its rights and remedies to enforce the Power of Termination from the time Grantor has received the Mortgage Default Notice and thereafter during the time that Mortgage Lender is diligently enforcing Mortgage Lender’s rights and remedies against Grantee under the Mortgage and other loan documents, including without limitation, sending default notices, efforts to enter into a loan workout or modification, acceleration of the loan, foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure and defending Mortgage Lender’s rights under Grantee’s bankruptcy proceedings. Upon the transfer of title to the Mortgage Lender or any Successor Owner and the resulting termination of these Palm Development Site Restrictions pursuant to this paragraph, the Grantor agrees to execute and record in the Official Records a notice that these Palm Development Site Restrictions have been terminated in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to then owner of the Palm Development Site. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to obligate the holder of the Mortgage, its successors or assigns, or any Successor Owner to undertake the construction and development of the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Successor Owner subsequently undertakes to construct the Project, then such Successor Owner shall diligently pursue such construction to completion. 6. Grantor, in the event of any breach of any covenant in these Palm Development Site Restrictions, shall have the right to exercise all the rights and remedies, and to maintain any action at law or suits in equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach. 7. The covenants contained in these Palm Development Site Restrictions shall be interpreted without regard to technical classification or designation, and shall not benefit or be enforceable by any person, firm, or corporation, public or private, except Grantor and Grantee and their respective successors and assigns. 8. In the event any action is brought to enforce, modify or interpret the provisions of these Palm Development Site Restrictions, neither party shall be entitled to attorneys' fees or court costs in connection with such action. If any clause, sentence or other portion of these Palm Development Site Restrictions shall be or become illegal, unenforceable or void for any reason, the remaining portion shall continue in full force and effect. [remainder of page intentionally left blank] 11.d Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Execution IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have caused this instrument to be executed on their behalf by their respective officers thereunder duly authorized, as of this _____ day of ___________, 20__. GRANTOR: City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city By:_________________________________ _________________, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: By: ___________________________ . _______________, City Attorney Dated: _______________________ GRANTEE: Hotel SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Metrovation, LLC, its co-manager By: _____________________________________ Mark Seiler, Its: Manager By: Piazza Hotel Management, LLC, its co-manager By: _____________________________________ Paolo Petrone, Manager Sutter Tustin SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Sutter Tustin, LLC, a California limited liability company, it Manager By:________________________________________ Louis Lipset, Manager 11.d Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Exhibit A Legal Description of the Palm Development Site 11.d Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Exhibit B Certificate of Completion RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Certificate of Completion City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and a chartered city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California ("Grantor"), hereby certifies with respect to Section 7.01 of that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale – Palm Development Site, dated as of December ___, 2011, which was amended by that certain First Amendment to Agreement of Purchase and Sale -- Palm Developments Site, dated as of January __, 2016, executed by Hotel SLO, LLC, a limited liability company and Sutter Tustin SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company, as tenants-in-common (collectively, the “Grantee”) in favor of Grantor, and that certain Grant Deed recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Luis Obispo County on _____________, 200_, as document number __________, with respect to the real property more specifically described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto (collectively, the “Palm Development Site Restrictions”), as follows: 1. The Project has been substantially completed in accordance with the Permits; and 2. All covenants and obligations of Grantee and its successors and assigns under the Palm Development Site Restrictions, including without limitation the right of reverter and power of termination of Grantor, have ceased and terminated. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Certificate of Completion shall have the meaning given in the Palm Development Site Restrictions. This Certificate of Completion has been duly executed by an authorized person on behalf of Grantor as of ______________, 200_. GRANTOR: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation and Charter City By: ____________________________ Its: ____________________________ APPROVED: City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo By _____________________________ 11.d Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: d- Exhibit F-1 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 8 Exhibit B Certificate of Completion RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Certificate of Completion City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and a chartered city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California ("Grantor"), hereby certifies with respect to Section 7.01 of that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale – Palm Development Site, dated as of December ___, 2011, which was amended by that certain First Amendment to Agreement of Purchase and Sale -- Palm Developments Site, dated as of January __, 2016, executed by Hotel SLO, LLC, a limited liability company and Sutter Tustin SLO, LLC, a California limited liability company, as tenants-in-common (collectively, the “Grantee”) in favor of Grantor, and that certain Grant Deed recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Luis Obispo County on 200_, as document number __________, with respect to the real property more specifically described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto (collectively, the “Palm Development Site Restrictions”), as follows: 1.The Project has been substantially completed in accordance with the Permits; and 2.All covenants and obligations of Grantee and its successors and assigns under the Palm Development Site Restrictions, including without limitation the right of reverter and power of termination of Grantor, have ceased and terminated. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Certificate of Completion shall have the meaning given in the Palm Development Site Restrictions. This Certificate of Completion has been duly executed by an authorized person on behalf of Grantor as of ______________, 200_. GRANTOR: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation and Charter City By: ____________________________ Its: ____________________________ APPROVED: City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo By _____________________________ Exhibit F-2 to Palm Development PSA 11.e Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: e - Exhibit F-2 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (from PalmDevGrantDeedHotel-010615) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Order Number: NCS-692048-CC Page Number: 7 First American Title Insurance Company LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 14 OF THE MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 01, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, IN SAID CITY, DISTANT THEREON, NORTH 54° 06' EAST, 109.31 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF CHORRO AND MONTEREY STREET, THENCE NORTH 35° 54' WEST, 80.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 54° 06' EAST 12.67 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 35° 54' WEST, 34.17 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 33° 02' WEST, 148.54 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22' WEST, 86.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 12.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22' EAST, 70.25 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 81° 22' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST 36.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8° 38' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22' WEST, 12.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 50° 13' EAST, 38.16 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 35° 54' EAST, 148.56 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 54° 06' WEST, 45.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 35° 54' EAST, 146.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID MONTEREY STREET, THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 54° 06' WEST, 72.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SLO CHINATOWN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, RECORDED JULY 31, 2012, IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2012042357, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL TWO: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 14 OF THE MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 01, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, IN SAID CITY, DISTANT NORTH 54° 6' EAST, 227 FEET 6 INCHES FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF CHORRO AND MONTEREY STREETS; THENCE RUNNING NORTH 54° 6' EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, 52 FEET AND 6 INCHES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE LOT FORMERLY OWNED BY MRS. N. E. CALL; THENCE NORTH 33° 22' WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT OF MRS. N. E. CALL, 351 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 107 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE LOT FORMERLY OWNED BY B. BRIZZOLARA; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22' EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID BRIZZOLARA LOT, 56.36 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 38.08 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF A LOT CONVEYED BY NATHAN AND ISSAC GOLDTREE TO W. J. OAKS, BY DEED DATED AUGUST 21, 1882 AND RECORDED IN BOOK O, PAGE 431 OF DEEDS AND FOLLOWING; THENCE SOUTH 35° 54' EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID OAKS LOT, 296 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Exhibit F-2 to Palm Development PSA 11.e Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: e - Exhibit F-2 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (from PalmDevGrantDeedHotel-010615) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Order Number: NCS-692048-CC Page Number: 8 First American Title Insurance Company EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SLO CHINATOWN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, RECORDED JULY 31, 2012, IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2012042357, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL THREE: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 OF THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF PART OF BLOCKS 14 & 18, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 1 AND 2, 89.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; WHICH POINT BEARS NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 0.35 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE SOUTH 33° 23' 50" EAST, 100.1 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 0.56 FEET FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38' WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 0.56 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 33° 16' 30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 3 AND 2, 100.14 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, 0.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOUR: LOTS 4 AND 10 OF THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF PART OF BLOCKS 14 & 18, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIVE: INTENTIONALLY DELETED PARCEL SIX: LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF PART OF BLOCKS 14 & 18, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO C. A. MAINO, ET UX, RECORDED APRIL 07, 1953 IN BOOK 704, PAGE 439 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 7: ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 14 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 01, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 143.33 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO FERDINANDO Exhibit F-2 to Palm Development PSA 11.e Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: e - Exhibit F-2 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (from PalmDevGrantDeedHotel-010615) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Order Number: NCS-692048-CC Page Number: 9 First American Title Insurance Company CHIESA BY DEED DATED JULY 01, 1912 IN BOOK 93, PAGE 136 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22' EAST, 70.25 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO SERAFINO J. MARTINELLI AND CARMEL MARTINELLI BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 08, 1966 AND RECORDED APRIL 01, 1966 IN BOOK 1391, PAGE 479 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 81° 22' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 53° 38' EAST, 36.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 8° 38' EAST, 8.13 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22' WEST, 70.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALM STREET SOUTH 53° 38' WEST, 48.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRESENT LINES OF PALM STREET. APN(S): 002-416-031, 002-416-035 and 002-416-038 (new # 002-416-040) Exhibit F-2 to Palm Development PSA 11.e Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: e - Exhibit F-2 to the First Amendment to the Agreement (from PalmDevGrantDeedHotel-010615) (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 11.f Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: f - Due Diligence report from Kosmont to SLO (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 11.f Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: f - Due Diligence report from Kosmont to SLO (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) 11.f Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: f - Due Diligence report from Kosmont to SLO (1224 : Chinatown Agreement) Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Dave Hix, Deputy Director - Wastewater Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager SUBJECT: MARGARITA & FOOTHILL LIFT STATION REPLACEMENTS, SPEC. NO. 91214, CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve a contract amendment of $104,854 for the design services for the Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements, Spec. No. 91214; and 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request of $104,854 from Sewer Fund Working Capital to the project’s design phase to support this request; and 3. Approve increases in the 2016-17 construction budget from $1,100,000 to $1,600,000 and the construction management budget from $125,000 to $155,000 for the Foothill Lift Station Replacement. DISCUSSION The Margarita lift station was put into service in 1971 and serves approximately 25 acres with 91 parcels as well as planned development in the Margarita Specific Plan Area. The equipment at Foothill lift station was originally installed in 1962 to serve the Broad Street and Orcutt area, but was removed and warehoused, then reconfigured and installed in its present location in 1986. The station serves approximately 20 acres with 43 parcels on the west end of Foothill Boulevard near the City limits. Because of their age and condition, these lift stations and associated force mains were prioritized for replacement in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years. On November 19, 2013 the City Council approved the issuance of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design Services for the Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement project. On December 19, 2013 the City received proposals from five consulting firms to provide the requested services. The City awarded a contract for design services for the Margarita and Foothill lift station replacements, Spec. No. 91214 to Michael K. Nunley & Associates (MKN) on March 4, 2014 for $199,852. The design phase of the project includes preparing a set of plans and specifications for the replacement of each lift station. To date, MKN has completed 90 percent plans and specifications for the Margarita lift station replacement and is on schedule to complete the construction documents in 2016. For the Foothill lift station replacement, MKN completed a feasibility study which identified significant constraints including limited site area, 12 Packet Pg. 260 access, and storm drain infrastructure at the existing site forcing the City to identify another site for the replacement station. A potential site was identified southwest on Foothill Boulevard. This site would also accommodate future service to property identified in the LUCE Update completed in November 2014. The revised design services scope for the Foothill lift station replacement includes a new feasibility study, design of an additional 560 feet of gravity main and an additional 950 feet of force main components, design of approximately 1,750 feet of fiber optic conduit for SCADA communication, surveying, geotechnical investigation, utility research, potholing, property research, preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits, and construction phase engineering support. Additional scope was also added to the Margarita lift station replacement associated with the project’s easement acquisition. The additional design services scope is further described in Attachment A. The scope related to property acquisition negotiations for the Foothill lift station replacement is described in Attachment B. Replacing the Foothill lift station at the alternate site will result in additional construction and construction management costs for the construction of the additional gravity main, force main, and fiber optic conduit for SCADA communication. These costs are estimated at $500,000 and $30,000 respectively increasing the project’s construction budget from $1,100,000 to $1,600,000 and construction management budget from $125,000 to $155,000. Costs associated with serving future development in the Foothill lift station flow basin would be addressed through Sewer Fund development impact fees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The recommended actions to amend a design services contract and increase the project’s construction and construction management budget are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because no direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environmental will result because of this approval. Once design is complete, further environmental review will be performed. FISCAL IMPACT The 2015-17 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, pages 3-65 through 3-68 identified a budget of $950,000 for construction of the Margarita Lift Station in 2015-16 including funding for construction management and easement acquisition. Replacement of the Foothill Lift Station is planned for the 2016-17 fiscal year with a budget of $1,275,000 for construction including funding for construction management and easement acquisition. The Sewer Fund currently has a balance of $10,082,000 in Working Capital to accommodate Contract Amendment No. 1. The project budget is displayed below. 