HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-2016 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, June 21, 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. CITYGATE REPORT ON SOUTHERN CITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON
FIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES (OLSON / CODRON – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Approve the updated Fire Master Plan; and
2. Provide City staff direction to incorporate into the revised Airport Area Specific Plan
(AASP) financial solutions to any funding gaps that may exist by t he provision of
essential City services in the southern City prior to the General Fund’s capacity to fully
support those services; and
3. Direct Staff to return with amendments to the Safety Element to align with the Fire
Master Plan goals; and
4. Determine that the Fire Master Plan is covered by the general rule and exempt under
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) 3 that CEQA applies
only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not
subject to CEQA.
ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2016 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 21, 2016 Page 2
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Ashbaugh
INTRODUCTIONS
2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW HIRES IN ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT (JOHNSON – 8 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Assistant City Manager and Interim Finance and Information Technology Director Johnson
to introduce the following employees:
Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager – Administration
Kelly Medina, Administrative Assistant III – Finance and Information Technology
Michael Reniere, Accounting Assistant III - Finance and Information Technology
PRESENTATIONS
3. PRESENTATION BY JOEL NEEL REPRESENTING CAL POLY, REGARDING
AN UPDATE ON CAL POLY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (NEEL – 10
MINUTES)
APPOINTMENTS
4. NOMINATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL COAST
COMMISSION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS (CCCSC), AREA AGENCY ON AGING
(PRICE / MAIER / GOODWIN – 5 MINUTES)
Recommendation
As recommended by Mayor Marx, nominate Julie Cox to serve a term beginning on July 1,
2016 through June 30, 2018, as the City of San Luis Obispo’s representative to the Central
Coast Commission for Senior Citizens Area Agency on Aging Board of Directors.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 21, 2016 Page 3
5. APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS CITY ADVISORY BODIES (PRICE / MAIER /
GOODWIN – 5 MINUTES)
Recommendation
In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Liaison Subcommittees:
1. Confirm the appointments of Ken Tasseff and Christopher Coates to the Citizens’
Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission to complete three-year terms each
expiring June 30, 2019; and
2. Confirm the reappointment of Ken Kienow to the Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement
Oversight Commission to complete a one-year term expiring June 30, 2017; and
3. Confirm the appointments of Greg Avakian and Keri Schwab to the Parks and
Recreation Commission to complete unexpired terms each through March 31, 2020; and
4. Confirm the appointment of Rodney Thurman to the Parks and Recreation Commission
to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2018; and
5. Confirm the appointment of Daniel Knight to the Planning Commission to complete an
unexpired term through March 31, 2017; and
6. Confirm the appointment of Richard Alan Bate to the Tree Committee to complete an
unexpired term through March 31, 2017.
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 an d all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 21, 2016 Page 4
6. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
7. SLO AIRPORT COLLABORATIVE PLANNING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
ISSUES DOCUMENT AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COLLABORATIVE (TAC)
OPERATING FRAMEWORK (CODRON / FOWLER)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives
and Issues Document and Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC) Operating Frame
Work”; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to enter into and sign a Memorandum of Understanding on
collaborative land use planning in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport.
8. PROPOSITION 1 STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION AND
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR STORMWATER RESOURCES PLAN
(JOHNSON / HILL / OTTE)
Recommendation
1. Authorize a grant application to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Proposition 1
Stormwater Grant Program; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute any other required grant
application-related documentation; and
3. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals, Specification No. 91489, for
Consultant Services for the preparation of a Stormwater Resource Plan; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if bids are within the project budget of
$45,000.
9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT CODE
ENFORCEMENT FINES (CODRON / PURRINGTON)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution 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 the properties pursuant to
California Government Code Section 53069.4(a).”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 21, 2016 Page 5
10. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY AERATION BLOWER
REPLACEMENT PROJECT-SPECIFICATION NO. 91448 (MATTINGLY / HIX /
BREWEN)
Recommendation
1. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aeration blower
replacement for the Water Resource Recovery Facility, Specification No. 91448; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest proposal is within the
Engineer’s Estimate of $320,000.
11. COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL ACCOUNTS (MATTINGLY / BOREMAN / BUONAGUIDI)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Assessor to assess amounts due
on delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts as liens against the properties
pursuant to California Government Code Section 25828, et seq.”
12. AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE FROM THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA) PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE
EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR LIABILITY COVERAGE (IRONS /
ZOCHER)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Coverage (MOC) when final
with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) to participate in the
Excess Insurance Program for liability insurance coverage, subject to final approval as to
form and substance by the City Manager and City Attorney; and
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving execution of agreement for participation in the California
Joint Powers Insurance Authority’s Excess Insurance Program”; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreement with Carl Warren for third party
administration services for the liability insurance program, subject to final approval as to
form and substance by the City Manager and City Attorney.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 21, 2016 Page 6
13. FISCAL YEAR 2016-19 ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (CANTRELL / ELLSWORTH)
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a three-year contract with the County of San
Luis Obispo for the continued provision of Animal Care and Control Services from July 1,
2016 to June 30, 2019 in the amount of $146,307 for the first year, with annual adjustments
thereafter.
14. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) REPLACEMENTS 2015, SPECIFICATION
NO. 91268 (GRIGSBY / ATHEY / LAWRENCE)
Recommendation
1. Approve plans and specifications for "CMP Replacements 2015, Specification No. 91268”;
and
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 $244,100
15. CONTRIBUTION TO LEADERSHIP SAN LUIS OBISPO L 25 FUND (IRONS)
Recommendation
Authorize City Manager to contribute $10,000 to the Leadership San Luis Obispo
(Leadership SLO) L 25 Fund, based on a determination by the City Council that there are
ongoing contributions and benefits to the City and local community derived from leadership
opportunities provided by the Leadership SLO program.
16. CITY COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND TRANSFER
(JOHNSON / HERMANN)
Recommendation
Authorize staff to transfer funds from Mayor Jan Marx’s professional development account
to Council Member John Ashbaugh’s professional development account for expenses related
to attendance at the 2016 International Town Gown Association Annual Conference.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 21, 2016 Page 7
BUSINESS ITEMS
17. COUNTY WIDE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN (GRIGSBY / BOCHUM
/ HUDSON – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
approving the 2016 San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation Investment Plan and
recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors to place a 9-year
Transportation Sales Tax Measure on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot.”
18. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE 2015-2016 (JOHNSON
/ L. JOHNSON – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Receive and file the Economic Development Strategic Plan Update.
19. ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
PROGRAM FOR 2016 (JOHNSON / HILL / OTTE – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Receive and file the Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Activity Report for
2016.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
Time limit—3 minutes each.
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)
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 21, 2016 Page 8
ADJOURNMENT
The Regular City Council Meeting of July 5, 2016 was previously cancelled. Consequently, the
next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber, respectively, 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 Cit y
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.
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: CITYGATE REPORT ON SOUTHERN CITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON
FIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the updated Fire Master Plan; and
2. Provide City staff direction to incorporate into the revised Airport Area Specific Plan
(AASP) financial solutions to any funding gaps that may exist by the provision of
essential City services in the southern City prior to the General Fund’s capacity to fully
support those services; and
3. Direct Staff to return with amendments to the Safety Element to align with the Fire
Master Plan goals; and
4. Determine that the Fire Master Plan is covered by the general rule and exempt under
CEQA Section 15061 (b) 3 that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
DISCUSSION
Background
On March 31, 2015, the City Council authorized staff to contract with Citygate Associates, LLC
(“Citygate”) for an analysis of fire-based emergency response services. This topic is particularly
timely with the recent adoption of a revised Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and the
return of vibrant development activity throughout the City. Citygate and the City reported back
to the City Council in open session on October 20, 2015, with findings that a portion of the
southern area of the City is currently underserved by the General Plan Safety Element response
time objective of four minutes for fire and medical emergency response coverage for 95% of all
emergencies. Additionally, analysis showed that the development projects in the southern region
of the City are also outside of a four-minute response region for existing Fire Department
resources. The City Council directed staff and Citygate to:
1. Revise the four-minute emergency response time policy and define total travel time for
time sensitive emergency calls for service.
2. Consider the construction and staffing of a fifth fire station in the southern area of the
City in order to enhance the probability of achieving established response time standards.
3. Explore options for incrementally addressing emergency response coverage gaps, such as
initially addressing the medical response gap with a differently staffed and configured
1
Packet Pg. 9
crew, and building toward full fire, rescue and medical services as the region develops
and additional funding is realized.
4. Consider land based financing models for the Master Plan, such as a Community
Facilities District, to finance any funding gap so that new development pays its fair share
for building and operating a fifth fire station.
Citygate has completed the analysis of fire-based emergency response services as well as a
preliminary estimate of the costs associated with adding a fifth staffed fire station. The San Luis
Obispo City Fire Department Fire Service Master Plan Update (“Master Plan Update”) is
included as Attachment A.
Major Topics
Three major topics from the update of the Master Plan were evaluated:
1. Measuring Fire Department emergency response time;
2. Providing Fire Department emergency response services to the developing southern City; and
3. Funding gaps that may exist by the provision of Fire Department emergency response services
in the southern City prior to the timing of additional General Fund revenue to fully support those
services.
Issue Detail: Measuring Fire Department Emergency Response Time
The General Plan Safety Element establishes performance goals for measuring Fire Department
response time. As currently written, the definition for response time measurement is vague and
references a standard not widely used today. The current goal states, the “Fire Department has
set a response-time objective of four minutes” with a recommendation to “meet this standard 95
percent of the time.” The Safety Element does not define the starting point for time
measurement. Interpretations of this starting point may include 9-1-1 pick-up by a
communications dispatcher or initial fire crew notification for response. Additionally, the Safety
Element did not differentiate between calls for service requiring the use of lights and siren versus
those calls for service which are less critical and do not require the use of lights and siren. If the
Master Plan is adopted, staff will return with future amendments to the Safety Element.
The Master Plan Update recommends the City adopts an updated emer gency response time
measurement as recommended based on Citygate’s analysis which is also consistent with the
best practice recommendations from the National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”). The
NFPA is an international non-profit organization that researches and publishes standards for the
professional fire service. NFPA Standard 1710 entitled “Organization and Deployment of Fire
Suppression Operations by Career Fire Departments, 2016 ed.” provides response time
objectives relevant to the City. Citygate, staff and NFPA 1710 all recommend that we adopt an
objective of four minutes or less travel time for the first arriving engine company to 90% of all
fire and medical emergency incidents in the community which require lights and siren response.
The Master Plan Update also recommends the City adopt emergency response time
1
Packet Pg. 10
measurements standards for multi-unit and special operations responses, such as responses to
fires, hazardous materials emergencies, and emergencies requiring technical rescue.
Total Response Times measurement is the sum of three primary components: Call Processing
Time, Turnout Time, and Travel Time. Call Processing Time is the amount of time between the
Dispatch Center answering a 9-1-1 call and subsequently dispatching the appropriate first
response fire unit. During Call Processing Time, emergency dispatchers question the 9-1-1
caller to identify information critical to the nature and location of the emergency. The next
component is Turnout Time which is the amount of time between dispatching the appropriate
first response unit and movement of the fire unit or apparatus. During Turnout Time, emergency
response personnel move to their apparatus, don the appropriate personal protective equipment,
and prepare the apparatus to be driven. Finally, Travel Time is that portion of Total Response
Time when the emergency response unit drives to the incident. For purposes of measuring Total
Response Time, only those incidents deemed time-critical are included. These are the instances
when the fire unit uses lights and siren to decrease Travel Time. The Master Plan Update further
recommends that the City focus energy on reducing Call Processing Time and Turnout Time,
both of which are higher than recommended standards. For time-critical single unit responses
Call Processing Time should account for one minute of less of the Total Response Time; Turnout
Time should account for two minutes of less of the Total Response Time; and Travel Time
should account for four minutes of less of the Total Response Time.
Issue Detail: Providing Fire Department emergency response services to the developing
southern City
The Master Plan Update researched the feasibility of relocating existing Fire Department
resources to provide the minimum amount of coverage necessary to meet emergency response
time goals. No such resource relocation solution – even when factoring in future transportation
enhancements in the Land Use and Circulation Element – was geographically possible given the
size, topography, and configuration of the City. The Master Plan Update concludes that a fifth
fire station is necessary to maintain the minimum level of emergency response desired by the
City.
The Master Plan Update does take into account modern building codes and fire protection
systems, including commercial and residential fire sprinkler systems. With these building
enhancements in mind, the Master Plan Update recommends a phased approach to providing Fire
Department emergency response services from the proposed fifth fire station. Since fire
protection systems do nothing for patients suffering a stroke or heart attack, the Master Plan
Update recommends implementation of an advanced life support, two-person Fire Department
response unit when 50% of the residential units in the southern City region are occupied.
Advanced life support refers to services provided by licensed paramedics. This service level
would be capable of responding to the majority of emergency medical incidents to the southern
City within the response time goal, thus decreasing the occurrence when existing Fire
Department resources are pulled from their response zones to meet the service needs in the
southern City. If this interim two-person response configuration is engaged, the Master Plan
Update recommends the City can defer implementation of an all-hazards three-person Fire
Department apparatus until the southern City is at 90% buildout, at which point the region would
1
Packet Pg. 11
need the capability of a full Fire crew and apparatus.
Issue Detail: Funding gaps that may exist by the provision of Fire Department emergency
response services in the southern City prior to the General Fund’s capacity to fully support
those services
The General Plan forecasts the availability of sufficient revenue at the time of full City buildo ut
to support the provision of essential City services. However, since the Master Plan Update
recommends incrementally providing Fire Department emergency response services prior to full
buildout, a gap in General Fund capacity exists. The current timing and scope of revisions to the
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) provides an opportunity to incorporate the financial analysis
initiated by the Master Plan Report into the more holistic and comprehensive AASP. Given that
the minimum threshold for providing additional Fire Department emergency response services to
support southern area development is not triggered until 50% of the residential units in this area
are occupied, incorporating the assessment of Fire Department services into the revision of the
AASP does not unreasonably delay the critical nature of this assessment. Moreover this
comprehensive analysis will allow the city to assess services in addition to fire in determining
how to address interim financing of all city services. This will ultimately create certainty and
clarity for the council, community and property owners.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed master plan consists of operational policies and objectives to guide future
operations of the Fire Department. These policies and objectives are exempt under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) 3 or the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development and Finance and IT Departments concur with the
recommendations in this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
If there is a recommendation by Council to provide additional Fire Department emergency
response resources prior to full buildout of the southern City, hence prior to the General Fund’s
capacity to fully fund that service, a full analysis for the fiscal impact will be included in the
update to the Airport Area Specific Plan. The financial forecasting included in the Master Plan
Update would then be one of many factors informing the revision of the AASP, which will return
to Council.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City could delay adoption of the Fire Master Plan and related actions. This is not
1
Packet Pg. 12
recommended because the revisions provide a policy and strategy basis to move forward
and provide clarity to the community about the approach to provide fire services in the
City, with particular emphasis in the southern part of the City.
2. The Council could make amendments to the Fire Master Plan. Should Council desire to
allocate additional Fire Department resources prior to the time additional General Fund
revenues can fully support the costs for these services. If this alternative is selected, it is
probable that increased calls for service to regions outside the Fire Department’s four-
minute response time capability, such as the developing southern City, would not only
result in greater response times to these regions, but would likely have a “domino effect”
resulting in longer response times to the existing City. This is particularly true when more
than one emergency occurs at the same time in the City.
3. The City could adjust performance measures for Fire Department emergency response.
This is not a recommended alternative since the Master Plan Update is based on national
best practice recommendations as well as the science regarding the connection between
emergency response times and positive outcomes for fires and serious medical
emergencies.