12 Packet Pg. 261 Fiscal Impact Summary Costs By Type Margarita Lift Station Current Proposed Change Design 120,977 131,512 10,535 Easement acquisition 50,000 50,000 - Construction 800,000 800,000 - Construction management 100,000 100,000 - Total 1,070,977 1,081,512 10,535 Costs By Type Foothill Lift Station Current Proposed Change Design 78,876 173,195 94,319 Property acquisition 50,000 50,000 - Construction 1,100,000 1,600,000 500,000 Construction management 125,000 155,000 30,000 Total 1,353,876 1,978,195 624,319 Funding By Source Current Proposed Change Sewer Fund Working Capital 10,082,000 9,447,146 634,854 Total 10,082,000 9,447,146 634,854 A Budget Amendment Request in the amount of $104,854 is needed from the Sewer Fund Working Capital to support this request for Contract Amendment #1. ALTERNATIVES Elect not to approve the contract amendment. The City Council may elect not to approve the contract amendment at this time. Council may select this alternative if it believes the lift station replacement should be deferred. Staff does not recommend this alternative due to the age and condition of the lift stations. Attachments: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract b - Amendment to Agreement 12 Packet Pg. 262 MKN & Associates, Inc. P O Box 1604 Arroyo Grande CA 93421 Tel: 805 904 6530 Scope Amendment #1 – Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements December 29, 2015 Jennifer Metz City of San Luis Obispo 879 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Scope Amendment #1 – Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements Dear Ms. Metz, The City has identified an opportunity to relocate the existing Foothill Lift station to an adjacent parcel. The new lift station will receive flows that are currently directed to the existing Foothill Lift Station. To accomplish this, the existing Foothill Lift Station will be converted or replaced with a manhole, and a new gravity sewer line will be designed to the new site. It is assumed that a portion of the new gravity sewer line will be located in Foothill Blvd. A new force main will be designed in Foothill Boulevard to deliver flows to an existing manhole at Foothill Boulevard and Los Cerros Road. MKN has developed this Scope Amendment to incorporate this revision to the project scope. The revised scope includes the following additional work: 1. Design of approximately 560 feet of new gravity sewer. 2. Design of approximately 950 feet of new force main. 3. Design of approximately 1750 feet of fiber optic conduit and pull boxes between the proposed lift station and Patricia Drive. MKN will specify conduit, pull boxes, and connection box at the lift station control panel. It is assumed City will provide MKN with fiber Specification and tie-in details at the traffic control box. 4. Preparation of a new feasibility study for the proposed lift station. 5. Topographic and boundary survey to include: a. Acquire and review PTR for the following property affected by the proposed sewer design: 052-351-041 (church property) b. Research, determine and map the recorded property boundaries of the following property: 052-351-041 c. Perform a design level topographic survey on the following properties:  APN 052-351-041 covering approximately 1.57 acres  Northwesterly portion of APN 052-351-037 covering 1,600 SF d. Prepare easement legal description and exhibit for the following property: 052-351-041 e. Perform a strip topographic survey along Foothill Boulevard from the proposed lift station to Patricia Drive. 6. Utility research along the proposed alignment 7. Geotechnical investigations and revised geotechnical report a. The additional scope will include drilling three borings for the revised route and lift station location. One boring will be in a landscape area of the church, one in the widened shoulder on the north side of Foothill, and one in the southwest corner of the church 12.a Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Jennifer Metz  Page 2  Scope Amendment #1 – Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements property at the new lift station location. We have assumed that the City will prepare and coordinate access agreements with the subject property owners of the church. Furthermore, our planned work does not involve traffic control or removal of fences or trees. The borings will be drilled to depths of 15 to 20 feet, as conditions dictate and allow, using a truck- mounted Mobile Drill rig equipped with a 6-inch outside diameter hollow stem auger. During the course of drilling, various soil samples will be obtained by means of ring-lined barrel samplers and Standard Penetration Test samplers. Bulk soil samples will be obtained from auger cuttings. Soils will be classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System 8. Preparation of PGE service application 9. Preparation of Preliminary Design Report 10. Project meetings and coordination 11. An allowance of $10,000 to perform potholing in Foothill Blvd. is recommended to support design of the new gravity sewer and force main. It is our understanding that Fiber-optic, high pressure gas, and petroleum pipelines exist in the vicinity of the project. A recommendation on the final extent and cost of potholing will be provided to the City once the presence of potentially conflicting utilities is further identified. 12. Construction phase engineering support 13. Right of Way and Property Acquisition Support, Foothill Lift Station (Not Included) It is our understanding that the City will negotiate these elements with the owner without assistance from MKN. The proposed Scope of Work and fee does not include appraisal, planning stage coordination and entry agreement support, or ROW acquisition for the church property at 51 Foothill Blvd. We can provide these services at the request of the City for additional fee. Our base scope includes obtaining a Preliminary Title Report from the property to support the survey and basemap. A budget spreadsheet is attached detailing the new task items. A summary of the additional requested budget is presented below. 12.a Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Jennifer Metz  Page 3  Scope Amendment #1 – Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements The revised total contract amount would be $299,816. Work will be performed on a time and materials basis, not to exceed the budgeted amount without prior authorization from the City. Please sign and return a copy of this letter, indicating your authorization of this requested Scope Amendment #1. Sincerely, Jon Hanlon, PE Attachments: Budget Spreadsheet 12.a Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Scope Amendment #1 ‐ Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement Project ‐ Specification No. 91214Project Manager Project EngineerAssistant EngineerDraftingAdministrative AssistantTotal Hours ODCsSubconsultant (AECOM)Subconsultant(Earth Systems)Subconsultant(Survey)Subconsultant(Hamner‐Jewell)Subconsultant(Potholing)Total MKN LaborTotal Cost Project Kickoff Meeting 1 1 2 17$          300$                  317$                       Feasibility Studies Meeting 1 2 3 17$          435$                  452$                       Design Confirmation Meeting 1 2 3 17$          435$                  452$                       Foothill Kickoff, Feasibility and Design Confirmation Meetings 2 2 4 50$          600$                  650$                       Preliminary Design Reports Meeting 2 2 4 17$          600$                  617$                       50% Design Submittal ‐ Foothill 2 2 4600$                  600$                       90% Design Submittal ‐ Foothill 2 2 4600$                  600$                       Final Design Submittal ‐ Foothill 2 2 4 50$          600$                  650$                       Monthly PM reports 8 81,320$               1,320$                    Additional PM and Site Visits/Meetings (Already Performed)17 172,805$               2,805$                    QA/QC 8 81,320$               1,320$                    Task 1 Subtotal 46 15 0 0 0 61 168$         ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$              9,615$               9,783$                    Develop Foothill Sewer, FM, and Layout Alternatives 4 10 4 8 263,110$               3,110$                    Prepare Foothill Feasibility Study Report48242202,380$               2,380$                    Task 2  Subtotal 8 18 6 12 2 46‐$          ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$              5,490$               5,490$                    Revised Appraisal (Margarita, Already Performed)4 4 1,650$          660$                  2,310$                    ROW Acquisition Assistance (Foothill) 2 6 8810$                  810$                       Additional Easement and Landscape Assistance (already Performed)16 10 8 344,430$               4,430$                    Task 3 Subtotal 22 0 10 14 0 46‐$          ‐$               ‐$               ‐$              1,650$           ‐$              5,900$               7,550$                    Geotechnical Report (Foothill) 2 2 4 3,278$          600$                  3,878$                    Additional Margarita Legal Description (Already Performed)4 4 1,650$          660$                  2,310$                    PTR Church Property (052‐351‐041) 2 2,500$    270$                  2,770$                    New Foothill Survey and 2 Church Legal Descriptions (TCE and Perm.) 2 4 2 8 9,075$          1,030$               10,105$                  Potholing Allowance  4410,000$        540$                  10,540$                   Task 4 Subtotal 8 12 0 2 0 20 2,500$     ‐$              3,278$          10,725$         ‐$              10,000$        3,100$               29,603$                  Task Group 1 ‐ Project Meetings and CoordinationTask Group 2 ‐ Feasibility StudyTask Group 3 ‐ Easement AcquisitionsTask Group 4 ‐ Survey, Geotech and Potholing12.a Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Prepare Draft Preliminary Design Report (Foothill) 4 18 6 8 4 404,600$               4,600$                    Prepare Final Preliminary Design Report (Foothill)48442222,610$               2,610$                    Task 5 Subtotal 8 26 10 12 6 62‐$          ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$              7,210$               7,210$                    Foothill Lift Station   Radio Survey (Not Included)0‐$                   ‐$                        Utility Research 2 4 6590$                  590$                       Incorporate Lanscape Sheets (estimated) 2 16 2 202,650$               2,650$                    Prepare 50% Design 8 24 16 48 616$             5,840$               6,456$                    Prepare 90% Design 8 16 24 48 50$          616$             5,400$               6,066$                    Prepare Final Design 8 16 16 40 50$          616$             4,760$               5,426$                    Fiber Optic Design (2 sheets and Survey) 4 8 16 1,320$          3,020$               4,340$                    As‐Needed Services (estimate)0 10,000$  ‐$                   10,000$                  Task 6 Subtotal 30 82 0 78 0 162 10,100$  1,848$           ‐$              1,320$           ‐$               ‐$              22,260$             35,528$                   Prepare APCD Permit Application0‐$                   ‐$                        Task 7 Subtotal000000‐$          ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$                    ‐$                        Submittal Review (15) 20 202,700$               2,700$                    Prepare RFI Responses (5) 8 81,080$               1,080$                    As‐Builts46101,020$               1,020$                    Task 8 Subtotal 0 32 0 6 0 38‐$          ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$               ‐$              4,800$               4,800$                    TOTAL BUDGET 122 185 26 124 8 435 12,768$  1,848$          3,278$          12,045$        1,650$          10,000$        58,375$             99,964$                  Billing Rates$/hrProject Manager 165Project Engineer135Senior Engineer155Assistant Engineer115Drafting80Administrative Assistant45Mileage to be reimbursed at IRS rate Task Group 5 ‐ Preliminary Design ReportTask Group 6 ‐ Construction DocumentsTask Group 7 ‐ Permit ApplicationsTask Group 8 ‐ Construction Phase Support12.a Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Mike@mbslandsurveys.com Michael B Stanton, PLS 5702 Msg: 805.594.1960 3563 Sueldo Street, Unit Q Cell: 805.440.4215 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Fax: 805.594.1966 December 23, 2015 Robert A Lepore, GISP rlepore@mknassociates.us Michael K. Nunley & Associates, Inc. PO Box 1604, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (P) 805.904.6530, (F) 805.904.6532 RE: Revised Proposal for Surveying Services – City of San Luis Obispo, Foothill Lift Station Survey APN 052-351, 037, & 041 Dear Robert: Per your request, I am providing you with this revised proposal for surveying services required for the Foothill Road Sewer Lift Station project. This proposal includes an optional task for the topographic survey to include a 950’ long strip along Foothill Blvd. between Los Cerros Drive and Patricia Drive. We have assumed that since this project is paid for with public funds, all field employees will need to be paid prevailing wages. Based on the materials you have provided us, we have determined the following scope of work. OPTION 1A: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR BAPTIST CHURCH SITE ONLY (Portion of APN 052-351-037, APN 052-351-041, and Foothill Blvd) This will include a field survey of the Baptist Church parcel and Foothill road sufficient to produce a one-foot contour map, with planimetric features including; footprint of existing structures with, surface evidence of utilities, trees (over 4” dia.), fencing, walls, curbs or edge of pavement and other items which are visible and present and the time of the survey. The map will be drawn at 1”=20’ scale on 24” by 36” sheets. The vertical datum will be based on an official City of San Luis Obispo bench mark. Deliverables: Hardcopies on 24”x36” bond AutoCAD civil 3D files PDF files Estimated Fee range: $3850-4400 OPTION 1B: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR BAPTIST CHURCH SITE AND FOOTHILL ROAD (Portion of APN 052-351-037, APN 052-351-041, and Foothill Blvd from Los Cerros to Patricia Dr.) The project area will include all of the Baptist Church Street and the Portion of Foothill Blvd which fronts the Church Property in addition to a strip of land 100’ wide and 950’ long extending from Los Cerros Drive on the west end to Patricia Drive on the east end as indicated on the maps provided to us. This task will include aerial photography over the site, the aerial control survey and compiling the topographic map. MBS Land Surveys will provide survey control and the map will be compiled by an aerial sub-consultant. This will involve obtaining new aerial photography suitable for compiling a topographic map with the following specifications: • Finish mapping scale 1”=20 feet • Contours at 1-foot intervals 12.a Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Michael K. Nunley & Associates, Inc. December 23, 2015 Page 2 •Product delivered in AutoCAD Civil 3d format In addition to topography, the map will show planimetric features including; roads, buildings, fences, power poles, trees, brush, and other features according to standard practice. Accuracy will equal or exceed National Map Accuracy Standards for topographic maps compiled by photogrammetric methods. The aerial flight can usually be scheduled within one week of the award of the contract. The aerial sub- consultant will need two weeks to compile the topographic map after the date of flight. The vertical datum will be based on an official City of San Luis Obispo bench mark. Deliverables: Hardcopies on 24”x36” bond AutoCAD civil 3D files PDF files Estimated Fees – Aerial Control Survey - Estimated Fee: $ 900 Supplemental utility survey: $1,800 Aerial Photogrammetric Mapping - Estimated Fee: $2,900 Total $5,600 2.RECORD BOUNDARY AND PLOT EASEMENTS (APN 052-351-041) This will include locating survey monuments in the vicinity of the project sufficient to orient record boundary lines and record right-of-way lines along Foothill from the original map to the topographic base map. Easements will be plotted from a current title report provided by the client. Client Responsibilities: Provide current Preliminary Title Report and all backup documents. Deliverables: Hardcopies on 24”x36” bond AutoCAD civil 3D files PDF files Estimated fee: $1000-1350 3.LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS This will include preparation of legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the lift station site and appurtenances. We will also address check comments from the City of San Luis Obispo. Deliverables: 8.5”x11” Signed and sealed hardcopies AutoCAD civil 3D files Estimated fee range: $850-1250 per description 12.a Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Michael K. Nunley & Associates, Inc. December 23, 2015 Page 3 Terms and Conditions: The product will be delivered (weather permitting) within 30 days of receiving this signed contract. Payment is due within 30 days of invoice date, with interest charged at 1% per month for past due invoices. AutoCAD files will be released after full payment is received. Hourly Rates are as follows: Two-Person Field Crew: $185.00 per hour, Office Tech: $75-90.00 per hour, One-Person Field Crew: $150.00 per hour, and Land Surveyor:$110.00 per hour. Extra Services will be handled on an hourly basis after your authorization. Either party, with verbal or written notice, can terminate this contract. This proposal is valid for 90 days. Sincerely, Authorized to proceed: _______________________________________ Michael B. Stanton, PLS 5702 Michael K. Nunley & Associates, Inc. Date \\mbs-sbs\MBS Land Surveys\PROPOSALS\PROPOSALS SENT\Foothill Road - San Luis Obispo Lift Station-REV2.doc 12.a Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: a - Foothill Margarita LS Contract (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 1 THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on _______________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City, and MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in March 2014 the City entered into an Agreement with Contractor for Design Services for the Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements, and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to services related to design of additional gravity and force mains, fiber optic conduit, surveying, geotechnical investigation, utility research, potholing, property research, legal descriptions, construction phase engineering support, and easement acquisition phase engineering support, and Contractor has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. a. Additional work to expand the scope of the project for the Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements to include the additional services per memorandum dated December 29, 2015 at cost not to exceed $104,854. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ____________________________________ By:____________________________________ Jon Ansolabehere, Interim City Clerk Katie Lichtig, City Manager 12.b Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: b - Amendment to Agreement (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR _____________________________________ By:____________________________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Jon Hanlon, MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSOCIATES 12.b Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: b - Amendment to Agreement (1235 : Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacement) Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Keith Storton, Acting Chief of Police Prepared By: Melissa Ellsworth, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: FY 2016-17 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic Safety for a FY 2016-17 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) not to exceed $250,000; and 2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the award of the grant. DISCUSSION The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides grant funding to agencies annually. Programs are aimed at preventing deaths and injuries on our roadways through special enforcement and public awareness efforts. Grant funding will assist the City’s ongoing effort to improve traffic safety and quality of life. Specifically, the OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant will continue to provide funding for the night time DUI police officer for the San Luis Obispo Police Department for FY 2016-17. Currently, the department is funding one night time DUI officer through an existing OTS grant for FY 2015-16 which began on October 1, 2013. Overview of Position The grant funded position will be responsible for identifying areas where DUI incidents are prevalent and perform enforcement activities in these areas for the specific purpose of reducing DUI related incidents. Other patrol officers will still be expected to continue their own DUI enforcement as part of their regular patrol duties while allowing additional specific DUI enforcement to occur by the DUI officer. The night time DUI Officer’s duties will include: 1. Enforcement of DUI related laws. 2. Provide DUI related training at briefings. 3. Provide support to Patrol in specific DUI related cases. 4. Participate in community outreach activities which could include public speaking as to the 13 Packet Pg. 273 dangers of driving while intoxicated. 5. Track and maintain statistical data to meet the obligations of the grant and other departmental purposes. Grant Application The grant application is due on January 30, 2016. The following describes what the department will be requesting in the application: salary and benefits (for a period of 12 months) for the night time DUI police officer position and overtime to fund department participation in DUI checkpoints, saturation patrols, and distracted driving enforcement operations. CONCURRENCES The Director of Finance & Information Technology concurs with this request. FISCAL IMPACT City matching funds are not required by the grant. Although grant funding is already secured for FY 2015-16; funding in subsequent years will be requested through the grant application process on an annual basis. Upon the conclusion of the grant, and if the department is not awarded grant funding in the following fiscal years, it is anticipated that the position would be absorbed into the department through attrition. ALTERNATIVE Council may direct staff not to submit an application. Staff does not recommend this alternative as funding will aid in the City’s ongoing effort to improve traffic safety and quality of life. The grant objectives are aimed at preventing deaths and injuries on our roadways through special enforcement and public awareness efforts. 13 Packet Pg. 274 Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY JEFF KRAFT) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a single family residence at 48 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby approving the use permit to allow a single family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at 48 Buena Vista Avenue. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant has applied for an Administrative Use Permit to request construction of a single family residence in the Single-family Residential Zone with Special Considerations Overlay (R- 1-S), with exceptions to allow a maximum height of 28 feet from average grade where 25 feet would be allowed, and a 12 foot yard setback where 15 feet would be required. The home and 14 Packet Pg. 275 Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) would be constructed on an existing legal lot. A use permit is required to allow the establishment of any new use within the Special Considerations (S-overlay) zone. The S-overlay is in place at the subject location due to the sensitive nature of hillside development (Attachment H, S-Overlay Ordinance 0755). The project is subject to architectural review by the Architectural Review Commission as a result of its location on a hillside and the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance. On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission (PC) to address the concerns of the members of the public for developing a single-family residence at the subject location. On September 23, 2015, the PC reviewed the project and voted to continue the project to a date uncertain to give the applicant the opportunity to revise and address specific concerns including the configuration of the lower level, further evaluation of the roof deck, the height and setback exceptions, and review of the concerns regarding the curve of the street (Attachment I, PC Hearing September 23, 2015, Meeting Minutes). On October 28, 2015, the PC held a hearing to review the revised project that addressed concerns from the hearing on September 23, 2015. The PC voted to deny the project based on the finding that, “The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity” (Attachment K, PC Hearing October 28, 2015, Meeting Minutes). None of the PC’s concerns related to the height and setback exceptions noted above, which were noted in discussion to be inconsequential because they are minor in nature. On October 29, 2015, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the project (Attachment E, PC Appeal). DISCUSSION The PC’s recommendation for denial of the project is based on the finding that the project will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood (Attachment C). If the City Council chooses to deny the appeal, findings are needed to form an adequate basis for project denial. While the staff recommendation is to uphold the appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission decision. If the City Council chooses this path, staff has provided additional findings for consideration. The staff recommendation to uphold the appeal is reflected in Resolution A (Attachment A). Resolution B includes findings to deny the appeal (Attachment B). The following discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed development. Background The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The subject property meets all lot size requirements and was legally created in 1990 with access from Buena Vista Avenue. The property is a downward 14 Packet Pg. 276 sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right -of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment F, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 442 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Two stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure A detailed description of the site, project description, statistics and project analysis can be found in Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION/ACTION At the September 23, 2015 meeting, the PC requested additional information to address concerns that were identified at the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended the following directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action on the project: Directional Item #1: Plans should be resubmitted and reviewed for the evaluation of the proposed lower level of the residence that was originally proposed as unconditioned space to be converted to habitable space. Directional Item #2: Plans should be resubmitted that address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy concerns. Directional item #3: Plans should be further evaluated to clarify the need for the requested height exception and setback reduction. Staff Response: Please see PC Staff Report from October 28, 2015 (Attachment K) for the evaluation of the applicant’s response to the PC Directional Items. At the October 28, 2015 meeting, the PC evaluated the applicant’s response and voted 5:1 (Commr. Riggs absent) to deny the use permit, although recognizing that this property is anticipated to be a single family residence in the General Plan, and is consistent with many applicable City standards. The PC did not find that the project was in conflict with any specific City standard, but discussed concerns related to pedestrian and vehicular traffic along the curve of Buena Vista Avenue, which is a narrow street with no sidewalks and no on-street parking available, and concluded that parking for the four-bedroom residence with an SDU may not be sufficient on-site within this neighborhood. The PC also discussed concerns about the roof deck 14 Packet Pg. 277 and views of the property from Highway 101 to be evaluated by the ARC . While the PC was not particularly concerned about the requested exceptions to property development standards, the City Council should carefully consider the proposed exceptions. APPEAL SUMMARY On October 29, 2015, the applicant, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the PC decision to deny the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the Planning Commission’s decision for den ial was not justified because the project is to construct a single family residence on a legal lot that has been evaluated by City Staff and recommended for approval. A letter from the applicant’s attorney addresses the specific concerns that the PC’s delineation was not based on the directional items that were provided by the PC during its hearing on September 23, 2015. The letter also asserts that the PC’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioners themselves found no legal basis to deny the use permit (see Attachment E, Kraft Appeal Letter). STAFF EVALUATION History of the subject site and the S-Overlay zone Before addressing the specifics of the appeal and the PC’s decision, it is important to understand the history of the subject site and the creation and underlying purpose of the Special Considerations zoning overlay within this area. The lot is a legal lot and was created by a lot line adjustment (LLA 90-115), approved on March 26, 1990, that combined three existing lots into two lots, each having acces s from Buena Vista Avenue in compliance with an Initial Study mitigation measure conducted in 1989 (ER 16 -89). In 1983, a study was conducted to establish hillside development areas that included reconfiguring the Urban Reserve Line. The Cal Poly-Cuesta Park hillside, also known as Area #1, was originally proposed to exclude the three subject properties outside of the Urban Reserve Line. After considering public testimony which included letters from certain property owners discussing their right to develop these properties, both the Planning Commission and the City Council determined to include the subject properties within the Urban Reserve Line. The Urban Reserve Line has been established along the north property line of the subject property, rendering the properties south of this line appropriate for residential development. On an R-1 lot, a single family house is allowed “by right,” provided the proposed building complies with the City’s development standards (i.e. setbacks, height restrictions, etc.) and City’s building code. Typically, the review process for a single family home is ministerial. In other words, staff merely reviews the project application for compliance with adopted development standards using no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision, and issues a permit if objective compliance is demonstrated. However, in this case, the property is subject to a “Special Considerations Overlay” zone (“S-Overlay”) which makes a property owner’s right to construct a single family residence conditional, by use permit. Section 17.56 of the City’s Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) sets forth the City’s rules and regulations regarding the processing and implementation of development within a Special Consideration Zone. SLOMC section 17.56.010 states, in pertinent part: 14 Packet Pg. 278 The use permit requirement is intended to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings or conformance with the general plan, or to determine if a proposed development solves problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard, airport hazard, or slope instability which are particularly severe on a given site. Such development review may also be used to protect areas of scenic or ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire hazard. The ordinance adopting the S zone will specify the considerations to be addressed, and the ordinance number will be incorporated in the official zone map designation; The S-Overlay zone for this property was enacted in 1978 by Ordinance No. 755 (Attachment H) which requires a use permit for the construction of a single family residence on this property due to special considerations. Specifically, Ordinance No. 755 states that a “…use permit requirement is necessary to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities and services.” Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 755, the City has adopted hillside development standards, which set forth the specific standards against which hillside projects are to be evaluated. For the reasons described in the City’s previous staff reports (Attachments I and K) and for the reasons discussed below, the proposed project complies with the City’s hillside development standards if the requested exceptions to building height and setbacks are approved. Appeal Analysis During the October 28, 2015 hearing, four Planning Commissioners stated that there was no concern regarding the height and setback exceptions (Commrs. Larson, Fowler, Draze, and Dandekar). The Commission stated that the reason for denial was the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on- street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity. The following evaluation has been provided in response to the Planning Commission’s concerns related to denial of the project. Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic: Public Works Traffic Engineering staff have reviewed the project. Buena Vista Avenue at the subject location is a cul-de-sac neighborhood that provides access to five existing residences. The property is located on the curve along Buena Vista Avenue with a traffic line of sight greater than 150 feet from either direction for oncoming vehicles, with a speed limit of 25 mph. Vehicles approaching the property, driving either uphill or downhill, have sufficient time to stop in order to let a vehicle exit the property from the subject location. The driveway is approximately 33 feet long and provides enough space for a vehicle exiting the property to wait for oncoming vehicles to pass before entering the public right-of-way. The addition of a single family residence with an SDU will not negatively impact traffic safety in this neighborhood because the 14 Packet Pg. 279 proposed project complies with all, access, parking and driveway standards for residential development. In addition, the ability to control the design and improvement of public infrastructure such as public streets is authorized through the subdivision process, not an administrative use permit absent specific and identifiable project impacts to the contrary. Sidewalks & Street Parking: Buena Vista Avenue provides enough space for three on- street parking spaces, the rest of the neighborhood in proximity to the project site is painted with a red curb to provide access for emergency vehicles in the event of a fire on the hillside. Staff has evaluated the neighborhood for on-street parking and has determined that the addition of street parking will not be supported in this location. Additionally, on-street parking is not a requirement for residential development, all required parking for residential development is required on-site. The proposed project provides all required parking for the single family residence and the SDU on-site. The existing neighborhood along Buena Vista does not have sidewalks, but does provide space along the street for pedestrians to walk out of the way of traffic. As conditioned, the city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue to install the required improvements at a later date (Attachment A, Condition #17). The applicant has offered to provide sidewalks at this time, in order to relieve concerns for pedestrians on the street as vehicles pass by. Four Bedrooms: Aside from the general development standards and the City’s Building Code, the City does not regulate the number of bedrooms allowed in a single family residence. A High Occupancy Use Permit1 is required for any residence with six or more adults. In any event, the existing neighborhood has an average size of 2,633 square feet with three bedrooms (ten residences surveyed, excluding garages and SDU’s); the proposed residence has been designed as one of the smallest residences in the neighborhood at 1,921 square feet with four bedrooms. As a requirement for a SDU on the site, the property is required to be owner occupied (Attachment A, Condition #2) which is authorized by State law and consistent with City requirements for single family homes with a SDU. With this narrow exception, a decision on the project or conditions of approval imposed on a use permit cannot be based upon individuals who may occupy the residence absent substantial information included in the record. Secondary Dwelling Unit: SDU’s are allowed by right when accessory to a single family residence so long as they comply with SDU Property Development Standards. The proposed project incorporates the SDU into the design of the residence, the evaluation of the architectural review of the residence has been provided in Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis The administrative use permit cannot be denied because of the inclusion 1 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.93 High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations: Upon approval of an administrative use permit… a high occupancy residential use may be established with occupancy of six or more adults. The purpose of the use permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards described in this section, and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular locations. 