Attachments:
a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16)
b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16)
1
Packet Pg. 13
Fire Service Master
Plan Update for the
2250 East Bidwell St., Ste #100 Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 458-5100 Fax: (916) 983-2090
Management Consultants Folsom (Sacramento), CA
City of
San Luis Obispo
Fire Department
Volume 1 of 2 –Report
June 8, 2016
Packet Pg. 14 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update
This page was intentionally left blank
Packet Pg. 15 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Table of Contents page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
VOLUME 1 of 2 – Fire Service Master Plan Update Report (this volume)
Section 1—Executive Summary....................................................................................................1
1.1 Policy Choices Framework ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Citygate’s Overall Opinions on the State of the City’s Fire Services ............... 1
1.3 Field Operations Deployment (Fire Stations) ................................................... 2
1.4 Overall Deployment Evaluation ....................................................................... 3
1.5 Specific Findings and Recommendations ......................................................... 4
1.6 Next Steps ......................................................................................................... 8
Section 2—Study Methods Introduction .....................................................................................9
2.1 Standards of Coverage Study Processes ........................................................... 9
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment .................13
3.1 Why Does the City’s Fire Department Exist and How Does it Deliver the
Existing Fire Crew Deployment Services? ..................................................... 13
3.2 Community Risk Assessment ......................................................................... 16
3.3 Existing City Deployment............................................................................... 22
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis .......................................................................25
4.1 Critical Task Time Measures—What Must be Done Over What Time Frame
to Achieve the Stated Outcome Expectation? ................................................. 25
4.2 Distribution and Concentration Studies—How the Location of First-Due and
First Alarm Resources Affects the Outcome .................................................. 30
Section 5—Statistical Analysis ....................................................................................................35
5.1 Historical Effectiveness and Reliability of Response—What Statistics Say
About Existing System Performance .............................................................. 35
Packet Pg. 16 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Table of Contents page ii
5.2 Service Demand .............................................................................................. 35
5.3 Response Time Analysis ................................................................................. 37
5.4 Simultaneous Incident Activity....................................................................... 42
Section 6—Fiscal and Timing Impacts for a Possible Fifth Fire Station ................................45
6.1 Fire Department Component Costs ................................................................. 45
6.2 Fire Station Operational Timing ..................................................................... 45
Section 7—Overall Evaluation and Recommendation .............................................................47
7.1 Overall Evaluation .......................................................................................... 47
Table of Tables
Table 1—Total Response Time to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds) ....................................... 3
Table 2—Standards of Response Coverage Process Elements ..................................................... 10
Table 3—Fire Department Deployment Simplified ..................................................................... 10
Table 4—Probability and Consequence Matrix ............................................................................ 19
Table 5—Daily Minimum Staffing per Unit for the City – 2015 ................................................. 22
Table 6—First Alarm Structure Fire Tasks – 14 Fire First Responders ....................................... 26
Table 7—High Performance Cardiac Arrest Management: Six to Seven Firefighters, One
Battalion Chief, and an Ambulance Crew .................................................................................... 28
Table 8—Call to Arrival (Total) Response Time to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds).......... 38
Table 9—Call Processing Time Performance to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds) ............... 39
Table 10—Turnout Time Performance to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds) ......................... 39
Table 11—Travel Time Performance to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds) ........................... 40
Table 12—Travel Time for Effective Response Force Across Three Years (Time and Count) .. 42
Table 13—Simultaneous Incident Activity – 2012-2014 ............................................................. 42
Table 14—New Fire Station Costs ............................................................................................... 45
Packet Pg. 17 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Table of Contents page iii
Table of Figures
Figure 1—Risk Types ................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2—Proposed Development Projects in the City in 2015 ................................................... 18
Figure 3—Fire Progression Timeline ........................................................................................... 20
Figure 4—Number of Incidents by Year ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 5—Number of Incidents by Hour of Day by Year ............................................................ 36
Figure 6—Simultaneous Incidents by Year .................................................................................. 43
Figure 7—Number of Station Area Simultaneous Incidents ........................................................ 44
VOLUME 2 of 2 – Map Atlas (separately bound)
Packet Pg. 18 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
This page was intentionally left blank
Packet Pg. 19 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 1
SECTION 1—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) retained Citygate Associates, LLC to perform a Fire Services
Master Plan update on fire station deployment coverage. An area of particular focus is
determining the need, location, and financing for a fifth fire station in the southern City. Our
update study includes reviewing the adequacy of the existing deployment system from the
current fire station locations and identifying any resultant service gaps. This report is presented
in two volumes, including this technical summary report (Volume 1) and a geographic map atlas
(Volume 2) that displays fire unit Travel Time coverage.
1.1 POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
There are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of fir e service response
times and outcomes. The body of regulations on the fire service provides that if fire services are
provided, they must be done so with the safety of the firefighters and citizens in mind.
Historically, the City has made significant investments in its fire services, and as a result, has
good fire and emergency medical services (EMS) response coverage in the most populated
sections of the City.
1.2 CITYGATE’S OVERALL OPINIONS ON THE STATE OF THE CITY’S FIRE SERVICES
In brief, Citygate finds that the challenge of providing fire services in the City is similar to that
found in many communities: providing an adequate level of fire services within the context of
limited fiscal resources, competing needs, growing and aging populations, plus uncertainty
surrounding the exact timing of future development. Citygate must state up front that we found
the Fire Department to be a quality fire services agency; it is in no way run down or
dysfunctional. The recommendations in this study should be considered as a continuous quality
improvement tune-up that can be considered in the year-to-year budget process.
The City is currently meeting its needs through its own fire response resources and partnerships
with its neighbors in the regional mutual aid system. The deployment system largely meets the
City’s current demands, but will need adjustment for growth in the southern City and possible
annexation areas, if the City Council desires to achieve its fire unit response time objectives in
all areas within the City limits. Throughout this report, Citygate makes observations, key
findings, and, where appropriate, specific action item recommendations. Overall, there are 12
key findings and 4 specific action item recommendations.
Packet Pg. 20 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 2
1.3 FIELD OPERATIONS DEPLOYMENT (FIRE STATIONS)
Fire department deployment, simply stated, is about the speed and weight of the attack. Speed
calls for first-due, all-risk intervention units (engines, ladder trucks, and/or ambulances)
strategically located across a coverage area. These units are tasked with controlling moderate
emergencies and preventing the incident from escalating to second alarm or greater, which
unnecessarily depletes Department resources as multiple requests for service occur. Weight is
about multiple-unit response for serious emergencies, such as a room and contents structure fire,
a multiple-patient incident, a vehicle accident with extrication required, or a heavy rescue
incident. In these situations, a sufficient quantity of firefighters must be assembled within a
reasonable time frame to safely control the emergency, thereby keeping it from escalating to
greater alarms.
Citygate’s analysis of prior response statistics and use of geographic mapping tools reveals that
the City has adequate fire station coverage for the existing most populated areas. The maps
provided in Volume 2 and the corresponding text explanation beginning in Section 4.2 of this
report describes in detail the City’s current deployment system performance.
For effective outcomes on serious medical emergencies, and to keep serious, but still-emerging,
fires small, Citygate’s best practices-based recommendation is for the first-due fire unit to arrive
within seven minutes of police dispatch alerting the fire unit, 90% of the time. This is referred to
as Total Response Time, which includes the subcomponents of Call Processing Time, Turnout
Time, and Travel Time.
Call Processing Time is the amount of time between the dispatch center answering a 9-1-1 call
and dispatching the appropriate first response fire unit. During Call Processing Time, emergency
dispatchers interrogate the 9-1-1 caller to identify information critical to the nature and location
of the emergency. Call Processing Time should account for one minute or less of the Total
Response Time. Turnout Time is the amount of time between dispatching the appropriate first
response unit and movement of the fire unit. During Turnout Time, emergency response
personnel move to their apparatus, don the appropriate personal protective equipment, and
prepare the apparatus to be driven. Turnout Time should account for two minutes of less of the
Total Response Time. During Travel Time, the emergency response unit drives to the incident,
and for purposes of measuring Total Response Time for this study, only those incidents deemed
time-critical are included. These are the instances when the fire unit uses lights and siren to
decrease Travel Time. Travel Time should account for four minutes of less of the Total Response
Time.
Packet Pg. 21 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 3
In the City, the current fire station system provides the following unit coverage, across a variety
of population density/risk areas for emergency medical and fire incident types:
Table 1—Total Response Time to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds)
Measure 2014 FY 07/08
9-1-1 Answer to 1st Unit Arrival 09:58 09:00
1.4 OVERALL DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION
Given the rolling hills upon which the City is built, and the non-grid type street network design
in most of the City, the Fire Department has always found it challenging to meet the City’s
Travel Time objective. Now, due to changes and planned increases in population and incident
quantity growth, the Department’s response times are slightly slower than five years ago. The
result of the response time measures and geographic coverage models in this update study sh ow
there is no way the current four-fire-station system can provide even the current response times
to the southern growth areas within the adopted response objective.
This study also evaluated this hypothetical question: IF all four fire stations could be moved at
once to all new locations, could the southern City growth and annexation area be adequately
served by the four fire stations? The result: no. The City road design and topography is not laid
out efficiently and is just too large to meet the City’s adopted response time objective.
For the foreseeable future, the City will need both a first-due fire unit and Effective Response
Force (First Alarm) coverage in all parts of the City, consistent with current best practices, if the
risk of fire is to be limited to only part of the inside of an affected building. The first-due fire unit
is the closest appropriate unit based on the nature of the emergency. An Effective Response
Force is the total unit response needed at the scene of a serious fire sufficient to stop the fire. The
term “Effective Response Force” will be further defined later in this report. While residential fire
sprinklers are now included in the national model fire codes, it will be decades before the
existing housing stock will be upgraded or replaced, even if these codes were to be adopted for
all new construction. While building fire sprinklers are a clear advancement in building safety,
this technology does not mitigate emergency medical incidents, which account for approximately
75% of the City’s calls for service for its fire department.
To provide equitable response times to all similar risk neighborhoods and to provide the depth of
response to address multiple, simultaneous incidents or incidents requiring multiple response
Packet Pg. 22 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 4
units, the City will need a fifth fire station where growth and annexation expands the City’s
service area.
The first deployment step for the City in the near term is to adopt clarified performance measures
from which to establish service expectations and, on an annual basis, monitor Fire Department
performance as part of its annual budgeting process. A southern City fifth fire station can be built
with impact fees and staffed when there is enough increased revenue to do so from aggregate
new development, General Fund sources, and potentially land-based financing mechanisms such
as a community facilities district.
The timing of opening a fifth fire station will be more dependent on both impact fees and
ongoing revenue growth as the expansion areas will likely not develop at a rate that would allow
funding sufficient for staffing a station in the near term.
1.5 SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding #1: The City has not adopted a complete and best practices-based deployment
measure or set of specialty response measures for all-risk emergency responses
that includes the beginning time measure from the point of police dispatch
receiving the 9-1-1 phone call, nor a goal statement tied to risks and outcome
expectations. The deployment measure should have a second measurement
statement to define multiple-unit response coverage for serious emergencies.
Making these deployment goal changes will meet the best practice
recommendations of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International.
Finding #2: Using the current four fire station locations, and considering the future
transportation enhancements included in the Land Use and Circulation Element,
the southern expansion area is not within four minutes travel of an existing fire
station.
Finding #3: The southern expansion area is not within eight minutes Travel Time of a best
practices Effective Response Force assignment of three engines, one City ladder
truck (quint), and one battalion chief.
Finding #4: The most beneficial improvement in fire services the City could make would be to
add a fire station in the southern City area equipped with one fire engine and a
three-person crew.
Packet Pg. 23 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 5
Finding #5: The City’s time-of-day, day-of-week, and month-of-year calls for service
demands are very consistent. This means the City needs to operate a fairly
consistent 24/7/365 response system.
Finding #6: The Department’s Total Response Time is significantly longer than a Citygate
and best practices-based recommendation of 7:00 minutes/seconds. This is due to
a combination of slow Call Processing and Turnout Times combined with long
Travel Times from only four fire stations.
Finding #7: The Department’s Total Response Time has decayed 58 seconds since the
previous master plan study data review from Fiscal Year 07/08. Most of this
slower performance is due to more incidents with longer Travel Times offset by a
slight improvement in Call Processing Time.
Finding #8: The City’s Call Processing Time has only slightly improved since the previous
master plan where it was noted the City was not close to a best practices goal of
60-105 seconds.
Finding #9: The City’s Turnout Times are consistently over two minutes from station to
station, and have eroded since the prior master plan for a Citygate
recommendation of two minutes.
Finding #10: The first-due unit Travel Times in the City are longer than a best practice and City
goal of four minutes, which is reflective of the non -grid street design, the large
size of some station areas, and simultaneous calls for service requiring farther
away units to respond at times. Due to incident demand increase and traffic
congestion, Travel Times have also eroded across the board since the previous
master plan.
Finding #11: The City’s response Travel Time for four units to serious fires, known as the
Effective Response Force (ERF or First Alarm), during the last three years ranges
from 7:42 to 15:26, which in three of the four fire station districts, does not meet
an eight-minute Travel Time goal.
Finding #12: The rate of more than two simultaneous incidents is low, but many of these
occurrences are in the Station 1 and 3 areas. If these two units are committed to
incidents, then the entire southern half of the City relies on Station 4, which
cannot cover the existing City in a timely manner due to its southwest location,
Packet Pg. 24 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 6
nor can it provide the City’s Total Response Time goal to the southern expansion
and annexation areas.
Recommendation #1: Given the modest number of additional dwelling units and residents
and the likely slow rate of development occupancy over several years,
Citygate believes the fiscal burden of the added staffing should be
phased in over the later stages of development. This should start with
a two-firefighter emergency medical response unit at the point 50% of
the residential units are occupied in Fire Station 5’s primary service
area, and the full three-person firefighting and EMS engine crew in
place at the point 90% of the residential and commercial development
is occupied. Citygate recommends beginning design and construction
of the fifth fire station three years prior to staffing.
Recommendation #2: Adopt Updated, More Detailed Fire Service Deployment Measure
Policies: The City should incorporate performance measures into its
financial plan to direct fire crew planning and to monitor the
operation of the Department. The measures of time should be
designed to save patients where medically possible and to keep small
but serious fires from becoming greater alarm fires. With this is mind,
Citygate recommends the following measures:
2.1 Distribution of Fire Stations: To treat medical patients and control
small fires, the first-due fire unit should have a Total Response Time
of seven minutes or less, 90% of the time. This equates to a one-
minute Call Processing Time by the dispatch center, a two-minute fire
crew Turnout Time, and a four-minute Travel Time.
2.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious Emergencies: To
confine fires near the room of origin, to stop wildland fires to under
three acres when noticed promptly, and to treat up to five medical
patients at once, a multiple-unit response of a minimum of three
engines, one quint ladder truck, and one battalion chief (totaling 14
personnel) are dispatched to these serious emergencies. This Effective
Response Force should have a Total Response Time of 11 minutes or
less, 90% of the time. This equates to one-minute Call Processing
Time, two minutes Turnout Time, and eight minutes Travel Time.
Packet Pg. 25 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 7
2.3 Hazardous Materials Response: Provide hazardous materials response
to emergency incidents designed to protect the community from the
hazards associated with uncontrolled release of hazardous and toxic
materials. The fundamental mission of the City response is to
minimize or halt the release of a hazardous substance so it has
minimal impact on the community. It can achieve this with a Travel
Time in urban to suburban areas for the first company capable of
investigating a hazardous materials release at the operations level
within four minutes Travel Time or less, 90% of the time. After size-
up and scene evaluation is completed, a determination will be made
whether to request additional resources from the City’s multi-agency
hazardous materials response partnership.
2.4 Technical Rescue: Respond to technical rescue emergencies as
efficiently and effectively as possible with enough trained personnel
to facilitate a successful rescue. Achieve a Travel Time for the first
company in urban to suburban areas for size-up of the rescue within
four minutes Travel Time or less, 90% of the time. Assemble
additional resources for technical rescue capable of initiating a rescue
within a Total Response Time of 11 minutes, 90% of the time. Safely
complete rescue/extrication to ensure delivery of patient to a
definitive care facility.
2.5 Emergency Medical Services: The City should continue with its goal
of providing first responder paramedic services to all neighborhoods
with a Total Response Time of seven minutes or less, 90% of the
time. This equates to a one-minute Call Processing Time by the
dispatch center, a two-minute fire crew Turnout Time, and a four-
minute Travel Time.
Recommendation #3: The Police and Fire Department have to make meaningful
improvements to Call Processing Time and Turnout Time.
Recommendation #4: Implement revenue-generating option(s) sufficient to cover initial and
ongoing funding gaps to add a fire station in the southern City area
equipped with one fire engine and a three-person crew.
Packet Pg. 26 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 1—Executive Summary page 8
1.6 NEXT STEPS
The purpose of this assessment is to compare the City’s current performance against the local
risks to be protected, as well as nationally recognized best practices. This analysis of
performance forms the base from which to make recommendations for changes, if any, in fire
station locations, equipment types, and staffing.
As one step, the City should adopt updated and best practices -based response time goals for the
City and provide accountability for the City personnel to meet those standards. The goals
identified in Recommendation #2 meet national best practices. Measurement and planning as the
City continues to evolve will be necessary for the City to meet these goals. Citygate recommends
that the City’s next steps be to work through the issues identified in this study including:
Adopt the policy recommendations of this fire services study related to City
performance measures for the deployment of firefighting and emergency medical
resources.
If the City desires to move ahead with a fifth fire station, provide direction to staff
on the financing, fire station trigger point and construction programming steps
needed over time.
Staff and the City Council will have to determine the financing options for a fifth
fire station in light of all competing City General Fund needs to serve the southern
expansion area over the period of time the development and possible annexation
is expected to occur.
Packet Pg. 27 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 2—Study Methods Introduction page 9
SECTION 2—STUDY METHODS INTRODUCTION
Citygate’s scope of work and corresponding Work Plan was developed consistent with
Citygate’s Project Team members’ experience in fire administration. Citygate utilizes various
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) publications as best practice guidelines, along with
the self-assessment criteria of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI).
Throughout this report Citygate will cite findings and make recommendations, if appropriate,
that relate to each finding. There is a sequential numbering of all of the findings and
recommendations throughout Sections 3 through 7 of this report. To provide a comprehensive
summary, a complete listing of all these same findings and recommendations, in order, is found
in the Executive Summary.
2.1 STANDARDS OF COVERAGE STUDY PROCESSES
The core methodology used by Citygate for the assessment of fire services deployment is the
“Standards of Cover” (SOC) 5th edition, which is a systems-based approach to fire department
deployment, as published by the CFAI.
The Standards of Response Coverage method evaluates deployment as part of the self-
assessment process of a fire agency. This approach uses risk and community expectations on
outcomes to help elected officials make informed decisions on fire and emergency medical
services deployment levels. Citygate has adopted this methodology as a comprehensive tool to
evaluate fire station locations. Depending on the needs of the study, the depth of the components
may vary.
In the United States, there are no federal or state government requirements for a minimum level
of fire services. It is a local choice issue for each community to consider and fund as it deems
necessary. The accreditation SOC systems approach to deployment, rather than a one-size-fits-all
prescriptive formula, allows for local determination. In this comprehensive approach, each
agency can match local needs (risks and expectations) with the costs of various levels of service.
In an informed public policy debate, a governing board “purchases” the fire and emergency
medical service levels the community needs and can afford.
While working with multiple components to conduct a deployment analysis is admittedly more
work, it yields a much better result than using only a singular component. For instance, if only
Travel Time is considered, and frequency of multiple calls is not considered, the analysis could
Packet Pg. 28 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 2—Study Methods Introduction page 10
miss over-worked companies. If a risk assessment for deployment is not considered, and
deployment is based only on Travel Time, a community could under-deploy to incidents.
The Standards of Response Coverage process consists of the following eight parts:
Table 2—Standards of Response Coverage Process Elements
Element Meaning
1. Existing Deployment Policies Reviewing the deployment goals the agency has in
place today.
2. Community Outcome Expectations Reviewing the expectations of the community for
response to emergencies.
3. Community Risk Assessment Reviewing the assets at risk in the community.
4. Critical Task Study
Reviewing the tasks that must be performed and the
personnel required to deliver the stated outcome
expectation for the Effective Response Force.
5. Distribution Study Reviewing the spacing of first-due resources
(typically engines) to control routine emergencies.
6. Concentration Study
Reviewing the spacing of fire stations so that building
fires can receive sufficient resources in a timely
manner (First Alarm assignment or the Effective
Response Force).
7. Reliability and Historical Response
Effectiveness Studies
Using prior response statistics to determine the
percent of compliance the existing system delivers.
8. Overall Evaluation Proposing Standard of Cover statements by risk type
as necessary.
The speed and weight of attack deployment design paradigm is reiterated in the following table:
Table 3—Fire Department Deployment Simplified
Meaning Purpose
Speed of Attack Travel time of first-due, all-risk
intervention units strategically located
across a department.
Controlling moderate emergencies
without the incident escalating to
second alarm or greater size.
Weight of Attack Number of firefighters and appropriate
apparatus in a multiple-unit response
for serious emergencies.
Assembling enough firefighters within
a reasonable time frame to safely
control the emergency.
Packet Pg. 29 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 2—Study Methods Introduction page 11
Thus, small fires and medical emergencies require a single - or two-unit response (engine and
ambulance unit) with a quick response time. Larger incidents require more crews. In either case,
if the crews arrive too late or the total personnel sent to the emergency are too few for the
emergency type, they are drawn into a losing and more dangerous battle. The science of fire crew
deployment is to spread crews out across a community for quick response to keep emergencies
small with positive outcomes, without spreading the crews so far apart that they cannot amass
together quickly enough to be effective in major emergencies.
Packet Pg. 30 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
This page was intentionally left blank
Packet Pg. 31 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 13
SECTION 3—SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPLOYMENT GOALS/MEASURES
AND RISK ASSESSMENT
3.1 WHY DOES THE CITY’S FIRE DEPARTMENT EXIST AND HOW DOES IT DELIVER THE
EXISTING FIRE CREW DEPLOYMENT SERVICES?
3.1.1 Existing Response Time Policies or Goals—Why Does the Fire Department
Exist?
The City Council over the decades has adopted formal
response time policies by type of risks. According to
Program 9.3 A in the General Plan Safety Element, the
“Fire Department has set a response-time objective of four
minutes” with a recommendation to “meet this standard 95
percent of the time.” When this goal was drafted, the
starting point for time measurement was not defined.
Potential interpretations for the starting point may include 9-1-1 pick-up by a communications
dispatcher or initial fire crew notification for response. The Safety Element also did not
differentiate between calls for service requiring the use of lights and siren versus those calls for
service not requiring as rapid a response to positively impact outcomes.
Department staff and Citygate presume the intent of this response time objective was for a four -
minute Travel Time measurement. Travel Time is measured from the time a Fire Department
emergency response apparatus begins driving to the emergency scene until the apparatus arrives
at the dispatched address. The rationale for a four-minute Travel Time goal is based on a national
standard set by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The NFPA is an international
non-profit organization that researches and publishes standards for the professional fire service.
NFPA Standard 1710 entitled “Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations by
Career Fire Departments” provides response time objectives. It includes the objective of four
minutes or less Travel Time for the first arriving engine company for 90% of all fire and medical
emergency incidents in the community which require lights and siren response (henceforth
referred to as a “Code Three” response).
The City also has not identified response goals for technical rescue and hazardous material
responses; in addition to firefighting and EMS, response time goals for these incident types are
required to meet the Standards of Response Coverage model for the CFAI. In this Standards of
Response Coverage study, Citygate will recommend revised response time goals to include all
SOC ELEMENT 1 OF 8*
EXISTING DEPLOYMENT
POLICIES
*Note: This is an overview of Element 1.
The detail is provided on page 22.
Packet Pg. 32 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 14
risks including fire, EMS, hazardous materials, and technical rescue responses. The goals will be
consistent with the CFAI systems approach to response.
3.1.2 Existing Outcome Expectations
The Standards of Response Cover process begins by
reviewing existing emergency services outcome
expectations. This can be restated as follows: for what
purpose does the response system exist? Has the
governing body adopted any response performance
measures? If so, the time measures used need to be understood and good data collected.
Current best practice nationally is to measure percent completion of a goal (e.g., 90% of
responses) instead of an average measure. Mathematically this is called a “fractile” measure.1
This is because the measure of average only identifies the central or middle point of response
time performance for all calls for service in the data set. Using an average makes it impossible to
know how many incidents had response times that were way over the average or just over. For
example, if a department had an average response time of five minutes for 5,000 calls for
service, it cannot be determined how many calls past the average point of five minutes were
answered in the sixth minute or way out at 10 minutes. This is a significant issue if hundreds or
thousands of calls are answered far beyond the average point. Fractile measures will identify per
minute the number of incidents that are reached up to 100%.
More importantly within the Standards of Response Coverage process, positive outcomes are the
goal, and from that crew size and response time can be calculated to allow efficient fire station
spacing (distribution and concentrations). Emergency medical incidents have situations with the
most severe time constraints. In a heart attack that stops the heart, a trauma that causes severe
blood loss, or in a respiratory emergency, according to the American Heart Association the brain
can only survive four to six minutes without oxygen before irreversible brain damage begins .
Not only heart attacks, but also other events can cause oxygen deprivation to the brain. Heart
attacks make up a small percentage; drowning, choking, trauma constrictions, or other similar
events have the same effect. In a building fire, a small incipien t fire can grow to involve the
entire room in an eight- to ten-minute timeframe. If fire service response is to achieve positive
outcomes in severe emergency medical situations and incipient fire situations, all responding
1 A fractile is that point below which a stated fraction of the values lie. The fraction is often given in percent; the
term percentile may then be used.
SOC ELEMENT 2 OF 8
COMMUNITY OUTCOME
EXPECTATIONS
Packet Pg. 33 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 15
crews must arrive, size-up the situation, and deploy effective measures before brain death occurs
or the fire leaves the room of origin.
Thus, from the time of 9-1-1 receiving the call, an effective deployment system is beginning to
manage the problem within a seven-minute Total Response Time. This is right at the point that
brain death is becoming irreversible and the fire has grown to the point to leave the room of
origin and become very serious. Thus, the City needs a first-due response goal that is within the
range to give the situation hope for a positive outcome. It is important to note the fire or medical
emergency continues to deteriorate from the time of inception, not the time the fire engine
actually starts to drive the response route. Ideally, the emergency is noticed immediatel y and the
9-1-1 system is activated promptly. This step of awareness—calling 9-1-1 and giving the
dispatcher accurate information—takes, in the best of circumstances, one minute. This is referred
to as Call Processing Time. Then crew notification, preparation for response, and Travel Time
take additional minutes. The time between crew notification and crew response is referred to as
Turnout Time, and the time between crew response and arrival at the scene is referred to as
Travel Time. Once arrived, the crew must walk to the patient or emergency, size-up the situation,
and deploy its skills and tools. Even in easy-to-access situations, this step can take two or more
minutes. This time frame may be increased considerably due to long driveways, apartment
buildings with limited access, multi-storied apartments or office complexes, or shopping center
buildings such as those found in parts of the City.
Unfortunately, there are times that the emergency has become too severe, even before the 9-1-1
notification and/or fire department response, for the responding crew to reverse; however, when
an appropriate response time policy is combined with a well -designed system, then only issues
like bad weather, poor traffic conditions, or multiple emergencies will slow the response system
down. Consequently, a properly designed system will give citizens the hope of a positive
outcome for their tax dollar expenditure.
For this report, Total Response Time is the sum of the Call Processing Time, Turnout Time, and
Travel Time. This is consistent with the recommendations of the CFAI.
Packet Pg. 34 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 16
Finding #1: The City has not adopted a complete and best practices-based
deployment measure or set of specialty response measures for all-
risk emergency responses that includes the beginning time measure
from the point of police dispatch receiving the 9-1-1 phone call,
nor a goal statement tied to risks and outcome expectations. The
deployment measure should have a second measurement statement
to define multiple-unit response coverage for serious emergencies.
Making these deployment goal changes will meet the best practice
recommendations of the Commission on Fire Accreditation
International.
3.2 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
The third element of the SOC process is the development
of a community risk assessment or analysis. The objective
of a community risk assessment is to:
1. Identify specific hazards with potential to
adversely impact the community or
jurisdiction
2. Quantify the probability of occurrence of each identified hazard
3. Quantify the probable severity of resultant impacts from a hazard occurrence.
Hazard is broadly defined as a situation or condition that can cause or contribute to harm.
Hazard examples include fire, medical emergency, vehicle collis ion, earthquake, flood, etc. Risk
is broadly defined as the probability of hazard occurrence in combination with the likely severity
of resultant impacts.
3.2.1 Risk Factors
Elements to be considered in a community risk assessment include factors that inf luence service
demand, response capability, probability of hazard occurrence, and severity of impacts or hazard
consequences relative to life, property, the environment, and community resilience.
In conducting a community risk assessment, Citygate examines prior risk studies, community
demographics including current and projected population, land use, future development
potential, employment, building occupancy data and prior service demand data.
SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8
COMMUNITY RISK
ASSESSMENT
Packet Pg. 35 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 17
The Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) identifies two risk categories: fire
risk and non-fire risk.2 Identification and quantification of the various fire and non -fire risks are
important factors in evaluating how fire department resources are or can be deployed to mitigate
those risks.
Figure 1 identifies the fire and non-fire risks evaluated in a typical SOC study.
Figure 1—Risk Types
3.2.2 Prior Risk Studies
The first San Luis Obispo Fire Master Plan in early 2009 used this methodology to review risks
in the City. This update study compared those findings to the current City and the planned
growth. Largely due to the impacts of the great recession, during those years the re was not a
2 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, Standards of Cover (5th Edition)
Packet Pg. 36 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 18
significant change in the risks to be protected in San Luis Obispo. Thus, the only category of risk
that we will specifically review in this study is building fire risk in the context of the City’s
growth and development.
3.2.3 Growth and Development
Given the post-recession recovery, San Luis Obispo is now dealing with multiple applications for
residential and commercial growth. Some of these are in existing neighborhoods and others are
in the southern City and County areas adjacent to the City being studied for annexation. The
City-provided Figure 2 on the following page shows the locations of the 45 projects that were
under various stages of development application during 2015:
Figure 2—Proposed Development Projects in the City in 2015
Packet Pg. 37 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 19
Depending on final approvals, these projects represent adding several hundred thousand square
feet of commercial uses and several hundred dwelling units. Fifteen of these projects are in the
southern City and possible annexation areas. Avila Ranch alone could add 700 dwelling units.
There is no question that the City’s fire services will have more population, buildings , and job
locations to protect in the southern City areas.
3.2.4 Building Fire Risk
One of the common risks in any community is a building fire. A fire services risk assessment
reviews the probability and consequences of fire risks. Probability is the likelihood of a fire
occurring in a particular occupancy type, and consequences are the probable adverse impacts that
the fire will have on people, property, and the community.
Table 4 illustrates the building occupancy risk categories based on p robability of occurrence and
likely severity of consequences.
Table 4—Probability and Consequence Matrix
Low Consequence High Consequence High Probability Moderate Risk
(High Probability)
(Low Consequence)
Maximum Risk
(High Probability)
(High Consequence) Low Probability Low Isolated Risk
(Low Probability)
(Low Consequence)
High/Special Risk
(Low Probability)
(High Consequence)
Resource deployment (distribution/concentration), staffing, and response time are three critical
factors for a favorable outcome for building fire risk. Figure 3 illustrates the progression of a
building fire, and shows that a response time3 of 7:00 minutes or less is necessary to stop a
building fire before it reaches flashover, which is the point at which the entire room erupts into
3 Time interval from time of receipt of 9-1-1 call to initiation of suppression actions
Packet Pg. 38 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 20
fire after all of the combustible objects in that room reach their ignition temperature.
Survivability of a person in a room after flashover is extremely unlikely.
Figure 3—Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org
San Luis Obispo’s response capacity for building fire risk consists of a minimum daily on -duty
response force of 14 personnel (13 firefighters plus 1 battalion chief for incident command),
Packet Pg. 39 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 21
staffing apparatus from four fire stations. In addition, the Department is also a signatory to the
County Mutual Aid Agreement.
3.2.5 Risk Assessment Summary
Overall risk in San Luis Obispo is typical of other medium-sized urban communities in the
central coast region. Measured in terms of probability of future natural and human -caused hazard
occurrence and response capabilities necessary to effectively mitigate the potential impacts of
prospective hazard occurrences, overall risk within the City ranges from low for medical and
low/medium density residential building fire incidents to high for high-density residential
building fire incidents. These risk determinations reflects a generally low to moderate probability
of future major incident occurrence.
Other impact-reducing factors include a generally low building vacancy rate within residential
and commercial occupancies, mild weather and topography, and low probability of an act of
terrorism. Factors increasing impact severity include population density in some areas, traffic,
flooding potential in some areas, and quantity of hazardous materials used, stored, and
transported through the City.
The City also offers strong programs for community self-help preparedness such as classes and
outreach programs that focus on being prepared for emergencies. While these are essential to
train residents and business employees how to be initially self -reliant, the City’s personnel also
have to be trained, equipped, and able to respond to any of the hazards identified in this review.
Citygate’s evaluation of the various risks likely to adversely impact San Luis Obispo yields the
following conclusions:
1. The City has a very diverse suburban population density
2. The City has a mix of residential, commercial, office, and industrial buildings
typical of a middle-sized California city
3. The City has a vast transportation network including highways and other primary
vehicle transportation routes, railways, and a nearby County municipal airport
4. The predominant risk category for the City is moderate.
Based on these factors, the City has staffed and designed its response system to field an
“Effective Response Force” of multiple units to reported serious fires in buildings and wildland
areas, and operates paramedics for emergency medical responses. If additional resources are
required, the Regional Mutual Aid Program will assist.
Packet Pg. 40 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 22
The City’s multi-unit force (First Alarm) is designed to stop the escalation o f the emergency and
keep it from spreading to greater alarms.