14 Packet Pg. 280 of an SDU. Roof Deck: The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the SDU and providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are met including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction; the project complies with this requirement. Attachment K provides a detailed analysis regarding the PC’s concern for the proposed roof deck design. The roof deck will be evaluated under the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Height and Setback Exceptions: The PC discussed that the height and setback exceptions were minor in nature and not a concern for the proposed project. See Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis for a full analysis of the height and setback exceptions for consistency with the Zoning Regulations. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit that includes a minor setback reduction of 3 feet and a height exception of 3 feet. The property is a legal lot that is within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address development on the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit (USE-1520-2015) to allow the construction of single family residence at this location. If the City Council cannot support approval of the requested setback and height exceptions, then changes would be needed to the building design to comply with those standards and hillside development standards. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As noted above, in 1989 the project site consisted of three lots approximately 5,000 square feet each that were proposed for a development project of three 3,000 square foot residences with access from Buena Vista (ARC 89-27 & U 1433). An Initial Study was required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of developing the three lots (ER 16-89). The Initial Study identified several mitigation measures requiring that the three lots be reconfigured into two legal lots. In 1990 the existing property was reviewed and approved for a Lot Line Adjustment that reconfigured the three lots into two legal lots (LLA 90-115). The two lots have been vacant since this that time and are individually owned. 14 Packet Pg. 281 The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project b y upholding the PC’s decision and denying the appeal, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations. Staff does not recommend this alternative. Public safety and land use compatibility issues have been addressed through design measures and the conditions of approval. If this action is taken, the applicant would have the ability to redesign the proposed residence and submit a new application for City review. 2. Uphold the Appeal and provide direction to the ARC. The Council may uphold the appeal and approve the use permit, but provide additional direction to the ARC regarding issues it should consider during its review of the project’s design. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution A b - Draft Resolution B c - PC Resolution d - Vicinity Map e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) f - Reduced Project Plans g - Detailed Project Analysis h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) j - Applicant Response Letter k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) 14 Packet Pg. 282 RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015 & SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on-street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity; and WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on October 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 14.a Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: Special Considerations Overlay 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the single family residence is proposed on a legal lot and has been designed to be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile below the ridgeline and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation, and site grading is kept to a minimum. 3. The project has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. 4. The project design incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside as viewed from Highway 101. 5. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks or height requirements because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. Height Exception 6. The additional three foot height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking space that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. Setback Exception 8. A reduced side yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access or privacy. The portion of the residence requiring a setback exception is only 14 square feet in area and will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 14.a Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ 9. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS -5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final approval of the application USE-1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The architectural design of the building shall be reviewed separate from this Use Permit. The Architectural Review Commission will review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and the General Plan. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The minimum setback from the north property line to the proposed structure shall not be less than 12 feet with a maximum wall height of 28 feet from the natural average grade. 5. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 6. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 7. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 14.a Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 R ______ 8. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 9. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. (Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 10. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 13. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A recording fee will be required from the applicant. 14. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 14.a Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 R ______ 15. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 16. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 17. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 18. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 20. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 14.a Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 R ______ 22. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 23. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 25. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 26. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 27. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 28. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 29. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior 14.a Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 R ______ to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 30. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 31. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 32. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 33. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 14.a Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 8 R ______ 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 ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 14.a Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution A (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on-street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity; and WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on October 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 14.b Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: b - Draft Resolution B (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The design and approach to grading is does not conform to the natural slope of the property in a manner that is consistent with the City’s Hillside Design Guidelines, without creating the need for exceptions to property development standards including building height and setback. 3. Construction of a home on the project site without exceptions to City standards is possible and preferable because of the steep slope of the property and visibility of the lot in the hillside location. 4. The proposed height exception will detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the exception is inconsistent with the way other properties in the neighborhood have been developed. 5. A reduced side yard setback is unacceptable at the subject location because of the steep slope and visibility of the lot on the hillside location, which increases the visual impact of the exception. 6. (Additional findings to be provided by the City Council) 7. (Additional findings to be provided by the City Council) 8. (Additional findings to be provided by the City Council) Section 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final denial of the application USE-1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. 14.b Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: b - Draft Resolution B (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC 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 ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 14.b Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: b - Draft Resolution B (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) RESOLUTION NO. PC-5630-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 28, 2015 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant, and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted another public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Attachment C 14.c Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: c - PC Resolution (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-5630-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 2 SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application USE- 1520-2015. On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Larson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Larson, Multari, Dandekar, Draze, and Fowler NOES: Commissioner Malak REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Riggs The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 2015. _____________________________ Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director Planning Commission Attachment C 14.c Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: c - PC Resolution (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) PF C/OS-5 R-1-S R-1 R-1-SR-1-S R-1 R-1 LOOMISB U E N A V I S T A VICINITY MAP USE-1520-201548 BUENA VISTA ¯ Attachment D 14.d Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: d - Vicinity Map (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Cover SheetCS.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKINGPLANING COMISSION MEETING SETAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Title SheetTS.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKINGABBREVIATIONS"I" JOISTINTERIORHEIGHTINCHLINEAL FOOTLATERALLENGTHJOINTJOISTIDIJINTINHTHSBLLHLATLFJTLJSTMAXIMUMMINIMUMMAXMFRMOMIWMISCMINMBLLVLONG LEG HORIZONTALLONG LEG VERTICALINSIDE DIAMETERHIGH STRENGTH BOLTMANUFACTURERMALLEABLE IRON WASHERMASONRY OPENINGMISCELLANEOUSMACHINE BOLTNEWNORMALNOMINALOVERHEADOPENINGON CENTERNEAR SIDENORMNOMNIC(N)OPNGOHOFODOCNTSNSPLYWOODOPPOSITEORIGINALPAVEMENTRADIUSPPORIGPLYWDOPPR or RADPVMTPVCPTDFPARTIAL PENETRATION POLYVINYLCLORIDEPRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIRPENETRATIONOUTSIDE FACEOUTSIDE DIAMETERNOT TO SCALENOT IN CONTRACTDEGREEATANDANGLENUMBERPLUS OR MINUSPLATE / PROPERTY LINEPERPENDICULARPERCENTPARALLELFLOWLINEDIAMETERCENTERLINEBOARDANCHORBELOW FINISHED FLOORAVERAGEARCHITECT / ARCHITECTURALAPPROXIMATEALUMINUMALTERNATEAGGREGATEABOVE FINISHED FLOORADDITIONALAREA DRAINASPHALT CONCRETEANCHOR BOLTØ°@&L±%#¡ALTAGGAFFADACBFFBDAVGALABAPPROXARCHANCHADDLBOTTOMBLOCKCEILINGCLEARCONCRETE MASONRY UNITCHECKEREDBETWEENBEARINGBOTTOM OF FOOTINGBEAM / BENCHMARKBLOCKINGCENTERCOLUMNDOUBLECONNECTIONDIMENSIONDIAGONALDIAMETERDOUGLAS FIRPENNY (NAIL SIZE)COUNTERSUNKCOMPLETE PENETRATIONCONTINUOUSCONSTRUCTIONCONCRETEBOTBOFBMBLKCJCMUCLRCLGCIPBRGCPCTRCOLDIMDIADFDBLdCONNDIAGCTSKCONTCONSTCONCCKRDBTWNBLKGBUILDINGBLDGCONTROL JOINT /CAST IN PLACE REDWOODREQUIREDRIGHTRAFTERREINFORCINGSUBGRADESCHEDULESADRWDRTRORFTRREQDREINFSGSFSEDSDSCHSCDSBSPACESHEETINGSIMILARSTIFFENERSTANDARDSTAGGEREDSQUARESPECSPSMDSIMSHTGSTGDSTIFFSTDSQSPDSHTSHEETSANITARY SEWERSEE PLUMBING DRAWINGSSPECIFICATIONSEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGSDRAWINGSSEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGSSEE CIVIL DRAWINGSSEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSSQUARE FEETSTORM DRAINSOLID BLOCKROUGH OPENINGSHEAR WALLSTRUCTURALSTEELTHREADEDTOE NAILTHICKSYMSWSTRUCSTLTCT&GT&BTOATNTHKTHRDTGTDTCCTILT UPTYPICALTUBE STEELTOTALVERTICALWITHOUTWITHTUTYPTSTPTOWTOTW/OW/UNOVERTVIFTOFUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVERIFY IN FIELDTOP OF PAVEMENTTOP OF WALLSYMMETRICALTOP OF STRUCTURETOP OF CONCRETE CURBTONGUE AND GROVETOP OF ALUMINUMTOP OF FOOTINGTOP OF CONCRETETOP OF GRATETRENCH DRAINTOP AND BOTTOMEACHDITTODOWNEQUALEQUIPMENTEDGE NAILINGEMBEDMENTELECTRICALELEVATIONEACH FACEEACH ENDEXISTINGDRAWINGFINISHFLOORFIELD NAILINGFINISH GRADEFINISH FLOORFOUNDATIONFLOOR DRAINEXTERIOREXPANSIONEXCAVATION / EXCAVATEEACH WAYEACH SIDE(E) or EXISTEEEADWGDODNEFEQENFDEXTEXPEXCEWFNFINFLRFGFFFDNESELECEL or ELEVEQPTEMBEDFUTUREGALVANIZEDGRADE BREAKFOOTINGFOOT / FEETFAR SIDE / FLOOR SINKFRAMINGGAGE / GAUGEFACE OF WALLFACE OF STUDFACE OF CONCRETE CURBFACE OF MASONRYFACE OF: CONCRETE / COLUMNFACE OFGYPSUMGROUNDGRADEHANGERHEADERHIGH STRENGTH GROUTHIGH POINTHORIZONTALHOLD DOWN GLUED LAMINATED BEAMGIRDERFOWFOMFOSFOCFOGBFUTFTGGAFTFSHDGYPGRDGLBHSGHDRHPHGRGDRGALVHORIZGRNDFRMGFOCCREFDISTANCEDISTREFERENCEWORK POINTWWFWPWELDED WIRE FABRICWDWOODCONSTRUCTION JOINTTOS TOP OF STEEL / STAINLESS STEEL /SSSLADSEE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS'PEN PLYWOOD EDGE NAILING /GENERAL NOTES- DIMENSIONINGGENERAL NOTESPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DATASUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSVENTILATION SCHEDULESPECIAL INSPECTIONSBUILDING DATAFIRE PROTECTION NOTESARCHITECTURALCS1.0 COVERS SHEETT1.01 TITLE SHEETA1.0 SITE PLANA2.0 FLOOR PLAN: ROOF LEVELA2.1 FLOOR PLAN: TOP LEVELA2.2 FLOOR PLAN: MAIN LEVELA2.3 FLOOR PLAN: BOTTOM LEVELA3.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.0 BUILDING SECTIONSA4.1 BUILDING SECTIONSA6.0 STAIR PLANS, SECTIONS, AND DETAILSA8.0 DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULECIVILSTRUCTURALS-3 LOWER FOUNDATION PLANS-4 UPPER FOUNDATION PLANS-5 SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLANS-6 ROOF DECK FRAMING PLANMECHANICALM1.0 MECHANICAL PLANM1.1 MECHANICAL PLANELECTRICALE1.0 ELECTRIC AND LIGHTING PLANE1.1 ELECTRIC AND LIGHTING PLANPLUMBINGSHEET INDEXARCHITECTCHRIS PARDO DESIGN:ELEMENTAL ARCHITECTURE1556 N. PALM CANYON DRIVEPALM SPRINGS, CASUITE D202PHONE: 206.329.1654CONTACT: STEVE TURLEYEMAIL: turley@elementalarchitecture.comCIVILCANNON1050 SOUTHWOOD DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401PHONE: 805.503.4521CONTACT: JOHN ROGERSEMAIL: johnr@cannoncorp.usSTRUCTURALDT ENGINEERING3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS ROAD, SUITE 331SAN DIEGO, CA 92130PHONE: 619.940.6257CONTACT: DAVID THOMASEMAIL: david@dtengsd.comSTRUCTURAL DESIGNASULPHONE: 866.898.9209CONTACT: TIM RUSSELLEMAIL: russell@asul.usA SMOKE DETECTOR SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EACH HABITABLE ROOM.A SMOKE DETECTOR SHALL BE CENTRALLY LOCATED ON EACH FLOOR.AN ADDITIONAL SMOKE DETECTOR SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EACH LOCATIONWHERE THERE IS A CEILING HEIGHT CHANGE GREATER THAN 24".SMOKE DETECTORS TO BE 110v HARDWIRED, INTERCONNECTED, WITHBATTERY BACKUP PER IRC R313WSEC 501.1 AND 901 - FROM TABLE 9-1 - OPTION 5bHIGH EFFICIENCY WATER HEATER IS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP ONE CREDIT.PER IRC R315.1 AND WAC 51-50-0907 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, AN APPROVEDCARBON MONOXIDE ALARM SHALL BE INSTALLED OUTSIDE OF EACH SEPARATESLEEPING AREA IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE BEDROOM IN DWELLINGUNITS WITHIN WHICH FUEL-FIRED APPLIANCES ARE INSTALLED AND INDWELLING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES. SINGLE STATION CARBONMONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL BE LISTED AS COMPLYING WITH UL 2034 AND SHALLBE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CODE AND THE MANUFACTURER'SINSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.COSYMBOLS&AND∠ANGLE@AT℄CENTERLINE⅊PLATE OR PROPERTY LINEØDIAMETER# NUMBERX LETTER01AA4.0441XA4.0COLUMN LINE REFERENCEDETAIL NUMBERSHEET NUMBERSECTION/ELEVATION LETTERSHEET NUMBERELEVATION INDICATORDOOR MARK, REFER TO SHEET A8.0FOR DOOR SCHEDULEPWINDOW MARK, REFER TO SHEET A8.0FOR WINDOW SCHEDULEWALL TYPE - REFER TO WALL TYPES SHEETAX.XKEY NOTE100 CFM ON TIMER50 CFM ON SWITCH100 CFM ON SWITCH-WHOLE HOUSE FANMECHANICAL VENTILATING SYSTEMS INBATHROOMS, LAUNDRY ROOMS ANDSIMILAR ROOMS SHOULD EXHAUSTDIRECTLY TO THE OUTSIDE. THE POINT OFDISCHARGE OF EXHAUST AIR SHALL BE ATLEAST THREE FEET FROM ANY OPENINGINTO THE BUILDING. WAC VIAQ 51-1331CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMSMOKE DETECTORSGENERAL NOTESAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) SITE PLANSCALE: 1:10EX. 16" PINETREERUNOFF DISSIPATIONSWALE (12" DEEP W/LEVEL TOP)20' SETBACK5.86'(5' MIN. SETBACK)9.17'(9' MIN. SETBACK)12.04'(12' MIN. SETBACK)13.18'(13' MIN. SETBACK)Site PlanA1.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKINGSEE CIVIL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING:1. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS2. UTILITY SERVICES (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)3. SITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS4. EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES5. CONTOURS & SPOT ELEVATIONS6. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS7. RETAINING WALLS8. PUBLIC WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAINSLANDSCAPE NOTES1. NO ADDITIONAL SPECIES WILL BE PLANTED.2. THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IS TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.1, SEE SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS2. ALL PLANTS ARE NATIVE DROUGHT TOLLERANT SPEICES TO BE IRRAGATED BY RAINWATER/GRAY-WATER SYSTEM3. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN9. DETAILED SET BACK AND ELEVATIONSAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) ABCD1FLOOR PLAN: ROOF LEVELSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4A4.11A3.02A3.03A3.04A3.02X WOOD DECKING2X WOOD SLEEPERTPO ROOF MEMBRANEROOF DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"2Floor PlansRoof LevelA2.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING1. ALL WALL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNO.2. WHERE INDICATED, REQUIRED MINIMUM CLEARANCES ARE MEASURED TO FACE OFFINISH MATERIAL AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE WALLS ARE FRAMED.