3.3 EXISTING CITY DEPLOYMENT
3.3.1 Existing Deployment Situation—What the City Has in Place Currently
Given this study’s interperation that the City Council
response time policy centers on a four-minute Travel
Time, this study will benchmark the City against the
response time recommendations of NFPA 1710 for career
fire service deployment. These are:
Four minutes Travel Time for the first-due unit to all types of emergencies
Eight minutes Travel Time for multiple units needed at serious emergencies (First
Alarm).
The City’s current daily staffing plan is:
Table 5—Daily Minimum Staffing per Unit for the City – 2015
Per Unit
Minimum
per Unit Staff
Extended
Minimum
3 Engines 3 Firefighters/day 9
1 Quint* Company 4 Firefighters/day 4
Subtotal firefighters: 13
1 Battalion Chief 1 Per day for command 1
Total: 14
* A quint is an aerial ladder truck that also carries hose and water.
This daily staffing is adequate for the immediate response fire risk needs presented in the most of
the built-up urban areas of the City. However, for this staffing statement to be accurate for a
building fire, the assumption is that the closest crews are available and not already operating on
another emergency medical call or fire, which can and does happen. For example, if one engine
is committed to an emergency medical services call, then an adjacent engine company or truck
company must respond, sometimes from another fire department via mutual aid.
SOC ELEMENT 1 OF 8*
EXISTING DEPLOYMENT
POLICIES
*Note: Continued from page 13.
Packet Pg. 41 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 3—San Luis Obispo Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 23
The City is an “all-risk” fire department providing the people it protects with services that
include structure fire, technical rescue, and first-responder hazardous materials response as well
as other services.
Given these risks, the City uses a tiered approach of dispatching different types of apparatus to
each incident category. The City also can staff with the 13 on-duty personnel a variety of special
apparatus such as rescue squad and wildland fire apparatus.
Packet Pg. 42 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
This page was intentionally left blank
Packet Pg. 43 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 25
SECTION 4—STAFFING AND GEO-MAPPING ANALYSIS
4.1 CRITICAL TASK TIME MEASURES—WHAT MUST BE DONE OVER WHAT TIME FRAME TO
ACHIEVE THE STATED OUTCOME EXPECTATION?
Standards of Response Coverage (SOC) studies use task
time information to determine the firefighters needed
within a timeframe to accomplish the desired fire control
objective on moderate residential fires and modest
emergency medical rescues.
San Luis Obispo’s Effective Response Force to structure fires in built-up, suburban areas
includes three engines, one ladder truck (quint), and one battalion chief for a minimum force
total of 14 personnel. The following table shows what the on-duty force of 14 can accomplish.
The larger the force (weight of attack), the faster the tasks are completed.
Scenario: The following is a simulated one-story residential structure fire with no rescue
situation. Responding companies received dispatch information as typical for a witnessed fire.
Upon arrival they were told approximately 1,000 square feet of the home was involved in fire.
SOC ELEMENT 4 OF 8
CRITICAL TASK TIME
STUDY
Packet Pg. 44 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 26
Table 6—First Alarm Structure Fire Tasks – 14 Fire First Responders
Company Level Tasks
1st Due Engine
1. Lay in a hydrant supply line.
2. Stretch the 150-foot, 1¾-inch hose line to the point of access for search and rescue.
3. Operate the pump to supply water and attach hydrant supply line.
4. Assume command of initial operations.
2nd Due Engine
1. Establish the Initial Rapid Intervention Crew, stretch 2nd 1¾-inch hose line.
2. If necessary, lay in a hydrant supply line.
3rd Due Engine
1. Establish EMS treatment of victims if needed.
2. Assist with rescue, fire attack, or water supply as needed.
1st Due Ladder
1. Perform positive pressure and/or vertical ventilation.
2. Secure utilities.
3. Raise ladders, open concealed spaces, and force entry as needed.
4. Provide salvage and overhaul.
1st Due Incident Commander
1. Establish exterior command and safety.
2. Assign Safety Officer.
The above duties, grouped together, form an Effective Response Force or First Alarm
assignment. The above distinct tasks must be performed simultaneously and effectively to
achieve the desired outcome; arriving on-scene does not stop the escalation of the emergency.
While firefighters accomplish the above tasks, the incident progression clock keeps running.
Fire spread in a structure can double in size during its free -burn period before firefighting is
started. Many studies have shown that a small fire can spread to engulf an entire room in less
than four to five minutes after free burning has started. Once the room is completely superheated
and involved in fire (known as flashover), the fire will spread quickly throughout the structure
and into the attic and walls. For this reason, it is imperative that fire attack and search commence
before the flashover point occurs if the outcome goal is to keep the fire damage in or near the
room of origin. In addition, flashover presents a serious danger to both firefighters and any
occupants of the building.
Packet Pg. 45 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 27
4.1.1 Emergency Medical Services Critical Tasks
The City’s Fire Department responds to nearly 3,800 emergency medical services (EMS) calls
per year. These calls include car accidents, childbirths, strokes, heart attacks, difficulty br eathing,
and many other medical emergencies. The wide variety and circumstances of EMS calls makes it
difficult and impractical to chart the critical tasks for each call type.
The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends a minimum of two emergency medic al
technicians and two certified paramedics to adequately operate an emergency cardiac scene. A
2010 EMS study conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
clearly demonstrates a crew of four first responders , including two paramedics, on-scene is the
most expedient and efficient means of delivering advanced emergency medical care.
Recently, the County of San Luis Obispo implemented a High Performance Cardio -Pulmonary
Resuscitation (CPR) program. Based on the latest CPR research and patient survival outcomes,
this new program resulted in increasing the number of responders San Luis Obispo City Fire
dispatches to incidents with a high probability that CPR will be needed. In previous years, these
emergencies were managed by the closest fire crew and an ambulance crew. Under this new
program, two fire crews, the battalion chief, and an ambulance crew are dispatched.
The Department routinely responds to other EMS calls that require treatment for more than one
patient. These calls include vehicle accidents, chemical exposures, construction or industrial
accidents, and any other event that occurs with several people in close proximity. Patient
conditions can range from minor cuts and bruises to life-threatening injuries.
Dispatchers are responsible for screening calls to establish the correct initial response. The first
fire department officer on-scene amends the response once conditions have been assessed.
Standard operating procedures are used to request adequate personnel and resources.
For comparison purposes, the following critical task table reviews the tasks needed on a typical
cardiac arrest.
Packet Pg. 46 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 28
Table 7—High Performance Cardiac Arrest Management: Six to Seven Firefighters, One
Battalion Chief, and an Ambulance Crew
Task Type of Treatment Administered
Personnel
Required
High performance chest
compressions
Advanced high-performance compression of chest to
circulate blood 2-3
Basic airway control
Oxygen therapy
Establish and maintain open airway, assist ventilations
Apply oxygen
1
Advanced airway control Manual techniques, intubation, or cricothyroidotomy 1
Interpret heart monitor
Defibrillate
Identify type and treat dysrhythmia
Electrical defibrillation of dysrhythmia 1
Establish I.V.
Administer medications
Peripheral or central intravenous access
Administer appropriate pharmacological agents 1
Medical charting
Hospital communication
Record vitals, treatments administered, gather records
Receive treatment orders from physician 2
Primary contact with
family
Discuss end-of-life options, assist with contacting
family, provide transitional grief support 1
Total Personnel required per patient 9-10
4.1.2 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force Size
What does a deployment study derive from a company task analysis? The total task needs (as
displayed in Table 6 and Table 7) to stop the escalation of an emergency must be compared to
outcomes. We know from nationally-published fire service “time vs. temperature” tables that
after about four to five minutes of free burning, a room fire will grow to the point of flashover.
At this point, the entire room is engulfed, the structure becomes threatened , and human survival
near or in the fire room becomes impossible. Additionally, we know that brain death begins to
occur within four to six minutes of the heart having stopped. Thus, the Effective Response Force
must arrive in time to stop these catastrophic events from becoming worse.
The on-scene tasks discussed show that the residents of the City are able to expect positive
outcomes, and have a good chance of survival, in a serious fire or medical emergency. This is
because the City’s first responding units are typically available in a Travel Time of 5:40
minutes/seconds or less. The City is staffed per day with enough firefighters to deliver one
Effective Response Forces of 14 firefighters to a building fire, even without assistance from
other agencies.
Packet Pg. 47 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 29
Mitigating an emergency event is a team effort once the units have arrived. This refers back to
the “weight” of response analogy; if too few personnel arrive too slowly, then the emergency
will worsen instead of improve. The outcome times, of course, will be longer, with less desirable
results, if the arriving force is later or smaller.
The quantity of staffing and the arrival time frame can be critical in a serious fire. Fires in older
and/or multi-story buildings could well require the initial firefighters needing to rescue trapped
or immobile occupants. If a lightly-staffed force arrives, it cannot simultaneously conduct rescue
and firefighting operations.
Fires and complex medical incidents require that the other units arrive in time to complete an
effective intervention. Time is one factor that comes from proper station placement. Good
performance also comes from adequate staffing and training. In the critical tasks identified
previously, the City’s Fire Department can perform well in terms of time. If fire stations are
spaced too far apart, then when one unit has to cover another unit’s a rea, or multiple units are
needed, these units can be too far away and the emergency will worsen.
Previous critical task studies conducted by Citygate, the Standard of Response Cover documents
reviewed from accredited fire departments, and NFPA 1710 recommendations all arrive at the
need for 14+ firefighters arriving within 11 minutes (from the time of call) at a room and
contents structure fire to be able to simultaneously and effectively perform the tasks of rescue,
fire attack, and ventilation. Given that the City sends all of its own personnel (three engines, one
ladder truck, and one battalion chief) to an incident involving a working First Alarm building
fire, it is clear that the City and its leaders understand that firefighting crews arriving closely
together are needed to deliver a positive outcome that protects lives and property by stopping the
escalation of the emergency as found by the arriving force.
A question one might ask is , “If fewer firefighters arrive, what from the list of tasks mentioned
would not be done?” Most likely, the search team would be delayed, as would ventilation. The
attack lines would only consist of two firefighters, which does not allow for rapid movement
above the first-floor deployment. Rescue is conducted with only two-person teams; thus, when
rescue is essential, other tasks are not completed in a simultaneous, timely manner. It must
always be remembered: effective deployment is about the speed (Travel Time) and the weight
(firefighters) of the attack.
Fourteen initial City firefighters could handle a moderate-risk house fire; however, even a
department-based Effective Response Force of 14 will be seriously slowed if the fire is above the
Packet Pg. 48 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 30
first floor, in a low-rise apartment building, or commercial/industrial building. This is where the
capability to add alarms to the standard response becomes important.
Given the fact that San Luis Obispo’s First Alarm (Effective Response Force) delivers 14
personnel to a moderate risk building fire, it reflects the City’s goal to confine serious building
fires to or near the room of origin, and to prevent the spread of fire to adjoining buildings. This is
a typical desired outcome in built-out areas and requires more firefighters more quickly than the
typical rural outcome of keeping the fire contained to the building, not room, of origin.
The City’s current physical response to building fires is, in effect, the City’s de-facto deployment
measure to built-up urban/suburban areas. Thus, this becomes the baseline policy for the
deployment of firefighters.
4.2 DISTRIBUTION AND CONCENTRATION STUDIES—HOW THE LOCATION OF FIRST-DUE
AND FIRST ALARM RESOURCES AFFECTS THE OUTCOME
The City is served today by four fire stations. It is
appropriate to understand what the existing stations do
and do not cover, if there are any coverage gaps needing
one or more stations, and what, if anything, to do about
them.
In brief, there are two geographic perspectives to fire
station deployment:
Distribution – the spacing of first-due fire units to stop routine emergencies.
Concentration – the clustering of fire stations close enough together so that
building fires can receive sufficient resources from multiple fire stations quickly.
As indicated, this is known as the Effective Response Force, or, more
commonly, the “First Alarm Assignment”—the collection of a sufficient number
of firefighters on scene delivered within the concentration time goal to stop the
escalation of the problem.
To analyze first-due fire unit Travel Time coverage, City of San Luis Obispo geographic
information services (GIS) staff used a geographic mapping tool that can measure theoretical
Travel Time over the street network. For this time calculation, staff, with coaching from
Citygate, used the base map and street travel speeds calibrated to actual fire company Travel
Times from previous responses to simulate real-world coverage. Using these tools, staff and
SOC ELEMENT 5 OF 8
DISTRIBUTION STUDY
SOC ELEMENT 6 OF 8
CONCENTRATION STUDY
Packet Pg. 49 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 31
Citygate ran several deployment tests and measured their impact on various parts of the City.
The Travel Time measure used was four minutes over the road network, which is consistent with
the “benchmark” recommendation in NFPA 1710 and desirable outcomes in critical
emergencies. When up to a total of three minutes is added for dispatch Call Processing and crew
Turnout Times, then the maps effectively show the area covered within seven minutes of the
police dispatch center receiving the 9-1-1 requests for the first-due unit, and 11 minutes (eight
minutes travel) for a First Alarm assignment.
Map #1 – General Geography and Station Locations
This view shows the existing City fire station locations with the City boundaries. This is a
reference map for the other map displays that follow.
Map #2 – First-Due Unit Distribution: 4-Minute Engine Travel
This map shows, using green street segments, the distribution of City stations per a best practice
recommended response goal of four minutes Travel Time. Therefore, green indicates the
locations an engine could reach within this time, assuming it is in-station and encounters no
unusual traffic delays. In addition, the computer mapping tool uses actual fire company speed
limits per roadway type. Thus, the green projection is realistic for fire trucks with normal traffic
present.
The purpose of computer response mapping is to determine and balance station locations. This
geo-mapping design is then checked in the study against actual dispatch time data, which reflects
the real world. There also should be some overlap between station areas so that a second-due unit
can have a chance of an adequate response time when it covers a call in another fire company’s
first-due area.
Additionally, this map model uses the future major arterial streets planned in the City’s traffic
circulation plan.
Finding #2: Using the current four fire station locations, and considering the
future transportation enhancements included in the Land Use and
Circulation Element, the southern expansion area is not within four
minutes travel of an existing fire station.
Packet Pg. 50 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 32
Map #3 – First Alarm (Concentration) Coverage at 8-Minute Travel
This map exhibit shows the concentration or massing of fire crews for serious fire or rescue
calls. Building fires, in particular, require 14+ firefighters (per NFPA 1710) arriving within a
reasonable time frame to work together and effectively to stop the escalation of an emergency.
Otherwise, if too few firefighters arrive, or arrive too late in the fire’s progress, the result is a
greater alarm fire, which is more dangerous to the public and the firefighters.
This measure ensures that a minimum of 14 personnel (three firefighters per engine and four on
the quint, plus battalion chief) can arrive on-scene to work simultaneously and effectively to
stop the spread of a serious building fire.
The light green color shows the areas receiving four units, which would be three fire engines, the
ladder truck (quint), and the battalion chief. This force can cover along Tank Farm Road (the
street running east-west just north of the airport), but not very far south of it where much of the
development is planned to occur.
Finding #3: The southern expansion area is not within eight minutes Travel
Time of a best practices Effective Response Force assignment of
three engines, one City ladder truck (quint), and one battalion
chief.
Map #4 – The Quint Ladder Truck and One Battalion Chief at 8-Minute Travel
This map displays the coverage for one battalion chief and the quint ladder truck at an eight-
minute Travel Time. The area to and just past Tank Farm Road can be covered by these two
specialty units from their location at Station 1.
Map #5 – All Incident Location Densities
This map examines, by mathematical density, where clusters of serious emergency incident
activity occurred. These incidents require a response with red lights and siren, commonly called
Code 3. In this set, the yellow to red density color plots the highest concentration of all incidents.
This perspective is important because the deployment system needs an overlap of units to ensure
the delivery of multiple units when needed for serious incidents, or to handle simultaneous calls
for service.
Packet Pg. 51 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 33
As can be seen, both Fire Station areas 3 and 4 are active with incident demand and there is not
yet significant demand in the southern growth areas. If either Station 3 or 4 were committed to an
emergency, a covering unit from Station 1 or worse, Station 2, would have very long response to
the area south of Tank Farm road.
Map #6 – Southern City Fifth Fire Station Location
City GIS and Fire Department staff, along with Citygate, then conducted four test location
scenarios for a fifth fire station in the southern City. The test parcels used were considered
feasible for fire station development. Two sites were on the western end of Tank Farm Road and
two were on the easterly end. Given land environmental constraints and the lack of ability to plan
a road from the center of Tank Farm Road northerly up into the existing City areas, the sites on
either end had to be considered.
GIS tools allowed the team to accurately measure the road miles each station site would cover at
four minutes of travel. The siting goal was to both cover the southern expansion areas, but also to
cover the most road miles not already covered at a four-minute Travel Time from an existing fire
station.
Map 6 shows the best fit result in that a fifth fire station located at the east end of Tank Farm
Road near the area of Santa Fe Road to provide the most improved south City coverage to
existing underserved neighborhoods as well as new ones.
Finding #4: The most beneficial improvement in fire services the City could
make would be to add a fire station in the southern City area
equipped with one fire engine and a three-person crew.
Packet Pg. 52 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
This page was intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 53 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 35
SECTION 5—STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
5.1 HISTORICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND RELIABILITY OF RESPONSE—WHAT STATISTICS SAY
ABOUT EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The maps described in Section 4 show the GIS-projected
response times given perfect conditions with no
competing calls, no traffic congestion, and units all in
place. Examination of the actual response time data
provides a picture of how response times are in the “real”
world of simultaneous calls, rush hour traffic conditions,
units out of position, and delayed Travel Time for events such as periods of severe weather.
5.1.1 Data Set Identification
The San Luis Obispo Fire Department furnished computer-aided-dispatch (CAD) data for three
years. There were 17,613 incidents and 18,716 apparatus records for the study time period of
1/1/2012 – 12/31/2014. Some incidents require more than one apparatus, so it is normal to have
more apparatus movements than incidents.
Where possible, Citygate compares the data for these three calendar years to the data used in the
2009 Fire Master Plan (Fiscal Year 2007-08 data).
5.2 SERVICE DEMAND
In 2014, the Fire Department responded to 6,278 incidents, or about 17.2 incidents per day. The
graph below illustrates the number of incidents per year for the three years of this study. The
number of incidents per year is growing steadily.
SOC ELEMENT 7 OF 8
RELIABILITY & HISTORICAL
RESPONSE EFFECTIVENESS
STUDIES
Packet Pg. 54 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 36
Figure 4—Number of Incidents by Year
5.2.1 Breakdown of Incident Demand Over Time
The chart below shows a breakdown of incidents by hour of the day by year. Notice minimum
activity in the early morning hours is about 25% of peak level activity in the early afternoon.
Also, we see that year-to-year incident activity is growing mainly during business hours.
Figure 5—Number of Incidents by Hour of Day by Year
Packet Pg. 55 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 37
Citygate also reviewed the calls for service by day of week and month of year, and found little
variation.
Finding #5: The City’s time-of-day, day-of-week, and month-of-year calls for
service demands are very consistent. This means the City needs to
operate a fairly consistent 24/7/365 response system.
5.3 RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS
Once the types of incidents are quantified, incident analysis shifts to the time required to r espond
to those incidents. Fractile breakdowns track the percentage (and count the number) of incidents
meeting defined criteria, such as the first apparatus to reach the scene within progressive time
segments.
5.3.1 City-Wide Total Response Time Performance
A resident or visitor of a city measures the speed of fire department response from the time
assistance is requested until the assistance arrives. In some communities, this measurement may
be referred to as “Call to 1st Apparatus Arrival” or “Call to Arrival”. For this report, this time
interval is defined as “Total Response Time.” Police and sheriff’s departments, under state law,
act as a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP ) for 9-1-1 calls. All 9-1-1 calls for fire service in
the City are routed to the City’s Police Communications Center.
Based on national recommendations, Citygate’s response time test goal is for the 90% Call to
Arrival to be seven minutes (or 420 seconds). This is made up of three component parts:
Call Processing Time: 1 minute (receive call, determine need, alert crew)
Turnout Time: 2 minutes (notify, don required protective gear, get moving)
Travel Time: 4 minutes (travel to location street front)
Packet Pg. 56 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 38
The following is the breakdown of 9-1-1 Call to First Apparatus Arrival for the City overall for
all incidents types and then by apparatus:
Table 8—Call to Arrival (Total) Response Time to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds)
Station 2012 2013 2014 FY 07/08
Citywide 10:21 10:21 9:58 9:00
Truck 1 11:46 11:46 11:23 9:15
Engine 2 10:47 11:02 10:42 9:00
Engine 3 9:40 9:43 9:13 8:00
Engine 4 11:22 11:12 10:48 9:30
Finding #6: The Department’s Total Response Time is significantly longer than
a Citygate and best practices -based recommendation of 7:00
minutes/seconds. This is due to a combination of slow Call
Processing and Turnout Times combined with long Travel Times
from only four fire stations.
Finding #7: The Department’s Total Response Time has decayed 58 seconds
since the previous master plan study data review from Fiscal Year
07/08. Most of this slower performance is due to more incidents
with longer Travel Times offset by a slight improvement in Call
Processing Time.
Packet Pg. 57 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 39
5.3.2 Call Processing Time
This measure is the time it takes to answer 9-1-1, ascertain the nature of the emergency, enter the
call into the dispatch computer, and dispatch the recommended apparatus.
Table 9—Call Processing Time Performance to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds)
Dispatch 2012 2013 2014 FY 07/08
All Incident Types 2:28 2:25 2:20 2:30
Medical 2:17 2:12 2:07
Alarm Fire 2:42 2:42 2:33
Collision Injury 2:14 2:03 2:18
Public Assist 2:17 2:28 2:15
Finding #8: The City’s Call Processing Time has only slightly improved since
the previous master plan where it was noted the City was not close
to a best practices goal of 60-105 seconds.
5.3.3 Turnout Time
This measure is the time it takes for all crews to hear the dispatch message, don safety clothing,
and begin moving the assigned apparatus.
Table 10—Turnout Time Performance to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds)
Station 2012 2013 2014 FY 07/08
Citywide 2:59 2:59 2:46 2:30
Truck 1 3:18 3:31 3:07
Engine 2 2:53 2:44 2:23
Engine 3 2:35 2:42 2:22
Engine 4 3:06 3:04 3:04
While the NFPA recommends 60-80 seconds for Turnout Time, it has long been recognized as a
standard rarely met in practical experience. Crews must not just hear the dispatch message; they
must also don the OSHA-mandated personal protective clothing for the type of emergency.
Packet Pg. 58 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 40
Citygate has long recommended that, due to this and the floor plan design of some stations,
agencies can reasonably make a two-minute crew Turnout Time to 90% of the emergency
incidents.
Finding #9: The City’s Turnout Times are consistently over two minutes from
station to station, and have eroded since the prior master plan for a
Citygate recommendation of two minutes.
5.3.4 Travel Time
Travel Time is defined as the time element between when the dispatch center is notified either
verbally or electronically that the unit is en route to the call, and when it arrives at the address or
location street front, not the patient’s side. The Citywide Travel Time measures for 2012 through
2014 to all Fire Department responses are shown hereafter.
Table 11—Travel Time Performance to 90% of Incidents (Minutes/Seconds)
Station 2012 2013 2014 FY 07/08
Citywide 5:55 5:59 5:51 5:15
Truck 1 6:11 6:29 6:02 5:15
Engine 2 6:26 6:50 6:49 5:15
Engine 3 5:47 5:55 5:41 4:45
Engine 4 6:53 6:43 6:40 5:45
NFPA Standard 1710 recommends a four-minute Travel Time goal in urban and suburban areas.
As seen in Table 11, none of the Travel Times meet this goal. There are several reasons for
slower Travel Time, not all of which can be cost-effectively improved. Traffic congestion
variation, non-grid road network areas, open spaces, dry washes, and highways that limit through
streets all affect Travel Time. Having said this, all of the City’s stations have Travel Times less
than or just over six minutes. A five- to six-minute Travel Time is hard to achieve, even for
metropolitan fire departments on a grid street network with adequately spaced stations.
Packet Pg. 59 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 41
Finding #10: The first-due unit Travel Times in the City are longer than a best
practice and City goal of four minutes, which is reflective of the
non-grid street design, the large size of some station areas, and
simultaneous calls for service requiring farther away units to
respond at times. Due to incident demand increase and traffic
congestion, Travel Times have also eroded across the board since
the previous master plan.
5.3.5 First Alarm (Effective Response Force) Performance to Building Fires
The Department’s response plan is for three engines, one ladder truck, and one battalion chief to
respond to building fires and other serious incidents.
This response force is designed to provide enough units when some fires are very serious at the
time of the 9-1-1 call. However, in a given year, there are few building fires in every station area
where the entire force of four units all are needed and arrive at the incident location. Therefore,
the response time sample size is very small in the following table, even when totaled across three
years.
The best representation for the First Alarm or Effective Response Force units is Travel Time
across the City’s street network, which is displayed in the table below for the years 2012-2014.
The NFPA 1710 recommendation is for all units to arrive within an eight-minute Travel Time.
The numbers in parentheses next to the arrival time of the units is the total number of
occurrences per year per station area. The reader is cautioned that some of these sample sizes are
very small and can readily change year to year depending on the exact locations of serious fires
and the various units’ availability.
Station 3 has the longest fourth-due Travel Times and for it to be the fourth-due unit it has to
cross to Station 3 and 4’s area. In Station 1’s area, Engine 3 is typically the second- or third-due
unit.
Packet Pg. 60 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 42
Table 12—Travel Time for Effective Response Force Across Three Years (Time and Count)
Unit 1st Arrival 2nd Arrival 3rd Arrival 4th Arrival
Truck 1 06:11 (3,317) 09:12 (237) 10:50 (41) 09:46 (11)
Engine 2 06:57 (3,675) 09:57 (92) 10:39 (32) 08:48 (14)
Engine 3 05:50 (3,567) 08:59 (106) 09:32 (33) 15:26 (12)
Engine 4 06:53 (2,950) 09:45 (78) 08:19 (29) 07:42 (13)
Finding #11: The City’s response Travel Time for four units to serious fires,
known as the Effective Response Force (ERF or First Alarm),
during the last three years ranges from 7:42 to 15:26, which in
three of the four fire station districts, does not meet an eight-
minute Travel Time goal.
5.4 SIMULTANEOUS INCIDENT ACTIVITY
Simultaneous incidents occur when other incidents are underway. In San Luis Obispo, over the
three-year reporting period, 19.70% of incidents occurred while one or more other incidents were
underway. The following is the percentage of simultaneous incidents broken down by number of
simultaneous incidents:
Table 13—Simultaneous Incident Activity – 2012-2014
Number of Simultaneous Incidents Percentage
More than 1 incident at the same time in
the City 19.70
More than 2 incidents at the same time
in the City 3.60
More than 3 incidents at the same time
in the City 0.55
In a department with four fire stations, and mutual aid partners, simultaneous incidents in
different station areas have very little operational consequence. However, when simultaneous
incidents occur within a single station area, there can be significant delays in response times.
Currently, the Department is seldom stressed to handle three incidents at once, but as the
Packet Pg. 61 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 43
following figure shows, the rate of simultaneous incidents is on the increase, following the
upward trend for EMS incidents:
Figure 6—Simultaneous Incidents by Year
The following graph illustrates the number of simultaneous incidents by station area across three
years. Station 3 has the greatest number of in -station area simultaneous incidents, followed
closely by Station 1. Other stations are far less likely to experience simultaneous incidents within
their station area.
Packet Pg. 62 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 44
Figure 7—Number of Station Area Simultaneous Incidents
Finding #12: The rate of more than two simultaneous incidents is low, but many
of these occurrences are in the Station 1 and 3 areas. If these two
units are committed to incidents, then the entire southern half of
the City relies on Station 4, which cannot cover the existing City in
a timely manner due to its southwest location, nor can it provide
the City’s Total Response Time goal to the southern expansion and
annexation areas.
Packet Pg. 63 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 6—Fiscal and Timing Impacts for a Possible Fifth Fire Station page 45
SECTION 6—FISCAL AND TIMING IMPACTS FOR A POSSIBLE FIFTH
FIRE STATION
This section provides an order of magnitude cost for the addition of a fifth fire station. As the
other City General Fund departments conclude their services and cost analysis , the City will be
able to determine how best to have the new southern neighborhoods contribute to the added costs
of City services while maintaining service levels Citywide.
6.1 FIRE DEPARTMENT COMPONENT COSTS
The following costs, estimated in current dollars , provide a scale of what is needed for a fifth fire
station:
Table 14—New Fire Station Costs
Cost Element Cost
Fire station with site development costs, equipment and
furnishings. No raw land cost. Market escalation at 4% per
year to 2017 construction.
$5,322,037
Hiring expenses, one time $44,500
Fire engine with equipment $675,000
Station annual operating expense, services, and supplies $94,500
Station personnel @ 3/shift/day $1,304,299
Station personnel @ 2/shift/day $953,553
Annual operating with 3/day $1,398,799
6.2 FIRE STATION OPERATIONAL TIMING
The question every growing city faces is, “When must the additional public safety services be
added to protect the additional residents?” As with fire service response times, there are no
federal or state regulations on this issue. The local decision is a blend of local risk acceptance
balanced by the pace that new revenues accumulate to pay for the increased services.
Also, depending on development cycles, the addition of new buildings can vary widely due to
market demand. For this reason, most communities use the actual count of new, occupied
Packet Pg. 64 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 6—Fiscal and Timing Impacts for a Possible Fifth Fire Station page 46
buildings as the trigger point, not just time in months, or milestones like a subdivision map
becoming approved for occupancy or model homes being opened.
In our experience, many of our clients find the added risks and increasing revenues to be
balanced when the new fire station area is 50% developed. At that point, communities require the
station to be opened. Depending on pace of development and revenue growth, some communities
will start with a two-person unit for EMS responses and then increase to a three-person full fire
engine when the area is 75-100% developed. Development impact fees and/or a development
agreement typically are used to have the developer(s) pay for the fire station and fire apparatus
capital costs.
However, the ongoing cost burden is equally important to be able to afford. In Table 14 above,
there is a $350,746 annual difference between a two- and three-person crew. Depending on the
rate of revenue increase, it may be necessary to delay the full crew cost until the Station 5 area is
almost built out.
Recommendation #1: Given the modest number of additional dwelling units
and residents and the likely slow rate of development
occupancy over several years, Citygate believes the
fiscal burden of the added staffing should be phased in
over the later stages of development. This should start
with a two-firefighter emergency medical response unit
at the point 50% of the residential units are occupied in
Fire Station 5’s primary service area, and the full three-
person firefighting and EMS engine crew in place at the
point 90% of the residential and commercial
development is occupied. Citygate recommends
beginning design and construction of the fifth fire
station three years prior to staffing.
Packet Pg. 65 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 7—Overall Evaluation and Recommendation page 47
SECTION 7—OVERALL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 OVERALL EVALUATION
The San Luis Obispo Fire Department serves a very
diverse land use pattern that, in some locations, is
geographically challenged with open spaces, hills, a
freeway, and drainages, all of which limit the
Department’s ability to achieve quick Travel Times from the current four fire stations.
For the foreseeable future, the City will need both a first-due firefighting unit and Effective
Response Force (First Alarm) coverage in all parts of the City, consistent with current best
practices, if the risk of fire is to be limited to only part of the inside of an affected building .
While residential fire sprinklers are now included in the national model fire codes, it will be
decades before the existing housing stock will be upgraded or replaced, even if these codes were
to be adopted for all new construction.
While the volume and response times to EMS incidents consume much of the City’s attention,
Citygate reminds readers that the word “fire” is in the agency’s name and that all communities
need a “stand-by and readily available” firefighting force for when fires break out. The Fire
Department does not provide ambulance care and, even if it did, would still require resources in
addition to EMS hourly demand for an effective response to emerging serious fires.
To provide equitable response times to all similar risk neighborhoods and to provide the depth of
response to address multiple, simultaneous incidents or incidents requiring multiple response
units, the City will need a fifth fire station where growth and annexation expands the City’s
service area.
For its current risks and substantially developed areas, the City has the correct quantity of fire
engines (pumpers) and a quint ladder truck.
Citygate’s deployment recommendations are listed below. The first deployment step for the City
in the near term is to adopt performance measures from which to set forth service expectations
and, on an annual budget basis, monitor Fire Department performance as part of its annual
budgeting process.
SOC ELEMENT 8 OF 8
OVERALL EVALUATION
Packet Pg. 66 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 7—Overall Evaluation and Recommendation page 48
7.1.1 Deployment Recommendation
Based on the technical analysis and findings contained in this Standards of Response Coverage
study, Citygate offers the following overall deployment recommendations:
Recommendation #2: Adopt Updated, More Detailed Fire Service
Deployment Measure Policies: The City should
incorporate performance measures into its financial plan
to direct fire crew planning and to monitor the operation
of the Department. The measures of time should be
designed to save patients where medically possible and
to keep small but serious fires from becoming greater
alarm fires. With this is mind, Citygate recommends the
following measures:
2.1 Distribution of Fire Stations: To treat medical patients
and control small fires, the first-due fire unit should
have a Total Response Time of seven minutes or less,
90% of the time. This equates to a one-minute Call
Processing Time by the dispatch center, a two-minute
fire crew Turnout Time, and a four-minute Travel Time.