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WALL DEPTH WHERE ANY EQUIPMENT IS TO BE RECESSED INWALL.4. WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT FULL HEIGHT TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAMING,TYPICAL U.N.O.5. VERIFY ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES WITH OWNER ORARCHITECT, PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER.6. ALL NEW EXTERIOR GRADE, CONC. PATIOS, DECKS, WALKWAYS SHALL SLOPE 14 INCHPER FOOT MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING, TYPICAL.7. SEE MEP FOR GENERAL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING NOTES ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.ROOM REQUIREMENTS8. CEILING HEIGHT AT ALL HABITABLE ROOMS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7'-6" (REFERTO PLANS FOR ACTUAL CEILING HEIGHTS).9. GLAZING IN NEW DOORS AND NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING (FULLYTEMPERED GLASS), PER CBC 2406.3, SEE WINDOW AND DOOR NOTES FOR SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS, AND ELEVATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR TEMPEREDGLASS LOCATIONS.10. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AT ALL BEDROOMS, HALLS LEADING TO BEDROOMSAND ONE AT EACH FLOOR PER 2013 CBC SECTION 907.1PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 1-1/2-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR SWINGS OVER LANDING.2PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 7-3/4-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER LANDING,Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) 6543212111314FEA10Kitchen12'-0"x11'-0"140 FT²Living12'-0"x16'-0"200 FT²Bedroom 19'-0"x13'-0"125 FT²Garage20'-0"x20'-0"400 FT²EntryADUSLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO DRAINFUTURE STAIRFUTURE ROLLINGBARN DOORFLOOR PLAN: TOP LEVELSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4A4.11A3.02A3.03A3.04A3.0Floor PlansTop LevelA2.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING1. ALL WALL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNO.2. WHERE INDICATED, REQUIRED MINIMUM CLEARANCES ARE MEASURED TO FACEOF FINISH MATERIAL AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE WALLS ARE FRAMED.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WALL DEPTH WHERE ANY EQUIPMENT IS TO BERECESSED IN WALL.4. WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT FULL HEIGHT TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAMING,TYPICAL U.N.O.5. VERIFY ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES WITH OWNER ORARCHITECT, PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER.6. ALL NEW EXTERIOR GRADE, CONC. PATIOS, DECKS, WALKWAYS SHALL SLOPE 14INCH PER FOOT MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING, TYPICAL.7. SEE MEP FOR GENERAL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING NOTES ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.ROOM REQUIREMENTS8. CEILING HEIGHT AT ALL HABITABLE ROOMS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7'-6"(REFER TO PLANS FOR ACTUAL CEILING HEIGHTS).9. GLAZING IN NEW DOORS AND NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING (FULLYTEMPERED GLASS), PER CBC 2406.3, SEE WINDOW AND DOOR NOTES FOR SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS, AND ELEVATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE FORTEMPERED GLASS LOCATIONS.10. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AT ALL BEDROOMS, HALLS LEADING TOBEDROOMS AND ONE AT EACH FLOOR PER 2013 CBC SECTION 907.11. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE BY OWNER AND ENERGY STAR RATED.1PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 1-1/2-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR SWINGS OVER LANDING.2PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 7-3/4-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER LANDING,34'-10" X 4'-4" ELEVATOR. MODEL TBDAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Living18'-0"x16'-0"288 FT²Kitchen18'-0"x15'-0"260 FT²Master Bedroom12'-0"x14'-0"168 FT²Guest Bedroom11'-2"x13'-3"148 FT²Guest Bedroom11'-5"x13'-3"151 FT²FLOOR PLAN: MAIN LEVELSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"789151617181920212223GHiJKLMN4A4.11A3.02A3.03A3.04A3.0XXFloor PlansMain LevelA2.2SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING1. ALL WALL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNO.2. WHERE INDICATED, REQUIRED MINIMUM CLEARANCES ARE MEASURED TO FACEOF FINISH MATERIAL AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE WALLS ARE FRAMED.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WALL DEPTH WHERE ANY EQUIPMENT IS TO BERECESSED IN WALL.4. WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT FULL HEIGHT TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAMING,TYPICAL U.N.O.5. VERIFY ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES WITH OWNER ORARCHITECT, PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER.6. ALL NEW EXTERIOR GRADE, CONC. PATIOS, DECKS, WALKWAYS SHALL SLOPE 14INCH PER FOOT MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING, TYPICAL.7. SEE MEP FOR GENERAL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING NOTES ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.ROOM REQUIREMENTS8. CEILING HEIGHT AT ALL HABITABLE ROOMS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7'-6"(REFER TO PLANS FOR ACTUAL CEILING HEIGHTS).9. GLAZING IN NEW DOORS AND NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING (FULLYTEMPERED GLASS), PER CBC 2406.3, SEE WINDOW AND DOOR NOTES FOR SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS, AND ELEVATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE FORTEMPERED GLASS LOCATIONS.10. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AT ALL BEDROOMS, HALLS LEADING TOBEDROOMS AND ONE AT EACH FLOOR PER 2013 CBC SECTION 907.11. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE BY OWNER AND ENERGY STAR RATED1PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 1-1/2-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR SWINGS OVER LANDING.2PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 7-3/4-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER LANDING,34'-10" X 4'-4" ELEVATOR. MODEL TBDAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) PR24MECHANICALROOMBedroom9'-2"x14'-4"131 FT²REC ROOM17'-10"x10'-9"192 FT²FAMILY ROOM17'-10"x16'-3"290 FT²7'-5"6'-5"13'-10"7'-2"12'-512"5'-1012"4'-5"6'-0"16'-5"5'-3"5'-012"7'-212"13'-312"CLOSETFLOOR PLAN: BOTTOM LEVELSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"29Q25282730O264A4.11A3.02A3.03A3.04A3.04A4.14A4.1Floor PlansBottom LevelA2.3SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING1. ALL WALL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNO.2. WHERE INDICATED, REQUIRED MINIMUM CLEARANCES ARE MEASURED TO FACEOF FINISH MATERIAL AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE WALLS ARE FRAMED.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WALL DEPTH WHERE ANY EQUIPMENT IS TO BERECESSED IN WALL.4. WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT FULL HEIGHT TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAMING,TYPICAL U.N.O.5. VERIFY ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES WITH OWNER ORARCHITECT, PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER.6. ALL NEW EXTERIOR GRADE, CONC. PATIOS, DECKS, WALKWAYS SHALL SLOPE 14INCH PER FOOT MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING, TYPICAL.7. SEE MEP FOR GENERAL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING NOTES ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.ROOM REQUIREMENTS8. CEILING HEIGHT AT ALL HABITABLE ROOMS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7'-6"(REFER TO PLANS FOR ACTUAL CEILING HEIGHTS).9. GLAZING IN NEW DOORS AND NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING (FULLYTEMPERED GLASS), PER CBC 2406.3, SEE WINDOW AND DOOR NOTES FOR SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS, AND ELEVATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE FORTEMPERED GLASS LOCATIONS.10. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AT ALL BEDROOMS, HALLS LEADING TOBEDROOMS AND ONE AT EACH FLOOR PER 2013 CBC SECTION 907.11. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE BY OWNER AND ENERGY STAR RATED1PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 1-1/2-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR SWINGS OVER LANDING.2PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 7-3/4-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER LANDING.34'-10" X 4'-4" ELEVATOR. MODEL TBD4WATER HEATER, SIZE AND MODEL TBDAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) EFGHA710'-0"+0'-0"LEVEL 1+10'-0"CEILING+11'-0"LEVEL 2+22'-11"CEILING+24'-6"LEVEL 3+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER1'-0"11'-11"1'-7"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2"+15'-9"LEVEL 2.5+24'-8"CEILING+26'-6"ENTRY LEVEL+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER8'-11"1'-10"8'-0"1'-0"4'-2"+0'-0"LEVEL 115'-9"SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"C+0'-0"LEVEL 1+11'-0"LEVEL 2+24'-6"LEVEL 311'-11"+34'-6"CEILING1'-0"1'-0"+24'-8"CEILING+26'-6"ENTRY LEVEL8'-0"4'-2"JKL5610'-0"+10'-0"CEILING+22'-11"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER1'-7"10'-0"4'-2"+15'-9"LEVEL 2.5+34'-6"CEILING8'-11"+35'-6"ROOF DECK+11'-0"LEVEL 2.51'-0"1'-10"+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER15'-9"O29RML-3ML-3ML-4ML-4ML-4ML-1ML-1ML-1ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-1ML-2ML-2ML-6ML-5ML-4ML-4ML-3ML-1ML-1ML-3ML-2ML-2ML-1ML-27'-5"6'-5"7'-2"12'-512"5'-1012"27'-10"ML-2NOTES:FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE SHEET A8.1ML-1ML-5COLOR/FINISHEXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULETAGMATERIALML-2MAT BLACK ANODIZEDREMARKSALUMINUMML-4ML-3CLEAR ANODIZEDALUMINUM6" T&GMAHOGANYCONCRETEBOARD FORMEDML-6ALUMINUM PANELCLEAR ANODIZEDCAST IN PLACECONCRETEElevationsA3.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKINGSWISS PEARL PANELSCarat Onyx 7091-11MEG WALL PANELSMEG #754 CSAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) NMD2110+15'-9"LEVEL 2.5+24'-8"CEILING+26'-6"ENTRY LEVEL+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER8'-11"1'-10"8'-0"1'-0"4'-2"EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"+0'-0"LEVEL 115'-9"P+10'-0"CEILING+24'-6"LEVEL 31'-7"Bi349810'-0"+0'-0"LEVEL 1+11'-0"LEVEL 2+22'-11"CEILING+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK1'-0"+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER11'-11"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2"Q25ML-1ML-2ML-4ML-4ML-41A4.01A4.0+35'-6"ROOF DECK4'-6"+31'-0"STAIR LANDINGML-1ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-2ML-4ML-4ML-3NOTES:FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE SHEET A8.1ML-1ML-5COLOR/FINISHEXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULETAGMATERIALML-2MAT BLACK ANODIZEDREMARKSALUMINUMML-4ML-3CLEAR ANODIZEDALUMINUM6" T&GMAHOGANYCONCRETEBOARD FORMEDML-6ALUMINUM PANELCLEAR ANODIZEDCAST IN PLACECONCRETEElevationsA3.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING12.0755 ft13.1000 ftPROPERTY LINE AT FRONT CORNER OF HOUSEPROPERTY LINE AT BACK CORNER OF HOUSE9.1100 ft5.8656 ftPROPERTY LINE AT FRONT CORNER OF HOUSEPROPERTY LINE AT BACK CORNER OF HOUSEWood panels MEG #754 CS This one looked the nicest in person, looking at the screen I am not so sure.Here is the web sitehttp://megwallpanels.com/samples.htmlThe other colors I put on the color board are:Black Opal 7025Carat Onyx 7099-11Carat Agate 7219Carat Onyx 7091-11Carat Onyx 7091-11SWISS PEARL PANELSMEG WALL PANELSMEG #754 CSAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) LIVING ROOMKITCHENSEE STRUCTURAL10'-0"+0'-0"LEVEL 1+10'-0"CEILING+11'-0"LEVEL 2+22'-11"CEILING+24'-6"LEVEL 3+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER1'-0"11'-11"1'-7"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2"3'-0"1'-0"1134"2'-0"10'-0"3'-1"1'-6"2'-0"4'-0"1'-0"4"1'-11"9'-1012"6"1'-4"4"5'-112"10'-412"+15'-9"LEVEL 2.5+24'-8"CEILING+26'-6"ENTRY LEVEL+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK1'-0"8'-11"8'-0"+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER1'-10"+11'-0"LEVEL 2.54'-2"15'-9"ADU KITCHENGARAGECLOSETBUILDING SECTION 1SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"+438.54BuildingSectionsA4.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) LIVING ROOMMECHLIVING ROOMGUEST BEDROOMADULIVING ROOMBEDROOM10'-0"+0'-0"LEVEL 1+10'-0"CEILING+11'-0"LEVEL 2+22'-11"CEILING+24'-6"LEVEL 3+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER1'-0"11'-11"1'-7"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2"+438.54+15'-9"LEVEL 2.5+24'-8"CEILING+26'-6"ENTRY LEVEL+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK1'-0"8'-11"8'-0"+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER1'-10"+11'-0"LEVEL 2.54'-2"15'-9"BUILDING SECTION 2SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"BuildingSectionsA4.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) 3'-6"1'-0"6"8'-0"3'-0"4'-6"2'-0"1'-0"S1S2S2S3STAIR 1: SECTIONSCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"2STAIR TOWER: ROOF LEVEL - 35'-6"SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"1S1S2S3+35'-6"ROOF DECK4'-6"+31'-0"LANDING+26'-6"ENTRY LEVEL+20'-3 1/2"LANDING+11'-0"LEVEL 24'-6"6'-212"9'-312"+35'-6"ROOF DECK+31'-0"LANDING+35'-6"ROOF DECK4'-6"+31'-0"LANDINGSTAIR TOWER: ENTRY LEVEL - 26'-6"SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"33'-9"8'-0"6"1'-0"8'-3"712"11"3'-6"STAIR TOWER: SECTIONSCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"4S4S4+20'-3 1/2"LANDING+11'-0"LEVEL 29'-312"STAIR TOWER: SECTIONSCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"5STAIR 4: LEVEL 3 - 11'-0"SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"4712"11"A6.0Stair DetailsSHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Windows ScheduleMarkT-24MARKWidthHeightTallest PointAreaS.F.FrameMaterialGlazingTemp.U-ValueHead Jamb SillNotesDetailsABCDEFGHiJKLMNOPQ3'-4"18'-2 1/2"61AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze3711'-8"3'-2"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze113'-4"3'-2"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze36AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze3910'-10"8'-0"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze149'-8"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze4'-0"428'-7 3/4"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze6'-8"7011'-11"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze5'-10"FinishClr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.214'-0" 5'-2" Aluminum Low-E Dual GlazeClr. Anod.Aluminum Low-E Dual GlazeClr. Anod.5810'-0" Aluminum Low-E Dual Glaze5'-10" Clr. Anod.10510'-0" Aluminum Low-E Dual Glaze10'-6 1/4" Clr. Anod.9311'-7" Aluminum Low-E Dual Glaze8'-0" Clr. Anod.62 Aluminum Low-E Dual Glaze14'-6" Clr. Anod.8010'-0" Aluminum Low-E Dual Glaze8'-0" Clr. Anod.11'-7"131'-6" Aluminum Low-E Dual Glaze8'-10" Clr. Anod.TEMP AS NOTED297'-2" Aluminum Low-E Dual Glaze4'-0" Clr. Anod.Door ScheduleMarkT-24MARKWidthHeightTallest PointAreaS.F.FrameMaterialGlazingTemp.U-ValueHead Jamb SillNotesDetails3'-0"8'-0"24AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze213'-0"7'-0"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze11511'-6"10'-0"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze10810'-10"10'-0"AluminumLow-E Dual Glaze12911'-11"Aluminum10'-10"FinishClr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.Clr. Anod.213'-0"7'-0"Aluminum Clr. Anod.17.57'-0"Aluminum2-6"Clr. Anod.217'-0"Aluminum3'-0"Clr. Anod.17.57'-0"Aluminum2'-6"Clr. Anod.197'-0"Aluminum Clr. Anod.Aluminum2'-8"Clr. Anod.Exterior Doors12345679101112131415161718192021222324AluminumLow-E Dual GlazeClr. Anod.AluminumLow-E Dual GlazeClr. Anod.243'-0"7'-10"AluminumLow-E Dual GlazeClr. Anod.12016'-0"Aluminum7'-6"Clr. Anod.Exterior Doors17.5Aluminum2'-6"Clr. Anod.7'-0"17.5Aluminum2'-6"Clr. Anod.7'-0"217'-0"Aluminum3'-0"Clr. Anod.217'-0"Aluminum3'-0"Clr. Anod.197'-0"Aluminum2'-8"Clr. Anod.17.57'-0"Aluminum2'-6"Clr. Anod.197'-0"Aluminum2'-8"Clr. Anod.217'-0"Aluminum3'-0"Clr. Anod.217'-0"Aluminum3'-0"Clr. Anod.Interior DoorsA7'-0"3'-4"10'-8"18'-212"B3'-2"7'-1114"3'-434"11'-8"9'-4"C3'-4"3'-2"7'-914"3'-2"9'-4"9'-4"DEF3'-0"2'-0"8'-0"4"9'-8"4'-0"10'-10"1'-6"TEMP AS NOTEDTEMPTEMPTEMP7'-914"3'-2"TEMP AS NOTED3'-11"6'-8"8'-734"3'-314"GTEMP AS NOTEDH11'-11"5'-10"TEMP AS NOTEDi4"11'-7"8'-0"TEMP AS NOTED4'-0"J10'-6"1'-6"11'-7"4"14'-6"TEMP AS NOTEDK1'-6"8'-10"10'-5"L7'-2"4'-0"TEMP AS NOTED5'-2"3'-0"4'-0"MN214'-0" 5'-2"OPQ10'-0"10'-614"TEMPTEMPTEMP18'-0"3'-0"7'-0"3'-0"23410'-0"11'-6"10'-10"10'-0"TEMPTEMPTEMPTEMP56213'-0"7'-0"213'-0"7'-0"3'-0"7'-10"719111'-11" Aluminum16'-0" Clr. Anod.8TEMP8911'-11"16'-0"11'-11"10'-10"Low-E Dual Glaze TEMPLow-E Dual Glaze TEMP7'-6"16'-0"10Low-E Dual Glaze TEMP111213142'-8"7'-0"7'-0"3'-0"7'-0"3'-0"7'-0"2'-6"157'-0"2'-6"16177'-0"2'-6"1819207'-0"3'-0"21222'-8"7'-0"2324Interior Doors710'-0"4'-0"3016'-0"2526R7'-0"4'-10"27285'-10"10'-0"10'-0"2925273016'-0"21RLow-E Dual Glaze10'-0"10'-0"8'-0"7'-0"10'-0"2'-8"Clr. Anod.287'-0"7'-4"3'-0"Aluminum292'-8"26AluminumAluminum7'-0"Clr. Anod.Aluminum2'-8" Clr. Anod.10'-0"19160TEMP AS NOTED7'-0"4'-10"Clr. Anod.33.847Clr. Anod.AluminumAluminumClr. Anod.Aluminum2'-6"TEMP AS NOTED17.5TEMPLow-E Dual GlazeClr. Anod.4'-0"2'-8"10'-0"Low-E Dual GlazeTEMP AS NOTED40TEMP AS NOTEDSAFETY GLAZING NOTES:GLAZING IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE SHOWN ON PLANS AS SAFETY GLAZING AS PER SECTION R308.4:A) GLAZING IN DOORS.B) GLAZING ADJACENT TO A DOOR WHERE THE NEAREST EXPOSED EDGE OF THE GLAZING IS WITHIN A 24INCH ARC OF EITHER VERTICAL EDGE OF THE DOOR IN A CLOSED POSITION AND WHERE THE BOTTOMEXPOSED EDGE OF THE GLAZING IS LESS THAN 60” ABOVE THE WALKING SURFACE. EXCEPTIONS:I) GLAZING IN WALLS ON THE LATCH SIDE OF AND PERPENDICULAR TO THE PLANE OF THE DOOR IN ACLOSED POSITION.II) GLAZING THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE FIXED PANEL OF PATIO DOORS.C) GLAZING IN INDIVIDUAL FIXED OR OPERABLE PANELS THAT MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWINGCONDITIONS:I) EXPOSED AREA OF AN INDIVIDUAL PANE IS GREATER THAN 9 SQ FT, AND:II) EXPOSED BOTTOM EDGE IS LESS THAN 18” ABOVE THE FLOOR, AND:III) EXPOSED TOP EDGE IS GREATER THAN 36” ABOVE THE FLOOR, AND:IV) ONE OR MORE WALKING SURFACES ARE WITHIN 36” HORIZONTALLY OF THE PLANE OF THE GLAZING.D) GLAZING IN WALLS ENCLOSING STAIRWAY LANDINGS OR WITHIN 60” HORIZONTALLY OF THE BOTTOMTREAD OF STAIRWAYS WHERE THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE GLASS IS LESSTHAN 60” ABOVE THE NOSE OFTHE TREAD.E) GLAZING ADJACENT TO STAIRWAYS, LANDINGS AND RAMPS WITHIN 36” HORIZONTALLY OF A WALKINGSURFACE WHEN THE EXPOSED SURFACE OF THE GLASS IS LESS THAN 60” ABOVE THE PLANE OF ADJACENTWALKING SURFACE.GENERAL NOTES:1. SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEETS FOR WINDOW AND DOOR MARKS AND LOCATIONS.2. SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS FOR EXTERIOR DOOR TAGS AND INTERIOR DOOR SIZES.3. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS SHALL BE NFRC CERTIFIED AND SHALL BE LABELED WITH NFRC CERTIFIED U-FACTOR.4. ALL GLAZING TO BE TEMPERED GLASS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CBC REQUIREMENTS.