2.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious
Emergencies: To confine fires near the room of origin,
to stop wildland fires to under three acres when noticed
promptly, and to treat up to five medical patients at
once, a multiple-unit response of a minimum of three
engines, one quint ladder truck, and one battalion chief
(totaling 14 personnel) are dispatched to these serious
emergencies. This Effective Response Force should
have a Total Response Time of 11 minutes or less, 90%
of the time. This equates to one-minute Call Processing
Time, two minutes Turnout Time, and eight minutes
Travel Time.
Packet Pg. 67 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Section 7—Overall Evaluation and Recommendation page 49
2.3 Hazardous Materials Response: Provide hazardous
materials response to emergency incidents designed to
protect the community from the hazards associated with
uncontrolled release of hazardous and toxic materials.
The fundamental mission of the City response is to
minimize or halt the release of a hazardous substance so
it has minimal impact on the community. It can achieve
this with a Travel Time in urban to suburban areas for
the first company capable of investigating a hazardous
materials release at the operations level within four
minutes Travel Time or less, 90% of the time. After
size-up and scene evaluation is completed, a
determination will be made whether to request
additional resources from the City’s multi-agency
hazardous materials response partnership.
2.4 Technical Rescue: Respond to technical rescue
emergencies as efficiently and effectively as possible
with enough trained personnel to facilitate a successful
rescue. Achieve a Travel Time for the first company in
urban to suburban areas for size-up of the rescue within
four minutes Travel Time or less, 90% of the time.
Assemble additional resources for technical rescue
capable of initiating a rescue within a Total Response
Time of 11 minutes, 90% of the time. Safely complete
rescue/extrication to ensure delivery of patient to a
definitive care facility.
2.5 Emergency Medical Services: The City should continue
with its goal of providing first responder paramedic
services to all neighborhoods with a Total Response
Time of seven minutes or less, 90% of the time. This
equates to a one-minute Call Processing Time by the
dispatch center, a two-minute fire crew Turnout Time,
and a four-minute Travel Time.
Packet Pg. 68 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
San Luis Obispo Fire Department—Fire Service Master Plan Update
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 7—Overall Evaluation and Recommendation page 50
Recommendation #3: The Police and Fire Department have to make
meaningful improvements to Call Processing Time and
Turnout Time.
Recommendation #4: Implement revenue-generating option(s) sufficient to
cover initial and ongoing funding gaps to add a fire
station in the southern City area equipped with on e fire
engine and a three-person crew.
Packet Pg. 69 AttachmentA: a - Vol 1 - SLO SOC-MP Update Report - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update report)
Fire Service Master
Plan Update for the
2250 East Bidwell St., Ste #100 Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 458-5100 Fax: (916) 983-2090
Management Consultants Folsom (Sacramento), CA
City of
San Luis Obispo
Fire Department
Volume 2 of 2 –Map Atlas
June 8, 2016
Packet Pg. 70 AttachmentB: b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan Response Coverage Update
!(
!(
^_
!(
!C
!C
12
21
3
1
2
4
San Luis Obispo City Fire Department
Legend
Fire Station s
^_1
!(2
!(3
!(4
!C CF Mutual Aid Stations
Local Streets
Arterial Streets
Freeway
City Limits ³
Map #1
General geogr aphy with fire station locationsand city boundary
0 1 20.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 71 AttachmentB: b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan
Packet Pg. 72 AttachmentB: b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan
!C
!C
!(
!(
^_
!(
12
21
3
1
2
4
San Luis Obispo City Fire Department Map #3
0 1.5 30.75 Miles ³
8-minute Travel First AlarmQuint Ladder 1 BC, 3 Engines
^_Station 1
!(Station 2
!(Station 3
!(Station 4
!C CF Mutual Aid Stations
8 minute Response Time
Number of Stations to Arrive
1
2
3
4
5
e
Packet Pg. 73 AttachmentB: b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan
!C
!C
!(
!(
^_
!(
12
21
3
1
2
4
San Luis Obispo City Fire Department Map #4
0 1.5 30.75 Miles ³
8-minute Travel Quint Ladder and BC only
^_Station 1
!(Station 2
!(Station 3
!(Station 4
8minTravelTimeAll
!C CF Mutual Aid Stations
Packet Pg. 74 AttachmentB: b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan
!C
!C
!(
!(
^_
!(
3
1
2
4
San Luis Obispo City Fire Department
Legend
Fire Stations
^_1
!(2
!(3
!(4
!C CF Mutual Aid Stations
Arterial Streets
City Limits
Freeway
³
Map #5
2014 Code 3 calls Density Map
Packet Pg. 75 AttachmentB: b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan
!C
!C
!(
!(
^_
!(
Proposed Station Location
12
3
1
2
4
San Luis Obispo City Fire Department
Legend
Fire Stations
^_1
!(2
!(3
!(4
4minStreetsSt5
!C CF Mutual Aid Stations
Freeway
City Limits ³
Map #6
4-minute travel coverage from proposed station #5
Total road miles = 161Total road miles covered by existing stations 4 minute travel time = 148 (92%)Total road miles proposed station #5 would cover, 4 minute travel time = 13 (8%)Note: All calculated within City Limit boundaries 0 1 20.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 76 AttachmentB: b - Vol 2 - SLO SOC-MP Update Map Atlas - Final (06-08-16) (1266 : Fire Master Plan
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Lee Price, Interim City Clerk
Prepared By: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: NOMINATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL
COAST COMMISSION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS (CCCSC), AREA AGENCY
ON AGING
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by Mayor Marx, nominate Julie Cox to serve a term beginning on July 1, 2016
through June 30, 2018, as the City of San Luis Obispo’s representative to the Central Coast
Commission for Senior Citizens Area Agency on Aging Board of Directors.
DISCUSSION
Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens (CCCSC), Area Agency on Aging
The CCCSC is a non-profit, private corporation designated by the California Department of
Aging as the Area Agency on Aging for San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. The 12-
member Board of Directors includes representatives from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara
County, the cities of San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria and Santa Barbara, and other community
agencies and organizations.
The Board of Directors governs the operations of all the programs sponsored by the
Commission, which include the Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program (HICAP),
Car Fit, Family Caregiver/Grandparent Caregiver Information Program, Senior Connection and
Area Agency on Aging. The Area Agency on Aging component of this corporation allocates
funds from the Older Americans and Older Californians Acts to address needs for home and
community based care for older persons and functionally impaired adults.
The City Clerk’s office conducted an open recruitment as required by law and it is recommended
that the City Council nominate Julie Cox and direct staff to forward her application to the Board
of Directors for re-appointment.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
A copy of Julie Cox’s application has been provided to the City Council and is available for
public review in the City Clerk's office.
4
Packet Pg. 77
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Lee Price, Interim City Clerk
Prepared By: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS CITY ADVISORY BODIES
RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Liaison Subcommittees:
1.Confirm the appointments of Ken Tasseff and Christopher Coates to the Citizens’
Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission to complete three-year terms each
expiring June 30, 2019; and
2.Confirm the reappointment of Ken Kienow to the Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement
Oversight Commission to complete a one-year term expiring June 30, 2017; and
3. Confirm the appointments of Greg Avakian and Keri Schwab to the Parks and Recreation
Commission to complete unexpired terms each through March 31, 2020; and
4. Confirm the appointment of Rodney Thurman to the Parks and Recreation Commission
to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2018; and
5. Confirm the appointment of Daniel Knight to the Planning Commission to complete an
unexpired term through March 31, 2017; and
6. Confirm the appointment of Richard Alan Bate to the Tree Committee to complete an
unexpired term through March 31, 2017.
DISCUSSION
This year the City’s annual advisory body recruitment was extended to April 22, 2016 to allow
additional outreach to the community. The recruitment was conducted to fill 8 scheduled and
unscheduled advisory body positions as indicated below. A total of 21 applications were
received. The following recommendations will fulfill these vacancies. After the close of the
recruitment period, interviews were conducted and recommendations were made based on those
interviews. Applications of those who were unsuccessful in this process will be kept on file for
the next year and will be notified of any subsequent vacancies.
5
Packet Pg. 78
Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission
Due to the term expirations of Ken Kienow and Amy Kardel, effective June 30, 2016, there are
two scheduled vacancies on the Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission
(REOC). In addition, because of the resignation of Hillary Trout, effective December 16, 2015,
there was also an unscheduled vacancy on the REOC. Ms. Trout’s term would have expired on
June 30, 2017. The Council Liaison Subcommittee recommends appointment of Ken Tasseff and
Christopher Coates, effective June 30, 2016, to a term expiring on June 30, 2019, and Ken
Kienow, effective June 30, 2016, to a term expiring on June 17, 2017.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Due to the term expirations of Michael Parolini and Ron Regier, effective March 31, 2016, there
were two scheduled vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission. With the resignation of
Ryan Baker effective February 12, 2016, there was also an unscheduled vacancy on the Parks
and Recreation Commission. Mr. Baker’s term would have expired on March 31, 2018. The
Council Liaison Subcommittee recommends appointment of Greg Avakian and Keri Schwab,
effective June 21, 2016, to a term expiring on March 31, 2020, and Rodney Thurman, effective
June 21, 2016, to a term expiring on March 31, 2018.
Planning Commission
Due to the resignation of Michael Draze, effective April 13, 2016, there was an unscheduled
vacancy on the Planning Commission. Mr. Draze’s term would have expired on March 31, 2017.
In accordance with Council Policies and Procedures Section 6.7.2.5, the Council Liaison
Subcommittee recommends the appointment of Daniel Knight, effective June 21, 2016, to a term
expiring on March 31, 2017. It is noteworthy to mention that Mr. Knight was appointed to the
Administrative Review Board (ARB) in March 2016. As a general policy an applicant shall not
be appointed to serve on more than one advisory body, except that a member may also serve on
one technical or special purpose committee. Mr. Knight’s appointment falls within that
exception.
Tree Committee
Due to the resignation of Trey Duffy, effective March 18, 2016, there was an unscheduled
vacancy on the Tree Committee. Mr. Duffy’s term would have expired on March 31, 2017. The
Council Liaison Subcommittee recommends appointment of Richard Alan Bate, effective June
21, 2016, to a term expiring on March 31, 2017.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
All applications are available in the City Council reading file and for public review in the Office
of the City Clerk.
5
Packet Pg. 79
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: SLO AIRPORT COLLABORATIVE PLANNING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
ISSUES DOCUMENT AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COLLABORATIVE
OPERATING FRAMEWORK
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution to agree to adhere to the process as outlined in the SLO Airport
Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and Technical Advisory
Collaborative Operating Framework; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to enter into and sign a Memorandum of Understanding on
collaborative land use planning in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport.
DISCUSSION
Background
In July 2015, Caltrans initiated a process to determine partner agency interest in improving
communication and information-sharing related to land use planning issues in the vicinity of the
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport). The partner agencies include: City of San
Luis Obispo (City), County of San Luis Obispo (County), the San Luis Obispo County Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Caltrans. Caltrans provided consultant support through its
statewide Planning Public Engagement Contract (PPEC) to conduct this effort. Caltrans’ PPEC
contractor, Daniel Iacofano and Joan Chaplick of MIG, Inc., designed the approach and served as
a neutral third party facilitator for this effort.
To start the process, MIG conducted interviews with representatives from the partner agencies to
hear their candid assessment of the issues and willingness to participate in a process designed to
improve collaboration. Based on the results of the interviews, MIG recommended convening a
group that included two designated representatives from each of the partner agencies to
participate in a series of meetings to design a process to determine how the partners could work
more collaboratively on airport related land use planning issues. This group of partner agency
representatives is referred to as the SLO Airport Collaborative. The City was represented by
Mayor Jan Marx and Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director.
SLO Airport Collaborative
Between January 2016 and April 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative convened on three
occasions for meetings to discuss and develop a process to improve communications between the
7
Packet Pg. 80
City, the County, the ALUC and Caltrans. Summaries of those meetings are provided in
Attachments F, G and H.
At the conclusion of those meetings the SLO Airport Collaborative had developed a Planning
Goals, Objectives and Issues document (Attachment C) that describes the collaborative process
and identifies key recommendations. One of the key recommendations was the formation of the
SLO Airport Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC) that would provide technical advice to the
ALUC on the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) update. In
support of that recommendation, the SLO Airport Collaborative developed, for consideration by
the ALUC, the TAC Operating Framework (Attachment D) to describe the purpose and charge,
composition, responsibilities and operating principles of the SLO Airport TAC.
The SLO Airport Collaborative also drafted resolutions (Attachment A) for adoption by the City
and the County and a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between all of the partner
agencies (Attachment B). Pursuant to the MOU, the parties agree to adhere to the process as
outlined in the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and
the TAC Operating Framework. Both documents call for the formal creation of the TAC by the
ALUC in order to provide technical advice to the ALUC on the ALUP update and on additional
matters as needed.
SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues Document
The document details the planning goals, objectives and issues for the SLO Airport
Collaborative. This information was drawn from pre-session interviews, conducted between July
2015 and December 2015, with representatives from the City, County, ALUC and Caltrans. This
document reflects modifications discussed by members of the SLO Airport Collaborative during
the series of meetings that occurred between January and April 2016.
The document identifies the following six planning goals:
A. Maintain and Improve Economic Vitality and Quality of Life;
B. Ensure Compatibility of Land Use Planning for Areas in Proximity to the Airport;
C. Prepare All Required Technical Studies and Guiding Documents;
D. Clarify Partner Agency Roles and Responsibilities for Airport Land Use Planning;
E. Create a Collaborative Airport Land Use Planning Process; and
F. Maintain Quality, Consistent Communications Among the Partner Agencies.
Each on the planning goals identifies specific objectives that need to be implemented for
achievement to occur.
The document also includes Public Process Design recommendations (Attachment E) to support
the completion of the ALUP update by advancing public engagement activities that promote
transparency, help educate and engage the public, and provide opportunities for input.
Recommended activities consist of the following:
1. Formation of a Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC);
7
Packet Pg. 81
2. Creation of a Dedicated ALUC Website;
3. Creation of a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) sheet regarding the SLO Airport
Collaborative;
4. ALUP Update Study Sessions with the Partner Agencies in a setting that is open to the
public; and
5. Jointly Sponsored Public Workshops for the ALUP Update.
SLO Airport Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC) Operating Framework
The purpose of the SLO Airport TAC is to provide input and advice to assist the ALUC with the
completion of the ALUP Update. The TAC would operate by meeting on an as needed basis to
provide input on various aspects of the ALUP update. If established, the TAC would then meet at
the request of the ALUC and focus on substantive and/or unique planning proposals and issues.
In its discussions, the TAC will focus on technical issues and not broader policy issues. The
recommendations of the TAC to the ALUC are advisory and non-binding.
The specific charge of the TAC is to:
Provide input on the technical aspects of the ALUP Update.
Respond to requests for advice and directions from the ALUC.
Recommend strategies and actions for addressing technical issues related to the Airport’s
physical development and the development of surrounding land uses.
Serve as a group with specialized technical airport land use expertise that is available for
consultation by the ALUC, Caltrans and the City and County on an as needed basis.
The TAC Operating Framework specifically describes the protocol for the following:
Member Composition and Selection
Member Responsibilities
Operating Principles
Communications with the Media
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission Action
On May 25, 2016, the ALUC reviewed the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals,
Objectives and Issues document, the TAC Operating Framework, and the draft MOU. The
ALUC directed their staff to return with a final MOU once the City and County have adopted
said documents, and to return with a resolution forming the TAC for consideration by the ALUC
at a subsequent ALUC meeting.
CONCURRENCES
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed and approved the Resolutions and MOU as to form.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a Project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5). Based on
15378(b) (5) the activity does not meet the definition of a “Project” and would therefore not be
subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
7
Packet Pg. 82
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended actions. Should the ALUC choose
to activate the TAC, the Community Development Department has adequate staffing available to
participate on an as needed basis, on the City’s behalf as a member of the TAC, in order to
provide assistance to the ALUC with their ALUP update. The City will have no administrative
responsibilities, or financial obligations associated with the formation or activation of the TAC.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may opt to not adopt the Resolution. Should the Council choose this alternative, the
City would not be obligated to adhere to the process as outlined in the SLO Airport Collaborative
Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating Framework, or to
cooperate in the implementation of those principles with the other SLO Airport Collaborative
partner agencies to the fullest extent possible.
Attachments:
a - Resolution adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives
and Issues document and TAC Operating Framework
b - Draft Memorandum of Understanding on Collaborative Land Use Planning In
the Vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
c - (Exhibit A) SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues
Document
d - (Exhibit B) SLO Airport Collaborative TAC Operating Framework
e - SLO Airport Collaborative Proposed Public Design Process Recommendations
f - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #1 Summary
g - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #2 Summary
h - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #3 Summary
7
Packet Pg. 83
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE SLO AIRPORT
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES
DOCUMENT AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COLLABORATIVE (TAC)
OPERATING FRAMEWORK
WHEREAS, the City Council has committed to developing a process that will improve
collaboration, communication and information sharing around land use planning decisions
related to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport now and into the future; and
WHEREAS, in July 2015, Caltrans initiated a process to determine partner agency
interest in improving communication and information-sharing related to land use planning issues
in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport; and
WHEREAS, the partner agencies include: City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis
Obispo, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission, and Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans provided neutral third party consultant facilitator support through
its statewide Planning Public Engagement Contract (PPEC) to conduct this effort; and
WHEREAS, to show commitment to the effort each partner agency designated two
representatives to participate in a series of meetings to design a process to determine how the
partners could work more collaboratively on airport related land use planning issues; and
WHEREAS, this group of partner agency representatives is referred to as the SLO
Airport Collaborative; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative met for the first in a
series of three meetings held to bring agency representatives together to design a process for
improving communication and collaboration regarding airport related land use planning
decisions; and
WHEREAS, during that first meeting the SLO Airport Collaborative drafted Planning
Goals, Objectives and Issues document; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative met for the second in a
series of three meetings to revise the drafted Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document
and to identify the initial implementation Strategies; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative met to finalize the
collaborative process for addressing airport land use compatibility issues now and into the future;
and
Packet Pg. 84 AttachmentC: a - Resolution adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2016, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) reviewed the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and
Issues document and the TAC Operating Framework, and directed their staff to return with a
resolution forming the TAC for consideration at a subsequent ALUC meeting; and
WHEREAS, on ______,2016, the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County
(hereafter “County”) adopted the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and
Issues document and TAC Operating Framework.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the City agrees to adhere to the process as outlined in the SLO Airport Collaborative
Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and the TAC Operating Framework, copies of
which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B, and to cooperate with implementation of those
principles with the other SLO Airport Collaborative partner agencies to the fullest extent
possible; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the
Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into and sign the Memorandum of Understanding On
Collaborative Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this authorization is effective until rescinded by
the City Council.
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:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 85 AttachmentC: a - Resolution adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 86 AttachmentC: a - Resolution adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 4
R ______
Exhibit A
SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues
[to be inserted]
Packet Pg. 87 AttachmentC: a - Resolution adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 5
R ______
Exhibit B
SLO Airport Technical Advisory Collaborative Operating Framework
[to be inserted]
Packet Pg. 88 AttachmentC: a - Resolution adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating
D R A F T
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
On Collaborative Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
By and among
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Recitals
This MOU is made with reference to the following facts and circumstances:
(a) The above-named agencies (collectively the “Parties”) have committed to developing a
process that will improve collaboration, communication and information-sharing in land
use planning decisions related to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport now and into
the future.
(b) In July 2015, Caltrans initiated a process to determine partner agency “readiness to
engage” in improving communication and information-sharing related to land use planning
issues in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport.
(c) To conduct this effort Caltrans provided neutral, third-party consultant facilitator support
through its statewide Planning Public Engagement Contract (PPEC).
(d) To show commitment to the effort, each partner agency designated two representatives
to participate in a series of meetings to design a process to determine how the partners
could work more collaboratively on airport-related land use planning issues.
(e) This group of partner agency representatives is referred to as the SLO Airport
Collaborative, with Caltrans represented by staff from District 5 and the Division of
Aeronautics, representing the Department’s roles and responsibilities with regard to State
surface transportation and aviation.
(f) The SLO Airport Collaborative met in a series of three meetings, which were convened to
bring agency representatives together to design a process for improving communication
and collaboration regarding airport related land use planning decisions.
(g) During the first meeting on January 6, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative drafted the
Planning Goals, Objectives, and Issues document.
(h) During the second meeting on February 3, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative met to
revise the draft Planning Goals, Objectives, and Issues document, and to identify the
initial implementation strategies.
(i) During the third meeting on April 21, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative met to finalize
the collaborative process for addressing airport land use compatibility issues now and into
the future.
Packet Pg. 89 AttachmentD: b - Draft Memorandum of Understanding on Collaborative Land Use Planning In the Vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County
(j) On ________, 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted the SLO Airport Collaborative
Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating Framework.
(k) On ________, 2016, the County of San Luis Obispo adopted the SLO Airport Collaborative
Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating Framework.
Agreement
Accordingly, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1.To adhere to the process as outlined in the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals,
Objectives and Issues document and TAC Operating Framework, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and to cooperate in the implementation of those principles
with the other SLO Airport Collaborative partner agencies to the fullest extent possible.
2.To continue to cooperate in the performance of all respective obligations in accordance
with applicable federal and California laws and regulations, including, but not limited to,
the State Aeronautics Act and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
In Witness Whereof
The Parties hereby have executed this MOU on the day and year
set out opposite their respective signatures below
City of San Luis Obispo
__________________________________ ___________________
By [name] Date
County of San Luis Obispo
__________________________________ ___________________
By [name] Date
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Commission
__________________________________ ___________________
By [name] Date
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
__________________________________ ___________________
By [name] Date
Packet Pg. 90 AttachmentD: b - Draft Memorandum of Understanding on Collaborative Land Use Planning In the Vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County
SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues 1 | P a g e
Corrected June 16, 2016
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues
Corrected: June 6, 2016
_____________________________________________________________________
This document details the planning goals, objectives and issues for the San Luis Obispo Airport
Collaborative. This information was drawn from pre-session interviews with representatives
from the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, Caltrans, and the SLO Airport Land
Use Commission conducted between July 2015 and December 2015. This document reflects
modifications discussed by members of the SLO Airport Collaborative during the January 2016,
February 2016 and April 2016 meetings. Two of the goals reference the term “smart growth,”
which the SLO Airport Collaborative members agree refers to an urban planning and
transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid
sprawl.
A. Maintain and Improve Economic Vitality and Quality of Life
A1. Ensure long-term viability of the SLO airport.
A2. Accommodate community needs for future growth including: affordable housing,
jobs, transportation and other related development.
A3. Provide opportunities for future growth and expansion of air service at the SLO
Airport.
A4. Apply “smart growth” planning principles to lands in and around the airport to
protect and maintain open space and agricultural areas. Promote clustering and
incorporate open space into proposed development. Reference the City of SLO
Airport Compatibility Open Space Plan prepared April 20, 2005 for
recommendations.
A5. Incorporate VMT reduction strategies in land use planning.
A6. Support a diversity of housing types to meet community needs and increase
options for housing affordability.
B. Ensure Compatibility of Land Use Planning for Areas in Proximity to the Airport
B1. Ensure safety of residents living near the airport and apply best practices and
strategies for making safety a priority goal.
B2. Apply “smart growth” principles in determining the density, intensity and
configuration of potential development in proximity of the airport.
Packet Pg. 91 AttachmentE: c - (Exhibit A) SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues Document (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues 2 | P a g e
Corrected June 16, 2016
B3. Use the ALUP update to create policies that support potential future airport
expansion while improving airport operations, access and efficiency.
B4. Research best practices and identify tools to address noise impacts and
implement noise reduction strategies.
B5. Identify and implement strategies for proactive and reactive complaint
management and impact mitigation such as avigation easements, building
standards for new construction, establishment of a fund for sound proofing of
nearby existing structures, street naming conventions, deed restrictions and
covenants, etc. For avigation easements, explore how this can strategy be
coordinated through the City’s Building Department and tied to a funding
mechanism.
B6. Focus on directing the right type and configuration of development in the right
location to avoid impacts to current and future flight operations.
B7. Take a multi-objective approach to land use planning around the airport and
recognize that land use planning will involve trade-offs among potentially
competing goals and objectives such as smart growth, airport operations,
economic development, environmental protection, quality of life, etc.
C. Prepare All Required Technical Studies and Guiding Documents
C1. Delineate noise contours and safety zones with the appropriate level of detail
and technical rigor to support land use decision making.
C2. Discuss how to address pending development proposals while the Airport Land
Use Plan Update is in process.
C3. Develop appropriate noise standards to apply in land use planning and
development. Determine consistence definitions for urban, rural and suburban
and determine which standards will apply.
C4. Ensure that the collaborative process going forward provides an opportunity for
the partner agencies to discuss and reach agreements regarding pending
proposals including San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch and other pending proposals.
C5. Consider requiring developers within airport sensitivity areas to have a “pre-
approval” meeting (these meetings are currently optional) with partner agencies
to discuss their project in the early stages in order to identify key planning issues
in advance, allow developers to consider making modifications to their proposals
prior to submittal, and encourage partner agencies to find common ground and
agreement.
Packet Pg. 92 AttachmentE: c - (Exhibit A) SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues Document (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues 3 | P a g e
Corrected June 16, 2016
D. Clarify Partner Agency Roles and Responsibilities for Airport Land Use Planning
D1. Define the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, regional and local agencies
in land use and airport related planning (including statutory and advisory
responsibilities).
D2. Define the process and criteria for granting exceptions to established standards
which may need to be modified under certain conditions. Establish criteria to
assist decision makers in responding to unique circumstances and in granting
certain exceptions. Review the Caltrans design exception process as a potential
model.
D3. The process will adhere to applicable federal and California laws and regulations,
including but not limited to the State Aeronautics Act and the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook.
E. Create a Collaborative Airport Land Use Planning Process
E1. Form a Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC) with partner agency staff
representatives and others with related expertise to provide advice and direction
on the update of the ALUP.
E2. Assist staff and policy makers of partner agencies to develop a consistent and
unified approach to airport land use decision making; continue to model the
process and coordination used by City and County staff during the review of the
SLO Brewery development proposal.
E3. Ensure transparency and clarity in how the ALUP will be developed.
E4. Support efforts to secure adequate budget and resources for the ALUC for the
ALUP update, on-going land use review and decision making, and for sharing
information with the public (See F.1). Consider putting a request for these
resources on the County BOS agenda, emphasizing the airport’s important role in
the economic vitality of the region.
E5. During the interim period while the ALUP update is being completed, provide
increased certainty to applicants by having them reference the approved studies,
the current ALUP and additional data sources that support their approach.
Applicants will be highly encouraged to seek advance consultation from City and
County staff prior to bringing their application forward to the ALUC.
Packet Pg. 93 AttachmentE: c - (Exhibit A) SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues Document (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues 4 | P a g e
Corrected June 16, 2016
F. Maintain Quality, Consistent Communications Among the Partner Agencies
F1. Create a stand-alone web site for the ALUC and include features related to the
ALUP update process, key reference documents and information sources,
meeting calendar, etc.
F2. Provide regular reports and updates to the partner agency policy makers and
executive management staff to ensure on-going communication and information
exchange.
Packet Pg. 94 AttachmentE: c - (Exhibit A) SLO Airport Collaborative Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues Document (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
SLO Airport Technical Advisory Collaborative
May 4, 2016 1
PROPOSED SLO AIRPORT TECHNICA L ADVISORY COLLABORATIVE (TA C )
OPERATING FRAMEWORK
BACKGROUND
Between January and April 2016, the San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative conducted three
meetings to discuss a process to improve communications between the City of San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and
Caltrans. One of the key recommendations was the formation of the SLO Airport Technical
Advisory Collaborative (TAC) that would provide technical advice to the ALUC on the SLO
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) update. SLO Airport TAC members would have specific land use
and aviation planning experience and provide advice and technical direction for consideration
by the ALUC on an as needed basis.
In order for the TAC to exist, the ALUC will need to pass a resolution establishing the group.
The proposed operating framework describes the purpose and charge, composition and
responsibilities and operating principles of the SLO Airport TAC for consideration by the ALUC.
PURPOSE AND CHARGE
The purpose of the SLO Airport TAC is to provide technical input and advice to assist with
completing the update of the SLO Airport Land Use Plan. The SLO Airport TAC would meet on
an as needed basis to provide input on various aspects of the ALUP update. Once completed,
the TAC would then meet at the request of the ALUC and focus on substantive and/or unique
planning proposals and issues. In its discussions, the SLO Airport TAC will focus on technical
issues and not broader policy issues. The recommendations of the SLO Airport TAC to the
ALUC are advisory and non-binding.
The specific charge to this group is to:
Provide input on the technical aspects of the SLO ALUP update.
Respond to requests for advice and directions from the ALUC.
Recommend strategies and actions for addressing technical issues related to the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport’s physical development and the development of
surrounding land uses.
Serve as a group with specialized technical airport land use expertise that is available for
consultation by the Airport, Caltrans and the City and County of San Luis Obispo on an as
needed basis.
The establishment of the SLO Airport TAC does not preclude or limit other opportunities for
communications between agencies on related issues.
Packet Pg. 95 AttachmentF: d - (Exhibit B) SLO Airport Collaborative TAC Operating Framework (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
SLO Airport Technical Advisory Collaborative
May 4, 2016 2
MEMBER COMPOSITION AND SELECTION
Members of the TAC will have airport land use planning-related technical knowledge and
experience and represent each of the cooperating agencies and municipalities participating in
the SLO Airport Collaborative. It is recommended that each entity have at least one but no
more than two representatives on the TAC. During the preparation of the ALUP Update, TAC
meetings would be led by the ALUC’s technical consultant. Meeting agendas would be
developed with assistance from County staff.
TAC Members would represent:
City of San Luis Obispo
County of San Luis Obispo
Airport Land Use Commission
Caltrans District 5 Planning and Caltrans Aeronautics
The ALUC would appoint the TAC members with at least one but not more than two
representatives from each partner entity. Potential candidates would be nominated by
partner agencies and the ALUC members. The TAC member appointments would be subject to
renewal or replacement at least every four years to ensure that the group members provide
the necessary technical expertise, time availability and collaborative approach.
MEMBER RESPONSIBILIT IES
To uphold the TAC’s purpose and charge, each member is asked to fulfill the following
responsibilities:
Attend all meetings; the schedule and frequency will be determined by the ALUC
Review and provide input on shared documents by agreed upon deadlines.
Listen actively to the ideas and opinions expressed by the TAC members, engage in
constructive discussion and be open to alternative solutions and points of view.
Consider any pertinent information provided by related staff and others invited to share
information with the group.
Present the views of member agencies and municipalities, acknowledging and drawing on
the diversity of opinions and outlooks represented.
Inform and seek feedback from member agencies and municipalities about the TAC
process and discussions.
Adhere to the TAC’s Operating Principles and cooperate with this process to the fullest
extent possible.
OPERATING PRINCIPLES
The SLO Airport TAC will carry out its charge through a meeting schedule determined in
cooperation with the ALUC. To ensure a useful and productive exchange of information, the
TAC will conduct its work according to the following operating principles:
Packet Pg. 96 AttachmentF: d - (Exhibit B) SLO Airport Collaborative TAC Operating Framework (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
SLO Airport Technical Advisory Collaborative
May 4, 2016 3
Transparency: SLO Airport TAC members will share relevant information and facts to
facilitate productive discussion and progress toward mutual goals.
Equal Participation: All participants will agree to provide one another the opportunity to
engage in balanced dialogue and presentation on meeting topics, and will minimize
domination of discussions by allowing time for other speakers.
Inclusivity: SLO Airport TAC meetings and related activities will be conducted to ensure
the ideas and views of all members are considered.
Respectful and Responsive Engagement: SLO Airport TAC members will show courtesy,
honesty and respect for each other during all communications, especially when giving or
receiving contrary opinions as well as positive or negative feedback.
Meeting Documentation: A brief written summary of each meeting will be prepared that
documents the topics discussed and related action items.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE MEDIA
SLO Airport TAC members agree not to characterize their viewpoints as representative of the
entire group when contacted by the media. Members agree not to use the media to
unilaterally influence an issue or process. Media requests related to the SLO Airport TAC will
be handled by one TAC member, to be determined and agreed upon by the entire TAC
membership.
Packet Pg. 97 AttachmentF: d - (Exhibit B) SLO Airport Collaborative TAC Operating Framework (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
April 28, 2016 1
PROPOSED PUBLIC PROC ESS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
SLO AIRPORT COLLABOR ATIVE
The SLO Airport Collaborative can support the completion of the draft ALUP update by
advancing public engagement activities that promote transparency, help educate and engage
the public, and provide opportunities for input. Some recommended activities for the
Collaborative include:
1. Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC)
Establish the SLO Airport Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC). The purpose of the SLO
Airport TAC is to provide technical input and advice on airport land use planning proposals
and related issues near and around the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport).