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WINDOW AND DOOR EXISTING OPENINGS ARE SQUARE, LEVEL AND PLUM BEFOREINSTALLING WINDOW/ DOOR UNITS.6. FLASH WINDOW PER AAMA STANDARDS AND MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS WITH SELF ADRHERED MEMBRANEFLASHING INSTALLED IN "SHINGLE STEP" MANNOR.7. ALL HARDWARE TO BE FACTORY STANDARD UON.8. FLASH & WEATHER PROOF WINDOWS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.9. CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL EXISTING OPENING DIMENSIONS IN FIELD PRIOR TO ORDERING WINDOWS & DOORS.PLEASE BRING DISCREPANCIES TO ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT. ALL SIZES NOTED IN WINDOW SCHEDULEDESIGNATE FINISHED OPENINGS. ADJUST UNIT SIZE TO SUIT MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.10. EGRESS WINDOW MUST HAVE AN OPENABLE AREA OF AT LEAST 5.7 S.F.WITH A MIN. OPENABLE WIDTH OF 20" AND MIN.OPENABLE HEIGHT OF 24". THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING SHALL NOT EXCEED 44" AOVE FINISHED FLOOR.11. OPENABLE WINDOWS SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 10 FT FROM PLUMBING VENTS, CHIMNEYS, ETC. PER R303.5.A8.0Door & WindowScheduleSHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) W/DKitchen12'-0"x11'-0"140 FT²Living12'-0"x16'-0"200 FT²Bedroom 19'-0"x13'-0"125 FT²Garage20'-0"x20'-0"400 FT²EntryADUWPWPWPWPGG220G220FUTURECARCHARGINGSTATION$$$$3$3$$$$ $WPVUPPER LEVEL: ELECTRICAL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ROOF: ELECTRICAL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"$3$3$S/CS/CS/CS/C100 AMP SUB PANEL$333AFCIAFCI$$RECEPTACLE FOR GARAGEDOOR OPENERWPM$100 AMP SUB PANEL2 @ 200 AMP MAIN SERVICEPANEL AND METERUNDERGROUND SERVICEELECTRICAL LEGENDELECTRICAL RECEPTACLEGFCI RECEPTACLEAFCI RECEPTACLEWEATHER PROOF RECEPTACLEFLOOR MOUNTED ELECTRICALRECEPTACLEQUAD RECEPTACLE22O RECEPTACLESWITCHTHREE WAY SWITCHFOUR WAY SWITCHDIMMER SWITCHMOTION SENSOR SWITCHPHONE/ETHERNETCOAXIAL/DATAELECTRICAL PANELTHERMOSTATLED STRIP LIGHT UNDER COUNTERD$$4$3$WPG220EPM$CEILING MTD. FIXTUREWALL MTD. FIXTUREFAN / VENTVS/CCARBON MONOXIDE & SMOKEDETECTORAFCIRECESSED CAN LIGHTLOW VOLTAGE DOWN LIGHTTVTV CABLE CONNECTIONELECTRICAL PANELElectric andLighting PlanE1.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) MechanicalRoomBedroom9'-2"x14'-4"131 FT²Living17'-10"x10'-9"192 FT²Living17'-10"x16'-3"290 FT²W/DLiving18'-0"x16'-0"288 FT²Kitchen18'-0"x15'-0"260 FT²Master Bedroom12'-0"x14'-0"168 FT²Guest Bedroom12'-0"x13'-0"156 FT²Guest Bedroom12'-0"x13'-0"156 FT²W/D220220GGGG$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4220G$$$ $$$VVVVLOWER LEVEL: ELECTRICAL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"MAIN LEVEL: ELECTRICAL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"$$$$$333$$$$S/CS/CS/CS/CS/CS/CS/CS/CWP4$43WP$$$333TV$$33AFCIAFCI$WP$$$MAFCIAFCI100 AMP SUB PANEL100 AMP SUB PANELELECTRICAL LEGENDELECTRICAL RECEPTACLEGFCI RECEPTACLEAFCI RECEPTACLEWEATHER PROOF RECEPTACLEFLOOR MOUNTED ELECTRICALRECEPTACLEQUAD RECEPTACLE22O RECEPTACLESWITCHTHREE WAY SWITCHFOUR WAY SWITCHDIMMER SWITCHMOTION SENSOR SWITCHPHONE/ETHERNETCOAXIAL/DATAELECTRICAL PANELTHERMOSTATLED STRIP LIGHT UNDER COUNTERD$$4$3$WPG220EPM$CEILING MTD. FIXTUREWALL MTD. FIXTUREFAN / VENTVS/CCARBON MONOXIDE & SMOKEDETECTORAFCIRECESSED CAN LIGHTLOW VOLTAGE DOWN LIGHTTVTV CABLE CONNECTIONELECTRICAL PANELElectric andLighting PlanE1.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) W/DKitchen12'-0"x11'-0"140 FT²Living12'-0"x16'-0"200 FT²Bedroom 19'-0"x13'-0"125 FT²Garage20'-0"x20'-0"400 FT²EntryADUUPPER LEVEL: MECHANICAL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"POWER SUPPLYPHASE, CYCLE, VOLTAGE1 PHASE, 60Hz, 208230VCOOLINGRATED CAPACITY18000 Btu/H (5.28 kWCAPACITY RANGE8000 - 18000 Btu/h (2.3 - 5.3 kW)TOTAL INPUTENERGY EFFICIENCY SEERSENSIBLE HEAT FACTOR2150 W (2.200 kW)14.32150 W (2.200 kW)0.8HEATING AT 47° FRATED CAPACITYCAPACITY RANGETOTAL INPUTHSPF (REGION IV)19000 Btu/h (5.6 kW)1540 W108000 - 20000 Btu/h (2.3 - 5.9 kW)HEATING AT 17° FCOP 2.5 Btu/BtuRECOMMENDEDFUSE/BREAKER SIZE15 AMPEREREFRIGERANTOIL TYPE0.65 (MEL 56) [20]TYPER410ACHARGE1.7 [3lbs 12ozEXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE0.02 -0.06-0.14 -0.20 In. WG (5-15-35 -Pa)AIRFLOWCOOLING: DRY12-15-18 CFM (423-529-635 m³/minCOOLING: WET11-14-17 m³/min (381-476-572 CFM)DIMENSIONS H X W X DHEIGHT 7-7/8 INCHES (200 mm)WIDTH46-7/8 INCHES (1190 mm)DEPTH 27-9/16 INCHES (700 mm)60 lbs. (27 kg)NET WEIGHT1-9/32 INCHES (32 mm)FIELD DRAINPPE SIZE O.D.FLARED / FLAREDREFRIGERANT PIPINGCONNECTION METHOD INDOOR / OUTDOOROPERATION CONDITIONS-INDOOR INTAKE AIRTEMPERATURECOOLING - MAXIMUM - DB , WB95° (35°C) DB, 71°F (22°C) WBCOOLING - MINIMUM - DB , WBHEATING - MAXIMUM - DB , WBHEATING - MINIMUM - DB , WB67° (19°C) DB, 57°F (14°C) WB80° (27°C) DB, 67°F (19°C) WB70° (21°C) DB, 60°F (16°C) WBOPERATION CONDITIONS-OUTDOOR INTAKE AIRTEMPERATURECOOLING - MAXIMUM - DB , WB115° (46°C) DBCOOLING - MINIMUM - DB , WBHEATING - MAXIMUM - DB , WBHEATING - MINIMUM - DB , WB0° (-18°C) DB70° (21°C) DB, 59°F (15°C) WB12° (-11°C) DB, 10°F (-12°C) WBMODEL NUMBER PEA-A18AA4/PUZ-A18NHA4MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC P-SERIES HEAT PUP - INDOOR UNITSVHV4" BATH VENT SIDEWALLHOOD VENTMECHANICAL LEGENDMITSUBISHI HORIZONTALDUCTLESS UNITMINI SPLIT 220FAN / VENTVHOOD FAN / VENTHVMechanicalPlansM1.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) MechanicalRoomBedroom9'-2"x14'-4"131 FT²Living17'-10"x10'-9"192 FT²Living17'-10"x16'-3"290 FT²W/DLiving18'-0"x16'-0"288 FT²Kitchen18'-0"x15'-0"260 FT²Master Bedroom12'-0"x14'-0"168 FT²Guest Bedroom12'-0"x13'-0"156 FT²Guest Bedroom12'-0"x13'-0"156 FT²W/DLOWER LEVEL: MECHANICAL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"MAIN LEVEL: MECHANICAL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"VVVHVVVV4" BATH VENT SIDEWALL4" BATH VENT SIDEWALLHOOD VENT4" DRYER VENT IN CRAWLSPACE SIDEWALL4" BATH VENT SIDEWALL4" DRYER VENT IN CRAWLSPACE SIDEWALL4' VENT W/ DAMPERSIDEWALLMECHANICAL LEGENDMITSUBISHI HORIZONTALDUCTLESS UNITMINI SPLIT 220FAN / VENTVHOOD FAN / VENTHVMechanicalPlansM1.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) WinterShadingDiagramA5.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue1520 11th Ave Suite GSeattle WA 98122[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2013These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in Palm Springs,CA. They are not intended for use onany other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CAAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: f - Reduced Project Plans (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, approximately 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R -1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. Project Description The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment F, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 442 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Two stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure Outdoor space for both units is provided through a combination of decks facing westward and on the roof, keeping all hardscape under 2,500 square feet. The remainder of the site would remain in its natural state. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, reduce glare, and screen freeway views from inside the house. As conditioned, landscaping to undisturbed portions of the site will be limited to native trees and plantings, which will help the home blend into the site. A rain catchment system has been proposed to provide controlled overflow release to maintain historical sheet flow of site drainage. 14.g Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure1) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces Lot 1 3 (1 space for SDU) 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations PROJECT ANALYSIS The project site is located within one of the City’s Hillside Planning Areas (The Cal Poly-Cuesta Park Area) the applicant has designed the project in accordance with the Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development Standards and the Land Use Element 6.4 Hillside Policies. The Community Design Guidelines are intended to assist in implementing General Plan Hillside Policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development. Site Plan: The project has been designed on a legal residential property entirely within the urban reserve line. The proposed residence is located close to Buena Vista Avenue in order to design a driveway that minimizes the amount of grading to access the site (LUE 6.4.3.E). The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% sloped driveway which complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access . As discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, access from Loomis Street has been determined infeasible due to the 60% slope along Loomis Street and all utility connections have been provided for the site from Buena Vista Avenue. Grading: Per the City’s grading standards (MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The project has been designed to avoid a large single elevation graded pad and instead provides a more careful stepped foundation with piers that includes all required grading within the building area. The project complies with the City’s grading standards. Site Access: The residence is located close to the street in order to design a driveway that does minimizes the amount of grading to access the site (LUE 6.4.3.E). The Parking and Driveway 1 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 14.g Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway. The driveway complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access2. Height Exceptions: Section 17.16.040 of the zoning ordinance establishes the maximum building height per zone. Any variation from these limits requires the approval of a variance except for buildings within the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and the Office (O) zone that may be approved through an Administrative Use Permit for a maximum height of 35 feet3. The use permit may be approved upon findings that the exception will be consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and that the exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum building height from average natural grade4 where 25 feet is normally allowed in the R-1 zone (see Figure 1). From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as less than a single story structure due to the downslope of the driveway. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a relatively small building footprint. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020, Yards, state that a 20 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone as measured from the right-of-way line to the nearest point of the wall of any building. The Parking and Driveway Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Site Access. Each driveway shall follow natural terrain contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize both the extent of g rading and the visibility of the driveway… (c) A driveway shall not have a grade steeper than five percent within 10 feet of a garage or carport entry. Driveway finished grade shall not exceed an average of 15 percent. 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit). 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. 14.g Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The maximum slope allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway, which places the ceiling of the garage at 28 feet above the average natural grade. The minor height exception of three feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site that limit the location of a required covered parking space in the R-1 zone. Maximum building height per zone has been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed three foot exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size, as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment F, Solar Study. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. Setback Exception: Section 17.16.020 Table 3 establishes the minimum required other yard setback for the R-1 zone. Other yard setbacks, more commonly known as side yard setbacks, are measured from the property line to the nearest point of the wall of any building5. The height of a building in relation to a yard setback is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured from a specific distance from the property line. For reference, a structure with a wall that is 35 feet tall that faces the side yard property line requires a setback of 15 feet in the R-1 zone. Section 17.16.020.E.2 identifies specific exceptions from the setback requirements that are discretionary through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. These discretionary exceptions have to meet specific findings in order to grant approval. To clarify, these exceptions are not variances and are not required to meet variance findings. Any exception that is not identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2 would require the approval of a variance. The discretionary exception that is being requested for the proposed project is an exception to the other yard setback in relation to building height which may be granted upon finding any of the following circumstances identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2.e.6 5 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 6 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted i n any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. 14.g Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Upon approval of a use permit, the director (now Planning Commission) may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. The applicant is requesting a 12-foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 12 square feet of the structure would intrude up to 3 feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the sloping nature of the site, and the fact that the setback adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, (open space), this minor setback exception will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access or privacy. Special Considerations Overlay: Chapter 17.56 of the Zoning Regulations stipulates that a property with a Special Considerations (S) zone overlay requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit before any use may be established. The intent of the Permit is to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings and conformance with the General Plan. The Special Considerations zone overlay was added to this location to address development on the sloping site and views from Highway 101. An Administrative Hearing Officer (now the Planning Commission) may establish conditions relating to improvements, building location, or access which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the intent of Special Consideration zone overlay. The proposed single-family residence at this location has been designed in a way that minimizes impacts related to development on the sloping site in conformance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and Hillside Development Guidelines. By locating the residence as close to the street as possible, while maintaining adequate street yard setback requirements, significantly reduces the amount of grading (35 cubic yards) that would otherwise be necessary for the driveway. The proposed single-family residence has been designed in a way that keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. In conclusion, the single family residence has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. A full project evaluation for compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the City’s Grading Ordinance will be conducted as part of the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Building Design: The Community Design Guidelines state that the building design of an infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood. The Land Use Element Hillside Development Policies state that development of structures on hillsides shall keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes, avoid large continuous walls, and use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape (LUE 6.4.3). 14.g Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Hillside Integration: The residence has been designed and located on site that does not block views from adjacent properties. There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent property to the north is zoned Conservation Open Space. The property to the south has not yet been developed and can provide adequate room on the site for a building to be designed that includes private outdoor space, due to the odd L-shape of the lot. The structure is also located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101 or Cuesta Park; two existing residences are located approximately 30 feet above the subject property directly on the ridgeline7. All hillside vegetation will be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so not to destroy the natural character of the site. The property can also be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound; the project site is located outside of the State designated scenic corridor as the project site is within city limits. The residence is only prominently visible from Highway 101 for approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed limits) from a distance of 3,000 feet, prior to this stretch of Highway 101 the hillside that the project site is located on is insignificant when compared to the views of the surrounding hillsides. Views toward the property are also compromised by several billboards and existing residences on the hillside that project above the ridgeline. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories that decrease the mass of the structure when viewed from Highway 101. Required landscaping further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Over time the proposed Oak trees will provide additional screening of the property when viewed from Highway 101 similarly to the two residences at the top of the ridgeline. Form and Mass: The proposed residence is located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with residences ranging in size from 4,230 square feet to 1,500 square feet. The average home size in the neighborhood is approximately 2,633 square feet (excluding the garage). The residence has been designed below the average at 1,921 square feet and is compatible with the neighborhood. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, recessed windows and entries, balconies, and the slope of the lot to relieve the form and mass of the building. 7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Placement of Structures. Each proposed structure shall be located so that: (c) The silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest ridge or knoll when viewed from a public street is minimized. Figure 1: (Left) rendering from downhill (Right) rendering from Highway 101. 14.g Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Colors and Materials: The design of the residence includes exterior colors that emphasize dark earth tones that blend the structure with the natural appearance of the hillside and emphasizes wood as the primary natural-appearing material. The structure demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. All elevations include interesting architectural treatments. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, which reduce glare from the exterior windows. Staff is in support of the proposed colors and materials because they are consistent with the Hillside Development standards for building design. Roof Deck: Per the City’s grading standards (MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the SDU and providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are met including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction; the project complies with this requirement. Height of Lowest Floor Level: The applicant’s original design of the residence included a third level that was proposed in order to maintain compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development8. In order to address concerns from the Planning Commission Hearing on September 23, 2015 the applicant met with city staff and evaluated removing the third level from the residence and alternatively cantilevering the main floor over the natural grade of the site to exceed a height of six feet on the north-east corner of the residence, see Figure 2. Staff supports the proposal because the removal of the third level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. Staff is in support of the columns below the lowest floor on the downhill side to exceed six feet with an unenclosed design to be an integral feature of the architectural design. 4.3 Secondary Dwelling Unit: The purpose of Chapter 17.21 is substantially served. The proposed project meets all performance standards for Secondary Dwelling Units, set forth by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.21.010). Table 1 below summarizes the performance standards and indicates if each is met, not met, or not applicable. 8 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Height of Lowest Floor Level. The vertical distance between the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should not exceed six feet. Figure 2: (top) Original three level design (bottom) Revised two level design. 14.g Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Table 1: Summary of Performance Standards - Secondary Dwelling Units # Performance Standard Status 1 Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. Complies 2 Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Complies 3 Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. Complies 4 Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) Complies 5 The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two-story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced overlook. Complies 6 Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Complies 7 Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Complies 8 Significant alterations to landform or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged. Complies 9 A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary unit and adjacent properties Complies 10 Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district. For two care garages, parking for primary dwelling may be provided in tandem to allow one parking space in the driveway for the secondary dwelling unit. Complies 11 Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. N/A The project is also consistent with Purpose “4” (Section 17.21.010) for Secondary Dwelling Units because the project expands housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. The project is also consistent with Housing Element Program 6.109 because it increases residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866 (2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. 9 General Plan Housing Element Program 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. 14.g Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: g - Detailed Project Analysis (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Meeting Date: September 23, 2015 Item Number: #2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception, with a categorical exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) to allow development of a single-family residence with exceptions to property development standards, subject to findings and conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines BACKGROUND The applicant has applied for an Administrative Use Permit to request to allow construction of a single family residence in the Single Family Residential Zone with Special Considerations overlay (R-1-S) zone, with exceptions to allow a maximum height of 28 feet from average grade where 25 feet would be allowed, and a 12 foot yard setback where 15 feet would be required. The home and secondary dwelling would occupy an existing legal lot and also be subject to architectural review. A use permit is required to allow the establishment of any new use within the Special Considerations (S-overlay) zone. The S-overlay is in place at the subject location due to the visibility of Highway 101 and the sensitive nature of hillside development. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project, members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address the concerns of the members of the public for developing a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at the subject location. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW At the discretion of the Community Development Director, an Administrative Use Permit may be referred to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director has referred this review to the Planning Commission given the public controversy of developing the site. The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The design review of the proposed house and secondary dwelling unit will occur separately from this Use Permit through a minor architectural review permit SDU-1521-2015. Secondary dwelling unit regulations state that all requests shall be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and no additional application fees for architectural review shall be required (Zoning Regulations 17.21.010). Because the secondary dwelling unit is attached to the residence, the architectural design of both the residence and the secondary dwelling unit will be reviewed through the application SDU-1521-2015. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, approximately 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) Lot Coverage Existing: 0% Proposed: 12% Allowed: 40% The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade of approximately 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 2.2 Project Description The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,802 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 438 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Three stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure Outdoor space for both units is provided through a combination of decks facing westward and on the roof, keeping all hardscape under 2,500 square feet. The remainder of the site would remain in its natural state. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, reduce glare, and screen freeway views from inside the house. As conditioned, landscaping to undisturbed portions of the site will be limited to native trees and plantings, which will help the home blend into the site. A rain catchment system has been proposed to provide controlled overflow release to maintain historical sheet flow of site drainage. 2.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure 1) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces Lot 1 3 (1 space for SDU) 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations 1 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 Other Yard Building Height Exception: Upon approval of a use permit, the director may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure 2. The applicant is requesting a 12 foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 17 square feet of the structure would intrude up to three feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the yard adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, a setback exception at this location is warranted to allow for a logical floor plan for the residence that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. Height exception: The applicant is also requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed (See Figure 1). With the approval of an administrative use permit an exception can be requested in the Low Density Residential zone for a maximum height of up to 35 feet 4. From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as a one story building due to the steep slope of the site. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a smaller building footprint. The steep slope of the site in this location means that the average height calculates to 28 feet instead of 25 feet above the average natural grade. The height exception for the additional 3-feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site including topography, setbacks, and grading requirements. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 3 Project Plans page A5.0. 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 Secondary Dwelling Unit: The purpose of Chapter 17.21 is substantially served. The proposed project meets all performance standards for secondary dwelling units, set forth by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.21.010). Table 1 below summarizes the performance standards and indicates if each is met, not met, or not applicable. Table 1: Summary of Performance Standards - Secondary Dwelling Units # Performance Standard Status 1 Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. Complies 2 Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Complies 3 Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. Complies 4 Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) Complies 5 The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two-story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced overlook. Complies 6 Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Complies 7 Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Complies 8 Significant alterations to landform or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged. Complies 9 A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary unit and adjacent properties Complies 10 Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district. Parking for secondary dwelling units may be provided in tandem to allow one parking space in the driveway for the secondary dwelling unit. Complies 11 Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. N/A The project is also consistent with Purpose “4” (Section 17.21.010) for secondary dwelling units because the project expands housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 3.2 Consistency with the General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element Residential Project Objectives (LUE 2.3.11) because the project includes adequate usable outdoor area, allows for pleasant views towards the project, and adequate parking is provided. The project design is consistent with the Land Use Element policy for Compatible Development (LUE 2.3.9) because the project continues the rhythm of development that reflects the existing development in the area including front yard setbacks, street orientation, and architectural design. The project is also consistent with Housing Element Program 6.10 5 because it increases residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866 (2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. 4.0 CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow a single-family residence with a minor setback reduction and a height exception of 3 feet. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure. The setback reduction is warranted due to the abnormal lot lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the adjacent land designation C/OS-5, that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. The property is a legal lot that is within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address development on the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Administrative Hearing August 27, 2015 (Staff Report) 4. Project Plans 5. Solar Study 5 General Plan Housing Element Program 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT EXCEPTION AND A SETBACK EXCEPTION WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the proposed addition will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will not constitute a grant of special privilege due to the constraints of the site that include an increasing average slope along the rear property line. 3. The adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access because the portion of the residence requiring a setback exception will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 4. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) 5. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slopes, and site grading is kept to a minimum. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application USE- 1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The proposed secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed separate from this Administrative Use Permit per Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.21.010. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The minimum setback from the north property line to the proposed structure shall not be less than 12 feet with a maximum wall height of 28 feet from the natural average grade. 5. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 6. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 7. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 8. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 9. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. (Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 10. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 13. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 14. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 15. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 20. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 22. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 23. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) 24. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 26. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 27. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 28. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 29. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of September, 2015. _____________________________ Steven, Secretary Planning Commission Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) PROJECT MODIFICATION OUTLINE FOR OCTOBER 28TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 48 Buena Vista (approximate) | San Luis Obispo, CA | APN# 052-136-045 1. Use Permit a. R1 S zone (requires use permit) b. Requesting 2 minor exceptions 2. Secondary Dwelling Unit Applications After two public meetings I have made some major changes and additions to address the concerns and comments of the public, and the commissioners’ feedback. 1. A lower level was originally added to the house to meet the Hillside Design Guidelines: lowest level floor should be within 6’ of grade. As this lower level was met with a great deal of concern both on the long term use of the space and the overall mass of the house, we have eliminated it. The result is a 38% reduction of mass from the Eastern elevation, view from 101. The house now floats on the hillside with no large foundation wall. The subtle support system will fade into the shadow of the house and the natural landscape that goes under the house will blur the actual height of the house from grade as it will only be seen from 600 feet away and 150 feet below from 101 or from Loomis. This was our initial design and think it will be brilliant. 2. We have reduced the upper deck by 60% based on the neighbors’ and commissioners’ comments, however the SLO General Plan specifically encourages front porches and front yards to promote community connectivity. The space that was formerly deck will become the front yard with irrigation free turf. After learning from all of my neighbors how dangerous the road in front of my house is, I am sure the neighbors, the city, and I, do not want my grandchildren to have to play in the street on what is known as Dead Man’s Curve. The slope of the lot does not allow for a rear yard so this solution meets the intention of the general plan and keeps my grandchildren safe. Additionally, the upper deck is like a front porch, as it is only 6’ above the road, that may encourage community connectivity. As one of the speakers pointed out, she rarely got to talk to her neighbors; maybe the neighbors will join us for a glass of wine or at least a chat as they pass by in the street. Asking for this to be removed would go directly against the city’s General Plan. I believe the noise attenuation aspect of the use permit would be more of an issue if you had different zones/uses, in this case it is all residential and the noise caused by a deck is within the allowable decibel levels for a residential zone. In addition, the closest neighbor to the deck is 110’ away and 20’ above the deck. 3. There were a lot of concerns expressed about the safety aspects of this particular location. So to increase neighborhood safety we have added a very space efficient rolled curb and gutter with sidewalk along our entire property to help get pedestrians off of the street on what is reported to be a dangerous curve. Additionally, I am Attachment J 14.j Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: j - Applicant Response Letter (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) proposing to install five speedbumps, one before my driveway and four coming down the hill toward the curve to help control the speed of the cars coming down the hill. I am sure the neighbors will support this to improve the safety of pedestrians, particularly those walking their dogs in the neighborhood. Even though we have more than the required line of site in both directions on the curve to our driveway, the speed bumps will insure we will not have speeding cars coming down the hill when we are backing out of our driveway. 4. The concern over parking does not take into account that with the length of the driveway and the garage we have room for up to six cars. The Secondary Dwelling Unit is less than 450 square feet, a studio apartment sized for one person, a couple at most. I would hardly describe the house as a multifamily situation. The SDU requires the house or SDU to be owner occupied so the concern of this being a student rental has no basis. One of the Commissioners kept referring to my request for variances. I am not asking for any variances. I am asking for two minor exceptions, both of which are addressed in the ordinances and I meet the guidelines for being granted both exceptions. Per 17.21.010 Secondary Dwelling Units, D. 1. b. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. The recommendation by one of the planning commissioners to not grant me any (variances) exceptions because I am asking for a Secondary Dwelling Unit, is not appropriate or understanding of why SDUs are allowed by rights per the state of California. The two requested exceptions to the City’s Property Development Standards are in the first case absolutely necessary to build the house, and the second case is well within the guidelines for granting such request for exceptions. No one is affected negatively by either one. 17.16.040 Height Maximum height R1 residential 25 ft. (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) 1. Requesting 28’ Maximum Height exception. This exception is required based on the maximum allowable driveway slope and height needed for the required garage. Due to the slope of the property and the above stated facts the minimum height based on average slope is 27’10”. This height is set back the required 12’ from the property line. This exception is below the maximum allowable exception of 35’ and is necessary to meet the covered parking requirement. Please note that even with this exception, the highest point on the house is only 6’ above the street level and does not affect the view of any neighbor. Attachment J 14.j Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: j - Applicant Response Letter (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) 17.16.020 Yards 2. Requesting a 12’ yard setback on less than 1% portion of the structure, when a 15’ is required. On the Northeast corner I am asking for an exception on the required yard setback due to the extreme slope. If I use the average grade dimension, I meet the setback but my understanding is you must use the most restrictive method. In this case I have a very small area that is less than the required yard based on the existing grade. The corner of the building measures 35’ from existing grade which requires a 15’ setback and I am proposing a 12’ setback. The area in question equates to .79%-- less than 1% of the total building square footage. In support of this request the bordering property is zoned COS 5. This zoning allows for 1 house per 5 acres. In addition, it requires a 20’ minimum yard, so that means that if someone chose to build a house as close as they could to mine, which is unlikely given their large 5-acre parcel and this is the steepest part of their property, the closest it could be is 32’. Additionally, there is a property line between two lots splitting my house so no one will build there. This exception is a total of less than 13’ over a 240’ common property line or less than 1 %. I believe this clearly meets the criteria outlined below. Director may allow exceptions to the standards provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5 of subsection C2 of this section. Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances, but in no case shall exceptions be granted for less than the minimum yard required: (Ord. 1365 (2000 Series) (part)) i. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning; ii. When the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. My request meets both of these findings and therefore should be granted. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of my request as well as your input on ways to improve my project. Please call or email me with any questions or additional information you may require. Jeff Kraft 503-575-5320 jkraft503@gmail.com Attachment J 14.j Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: j - Applicant Response Letter (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) appeal) Meeting Date: October 28, 2015 Item Number: #1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Second review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes height and setback exceptions, with a Categorical Exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving height and setback exceptions for the development of a single-family residence, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines SUMMARY The applicant has requested to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes height and setback exceptions on a sloping lot. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on September 23, 2015, and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the project to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Staff has reviewed the applicant’s response to Planning Commission direction items and finds the modified project plans and supporting information in compliance with Planning Commission direction. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) project based on findings, and subject to conditions. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission continued the project on September 23, 2015, to a date uncertain with direction (discussed in Section 3.0 below). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) and architectural design of the residence will be reviewed through a separate application SDU-1521-2015. The SDU regulations state that nothing prohibits an applicant from requesting exceptions or variances from any other section of the Zoning Regulations 1. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Background On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address public concerns over site development. On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the proposed project and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Specific Planning Commission directional items to be addressed by the applicant included: 1) Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 2) Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. 3) Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. 2.2 Site Information/Project Description/Project Statistics A detailed description of the site, project description and statistics can be found in the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission staff report which is Attachment 5 to this report. 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS At the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting the following directional items was provided to the applicant prior to taking final action on the project; 3.1 Directional Item #1: Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 1 Zoning Regulations 17.21.010.D.1; Performance Standards: Design Standards: Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) The applicant has revised project plans to remove the lower level of the residence and cantilever the middle floor (now, the lowest level) over the existing slope. The applicant has expressed that the intent of the residence was not to include a third level, however, a third level was provided to satisfy the Hillside Development Guidelines (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #1: Hillside Development Guidelines state that the lowest floor level should not exceed a vertical distance of six feet from the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure. To meet this requirement a third level was originally proposed. To determine compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines a finding will have to be made through the architectural review application SDU -1521-2015 that the removal of the lowest level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides for a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. This evaluation will occur following the Planning Commission’s review and action on the project. 3.2 Directional Item #2: Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. Due to the steep slope of the site there is limited space to provide private usable outdoor space for the residence. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the Secondary Dwelling Unit. In order to meet this requirement and maintain consistency with the Hillside Development Standards, the least impactful location on the site to provide this outdoor space is through the use of the roof and balconies. The size of the roof deck has been designed as the primary outdoor area for the primary residence. A balcony has been provided for the SDU that meets required private outdoor space. Absent adequate usable outdoor space on the site, the applicant has expressed concerns that his children may choose to play on the street. The applicant has revised the roof deck design to include artificial turf for a portion of the space (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #2: The closest existing residence to the property is located approximately 20 feet in elevation above the roof deck and over 110 feet away. It is not anticipated that noise generated from use of the roof deck will negatively impact adjacent neighbors more than any other usable outdoor area on any neighboring property, due to its location in relation to neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed roof deck does not generate any overlook concerns because the immediate adjacent properties are undeveloped. The property to the south that may accommodate future development has sufficient developable space that will not be affected by this project because the project complies with all applicable setback requirements along the adjoining property line shared between these two properties. The property to the north is designated as permanent open space that is over two acres in size; the project proposal will have no effect on this property. For these reasons staff is in support of the roof deck as proposed. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) 3.3 Directional item #3: Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. Conclusion #1: Staff has provided additional information to further clarify the requested exceptions and findings to support their approval consistent with the Zoning Regulations, please see sections below; Special Considerations Overlay: Chapter 17.56 of the Zoning Regulations stipulates that a property with a Special Considerations (S) zone overlay requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit before any use may be established. The intent of the Permit is to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings and conformance with the General Plan. The Special Considerations zone overlay was added to this location to address development on the sloping site and views from Highway 101. An Administrative Hearing Officer (now the Planning Commission) may establish conditions relating to improvements, building location, or access which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the intent of Special Consideration zone overlay. The proposed single-family residence at this location has been designed in a way that minimizes impacts related to development on the sloping site in conformance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and Hillside Development Guidelines. By locating the residence as close to the street as possible, while maintaining adequate street yard setback requirements, significantly reduces the amount of grading (35 cubic yards) that would otherwise be necessary for the driveway. The proposed single-family residence has been designed in a way that keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right- of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. In conclusion, the single family residence has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. A full project evaluation for compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the City’s Grading Ordinance will be conducted as part of the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Height exception: Section 17.16.040 of the zoning ordinance establishes the maximum building height per zone. Any variation from these limits requires the approval of a variance except for buildings within the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and the Office (O) zone that may be approved through an Administrative Use Permit for a maximum height of 35 feet 2. The use permit may be approved upon findings that the 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit). Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) exception will be consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and that the exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum building height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed in the R-1 zone (see Figure 1). From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as less than a single story structure due to the downslope of the driveway. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a relatively small building footprint. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020, Yards, state that a 20 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone as measured from the right-of-way line to the nearest point of the wall of any building. The Parking and Driveway Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The maximum slope allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway, which places the ceiling of the garage at 28 feet above the average natural grade. The minor height exception of three feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site that limit the location of a required covered parking space in the R-1 zone. Maximum building height per zone has been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed three foot exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right- of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size, as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 4, Solar Study. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. Other Yard Building Height Exception: Section 17.16.020 Table 3 establishes the minimum required other yard setback for the R-1 zone. Other yard setbacks, more commonly known as side yard setbacks, are measured from the property line to the nearest point of the wall of any building 4. The height of a building in relation to a yard setback is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured from a specific distance from the property line. For reference, a structure with a wall that is 35 feet tall that faces the side yard property line requires a setback of 15 feet in the R-1 zone. Section 17.16.020.E.2 identifies specific exceptions from the setback requirements that are discretionary through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. These discretionary exceptions have to meet specific findings in order to grant approval. To clarify, these exceptions are not variances and are not required to meet variance findings. Any exception that is not identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2 would require the approval of a variance. The discretionary exception that is being requested for the proposed project is an exception to the other yard setback in relation to building height which may be granted upon finding any of the following circumstances identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2.e.5 Upon approval of a use permit, the director (now Planning Commission) may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. The applicant is requesting a 12-foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 12 square feet of the structure would intrude up to 3 feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the sloping nature of the site, and the fact that the setback adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, (open space), this minor setback exception will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access or privacy. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 5 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 1989 the project site consisted of three lots approximately 5,000 square feet each that were proposed for a development project of three 3,000 square foot residences with access from Buena Vista (ARC 89-27 & U 1433). An Initial Study was required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of developing the three lots (ER 16-89). The Initial Study identified several mitigation measures requiring that the three lots be reconfigured into two legal lots. In 1990 the existing property was reviewed and approved for a Lot Line Adjustment that reconfigured the three lots into two legal lots (LLA 90-115). The two lots have been vacant since this that time and are individually owned. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Project Plans 4. Solar Study 5. PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report) 6. Draft PC Hearing Minutes 7. Applicant Response Letter Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 28, 2015 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: Special Considerations Overlay 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the single family residence is proposed on a Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) legal lot and has been designed to be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile below the ridgeline and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation, and site grading is kept to a minimum. 3. The project has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. 4. The project design incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside as viewed from Highway 101. 5. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks or height requirements because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. Height Exception 6. The additional three foot height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking space that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. Setback Exception 8. A reduced side yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access or privacy. The portion of the residence requiring a setback exception is only 14 square feet in area and will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 9. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application USE- 1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit and architectural design of the building shall be reviewed separate from this Use Permit per Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.21.010, through the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The minimum setback from the north property line to the proposed structure shall not be less than 12 feet with a maximum wall height of 28 feet from the natural average grade. 5. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 6. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 7. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 8. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 9. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. (Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 10. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary or permanent changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 13. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 14. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 15. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 16. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 17. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 18. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 20. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 22. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) 23. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 25. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 26. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 27. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 28. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 29. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Utilities Department 30. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 31. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 32. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 33. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 2015. _____________________________ Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director Planning Commission Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) (1230 : 48 Buena Vista Avenue (USE-1520-2015)