2.Dedicated ALUC Website
Provide a stand-alone website for the ALUC that provides easy access to information and
includes ways to get in touch with the Commission. Currently, the ALUC’s information is
included in the County’s website and can be very difficult to find. The ALUC video records
the Commission meetings. However, finding the links to these files can require persistence
and commitment.
3.Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Prepare basic FAQs about the SLO Airport Collaborative. The FAQs could briefly describe the
meeting process, what it yielded and the next steps agreed to by the members.
4.ALUP Update Study Session with ALUC, City and County Staff, and Caltrans
Conduct an ALUC-hosted study session to provide an opportunity for collaborative discussion
with the partners regarding the draft ALUP in a setting open to the public.
5.Jointly-sponsored Public Workshop for ALUP Update
Conduct a public workshop for the ALUP update as a jointly sponsored event by the four
partner agencies. The joint sponsorship would ensure that the viewpoints of all the partners
are aligned regarding airport related land use planning activities. It would also demonstrate
to the public that effort is being made to ensure that aviation and land use planning decisions
are based on best practices and that proposed recommendations are supported by the ALUC,
the City, the County and Caltrans.
Packet Pg. 98 AttachmentG: e - SLO Airport Collaborative Proposed Public Design Process Recommendations (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
1 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 1
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting #1 Summary
January 6, 2016 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM
_____________________________________________________________________
Background
In July 2015, Caltrans initiated a process to determine partner agency interest in
improving communication and information-sharing related to land use planning issues
in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo Airport. The partner agencies include: City of
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use
Commission and Caltrans. Caltrans provided consultant support through its statewide
Planning Participation and Engagement Contract (PPEC) to conduct this effort.
Caltrans’ PPEC contractor, MIG, Inc., designed the approach and serves as a neutral
third party facilitator for this effort. To start the process, MIG conducted interviews
with representatives from the partner agencies to hear their candid assessment of the
issues and willingness to participate in a process designed to improve collaboration.
Based on the results of the interviews, MIG recommended convening a group that
included two designated representatives from each of the partner agencies to
participate in a series of meetings to design a process to determine how the partners
could work more collaboratively on airport related land use planning issues. In this
and related documents, the group is referred to as the SLO Airport Collaborative.
Overview
On January 6, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative met from 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm at the
New Government Center building. The meeting was the first in a series of three
meetings held to bring agency representatives together to design a process for
improving communication and collaboration regarding airport related land use
planning decisions.
Representatives include:
SLO Airport Land Use Commission: Bill Borgsmiller and Michael Cripe
City of San Luis Obispo: Mayor Jan Marx and Xzandrea Fowler
County of San Luis Obispo: Bill Robeson and Craig Piper
Caltrans: Ron Bolyard and Larry Newland
MIG Team: Daniel Iacofano and Joan Chaplick
Packet Pg. 99 AttachmentH: f - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #1 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
2 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 1
I. Welcome and Introductions
Daniel opened the meeting and welcomed participants and reviewed the agenda. He
asked participants to do a brief round of self introductions. Daniel introduced his role
as the process designer and lead facilitator and noted that while the meeting process
was funded by Caltrans, his role is to serve as a neutral third party facilitator.
Following the introductions, Daniel reviewed the meeting objectives which were to:
initiate the collaborative engagement process for the SLO Airport and confirm the
organizing framework for the process and to identify the potential goals and issues
the group should consider.
II. Organizing Framework
Daniel reviewed the organizing framework with the group including the specific
charge, member responsibilities, operating principles, membership and participation.
A proposed meeting schedule was also discussed and the group confirmed the dates
for the next two meetings. The next meetings will be held one Feb 3, 1:00 pm-3:00
pm and Mar 2, 1:00 pm-3:00 pm. MIG will confirm the meeting location and notify the
participants. MIG will update the organizing framework to include the new meeting
dates.
The group was provided an initial list of reference documents. MIG will continue to
update this list as new reports, readings, books and other materials are identified by
the group.
III. Identification and Discussion of Potential Goals and Issues
Daniel reviewed a list of issues that were drawn from the interviews that MIG
conducted in advance of the first meeting. The issues were grouped by topic and
included bulleted sub-issues. MIG will revise the preliminary goals and issues
discussion topics to reflect the following comments shared by the group.
A. Economic Vitality and Quality of Life
Add a reference to the principles of smart growth. The group defined smart
growth as compact development that reduces sprawl, promotes walkability
and protects lands for a greenbelt.
Address other related City mandates such as reducing VMT’s
Include references to adding diversity to the housing stock. People are seeking
various housing types that respond to their needs depending on the stage of
life they are in.
Packet Pg. 100 AttachmentH: f - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #1 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
3 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 1
Note that City has an open space plan designed to help maintain open space
that is supportive of the airport. (Airport Compatibility Open Space Plan.)
B. Land Use Compatibility Near Airport
Make the reference to allow for future airport expansion more prominent in the
statement
Research best practices and identify tools to address noise concerns and safety
concerns
Need to identify and implement proactive and reactive complaint management
and mitigation practices. Funding for sound proofing and avigation easements
were cited as examples
Ensure that noise and safety issues are discussed independently since safety is
the highest priority; if a proposal cannot respond to safety requirements, then
the noise issues become a moot point
Focus on directing the right type and configuration of development in the right
location to avoid impacts to current and future flight operations
C. Technical Studies and Guiding Documents
Need to discuss noise standards and whether a rural or urban standard is
applied. The City noise standard is 65 db. However, there is potential for
conflict should the ALUC choose to rural noise standard (55 db) when the City
considers this an urban area- with related noise levels. Updated Caltrans
Handbook includes definitions of rural, suburban and urban. SLOCOG also has
definitions that include the city and County as an urban area
Process should help the partners discuss pending proposals including: San Luis
Ranch and Avila Ranch
Consider requiring developers to have a “pre-approval” meeting to discuss their
project in the early stages
D. Agency Roles and Responsibilities
Emphasize need to be multi-objective in our approach and focus on local
conditions
E. Airport Land Use Planning Process
Consider creating a Technical Advisory Committee made up of partner agency
representatives and others with related expertise to provide advice and
direction on the update
Packet Pg. 101 AttachmentH: f - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #1 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
4 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 1
Consider use of “managed flexibility” that is based on criteria and use of data.
Caltrans design exception process was used as a positive example of how this
approach can be applied
Encourage transparency and clarity in how plan is developed
Consider requested expanded resources to increase support for the ALUC
including: dedicated staff, an office and stand alone website
F. On-Going Communications
Process should help partners present a unified approach in their discussions
Maintain ongoing communications
G. Other
Daniel closed the meeting and asked each participant to share their comments on
today’s meeting and the process. The comments included:
Support for the process and hope we can find middle ground that works for
everyone
Support for creating the Technical Advisory Group
Suggestion that we add the Minetta Smart Growth study to the resource list and
share a case study of the Margurite example
Support for a process that will help them all work better together
Suggestion that future meetings include maps and other reference materials
Request for copy of RFP and scope for the ALUC’s process to hire a consultant
to conduct a peer review of the draft ALUP
Request that we invite additional staff to the process. The group agreed future
meetings could include Brian Pedrotti and City’s project managers for the Avila
Ranch and San Luis Ranch projects
There is value adding new staff while retaining those who know the history.
There is a desire to avoid past mistakes
Meeting was a good use of the participant’s time
Next Meeting: February 3, 2016, 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm
Packet Pg. 102 AttachmentH: f - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #1 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
5 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 1
S a n L u i s O b i s p o A i r p o r t
L a n d U s e C o m p a t i b i l i t y E n g a g e m e n t
M e e t i n g # 1
January 6, 2016
Prepared By:
Packet Pg. 103 AttachmentH: f - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #1 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
1 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 2
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting #2 Summary
February 3, 2016 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM
Background
In July 2015, Caltrans initiated a process to determine partner agency interest in
improving communication and information-sharing related to land use planning issues
in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo Airport. The partner agencies include: City of
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use
Commission and Caltrans. Caltrans provided consultant support through its statewide
Planning Participation and Engagement Contract (PPEC) to conduct this effort.
Caltrans’ PPEC contractor, MIG, Inc., designed the approach and serves as a neutral
third party facilitator for this effort. To start the process, MIG conducted interviews
with representatives from the partner agencies to hear their candid assessment of the
issues and willingness to participate in a process designed to improve collaboration.
Based on the results of the interviews, MIG recommended convening a group that
included two designated representatives from each of the partner agencies to
participate in a series of meetings to design a process to determine how the partners
could work more collaboratively on airport related land use planning issues. In this
and related documents, the group is referred to as the SLO Airport Collaborative. The
first meeting of the group was convened on January 6, 2016.
Overview
On February 3, 2016, the SLO Airport Collaborative met from 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm at the
City/County Library in San Luis Obispo. The meeting was the second in a series of
three meetings held to bring agency representatives together to design a process for
improving communication and collaboration regarding airport related land use
planning decisions.
Representatives present include:
SLO Airport Land Use Commission: Bill Borgsmiller and Michael Cripe
City of San Luis Obispo: Mayor Jan Marx and Xzandrea Fowler and
County of San Luis Obispo: Bill Robeson and Craig Piper
Caltrans: Ron Bolyard and Larry Newland
MIG Team: Daniel Iacofano (facilitator) and Joan Chaplick (note taker)
Packet Pg. 104 AttachmentI: g - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #2 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
2 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 2
Brian Pedrotti, SLO County staff also attended the meeting.
I. Welcome and Introductions
Daniel Iacofano with MIG, Inc. opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda and
meeting objectives.
Daniel reviewed the materials in the packet that included the agenda, draft planning
goals, objectives and issues, meeting summary and the RFQ for Airport Planning
Services. There was a request that the March 2 meeting date be reconsidered. The
MIG Team will poll the group for an alternative date.
II. Review and Confirmation of Meeting Summary
The group reviewed and confirmed the meeting summary.
III. Review and Discussion of Draft Goals, Objectives and Issues Document
Daniel asked the group to refer to the Draft Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues
document. He briefly reviewed the edits made based on the comments received at
the previous meeting. Daniel reviewed each group of goals and asked for any
additional edits. The group provided the following comments:
Goal A
It was suggested the language on A4 be modified to more clearly reflect how
open space needs will be considered. The group also wants to maintain
agricultural land around the airport and make open space contiguous. These
lands are supportive of the airport’s needs.
Goal B
There was a request that the text in B3 specifically reference the ALUP update
for clarity.
In B5, there was a request to use the term “avigation” in lieu of the more
generic “land use easements”.
Daniel shared a handout with the group that provided a series of “best
practices” from communities that have worked to specifically address noise
issues. These procedures don’t eliminate noise complaints but they do help
manage the situation. Some of the best practices may be discussed or
considered in future meetings of the participants.
Packet Pg. 105 AttachmentI: g - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #2 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
3 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 2
Daniel shared a book reference with the group, Municipal Benchmarks by David
Ammons. The book includes examples from other communities on how they
have benchmarked community performance related to their local airport.
It was suggested that the group’s reference materials be expanded to include
federal, state and local planning handbooks, guides and regulations.
There was a suggestion to review the ALUP and LUCE to identify where there
are issues of compatibility and incompatibility. The group considered this a
helpful starting point. Bill Borgsmiller explained that the consultant will review
the work that has been done and identify where the plans conflict and where
they are incompatible. Currently, when the compatibility question gets asked,
it is treated as a “yes” or “no” question. We need to explain the compatibility
issue in more detail and share the analysis.
There was discussion of the terms rural, urban and suburban. The agencies use
different definitions for the terms. The City uses the terms as defined by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO considers San Luis Obispo
to be an urbanized area for the purposes of allocating federal funding.
Clarifying the definitions and how they are used is the type of issue the
Technical Advisory Committee might work to resolve.
There was recognition that airport create impacts beyond its jurisdictional
boundary.
The City noted they have noise standards and they can’t spot zone an area.
Instead, the standards have to be the same throughout the city. When the City
annexes land, the standards apply. We can’t prohibit annexation and we don’t
want the ALUC setting the noise standards for the community.
From a statutory standpoint, the ALUP is informed by the state utility code.
Cities can establish their own standards but they are also subject to the state
standards.
Goal C
There was a request to improve the last sentence of C3 regarding the language
around how SLOCOG defines the City and portions of the County that are
urbanized.
In the current noise study, the ALUC found that the noise contours were not a
problem. The noise study information was shared at a recent ALUC meeting.
The consultant will use this data to update the plan. The study benefited from
good data, new technology and other factors that helped address the noise
issue. There was a request that this information be conveyed to the City.
Packet Pg. 106 AttachmentI: g - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #2 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
4 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 2
As referenced in C5, the County noted “pre-approval meetings” are available
but are optional. Some developers want to move quickly so they skip this stage
when they don’t realize it could help them move through the process faster by
identifying and resolving early issues.
Goal D
In D2, the term “managed flexibility” raised questions. It refers to using
specific criteria and guidelines that help decision makers respond to unique
circumstances and grant certain exceptions. D2 will be re-worded so the
concept is more clearly described without the use of that term.
Goal E
It was suggested that E4 be reworded so it more specifically addresses the need
to provide an adequate budget and consistent funding for appropriate
resources for the ALUC to support decision making. It was suggested the
request be put on the County agenda so these resources are provided. To help
make the case for these funds, the request should emphasize economic vitality
and return on investment. The County Supervisors are very supportive of the
airport and its role in the economy.
RFQ for Airport Planning Services
Daniel reviewed the RFQ and called out areas of the scope that would provide
information that would be supportive of this process.
Daniel suggested conducting benchmarking with other airports to get a sense of
the resources needed.
IV.Recommendations for Next Steps in the Process
The following is a list of next steps identified by the group:
A. Technical Advisory Committee
There was agreement within the group to form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
to participate in the ALUP update. Bill Robeson agreed to identify some potential
members. MIG will assist with a basic operating charter to help describe the work of
the group. The formation of the TAC needs to happen quickly. The ALUC’s consultant
will chair the TAC. The Draft Goals, Objectives and Issues document (or framework as
described below) would be incorporated into their operating guidelines.
Packet Pg. 107 AttachmentI: g - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #2 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
5 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 2
B. Pre-application Process meetings
There was agreement to establish a separate process where professional staff from
the different entities meet in advance of projects going to the Commission. While this
service is currently offered and the meetings are optional, we need to communicate
more effectively that these meetings can help a developer move more efficiently
through the review process by surfacing issues early.
C. Recommend a Staff Review Process
The process used to evaluate the application for the SLO Brewery project was offered
as a model that could be easily duplicated. The developer wanted a fast paced review
and the agencies all agreed to meet and be flexible so they could move things along.
The City and County had two to three meetings and worked through project issues
and identified potential obstacles. The County made a recommendation to the ALUC
that was informed by discussion with the City. This process can be replicated and
used to discuss future projects.
D. End Product for the SLO Airport Collaborative Process
MIG will draft a report that summarizes the work of the group and provides a
framework for how the parties can work together based on the Draft Planning Goals,
Objectives and Issues document. MIG recommends that the framework developed by
the group be used to guide the ALUP update. It was suggested that a resolution could
be drafted to formalize the agreement of the four parties to work together
collaboratively on airport land use related issues. Xzandrea Fowler agreed to create
draft language for the resolution. It was noted that while Caltrans does not have an
elected board to sign a similar resolution, the agency could sign a letter in support of
the process.
V. Summary and Next Steps
MIG will poll the group to reschedule the March 2nd meeting. The group will review
the draft resolutions, proposed TAC composition and charter and organizing
framework. MIG will also provide an updated list of references.
Packet Pg. 108 AttachmentI: g - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #2 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
1 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 3
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting #3 Summary
April 21, 2016 10:00 PM – Noon
Background
In July 2015, Caltrans initiated a process to determine partner agency interest in improving
communication and information-sharing related to land use planning issues in the vicinity of
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport). The partner agencies include: City of
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission
and Caltrans. Caltrans provided consultant support through its statewide Planning
Participation and Engagement Contract (PPEC) to conduct this effort. Caltrans’ PPEC
contractor, MIG, Inc., designed the approach and serves as a neutral third party facilitator for
this effort. To start the process, MIG conducted interviews with representatives from the
partner agencies to hear their candid assessment of the issues and willingness to participate
in a process designed to improve collaboration. Based on the results of the interviews, MIG
recommended convening a group that included two designated representatives from each of
the partner agencies to participate in a series of meetings to design a process to determine
how the partners could work more collaboratively on airport related land use planning issues.
In this and related documents, the group is referred to as the SLO Airport Collaborative. The
first meeting of the group was convened on January 6, 2016, and the second meeting was
convened on February 3, 2016.
Overview
The SLO Airport Collaborative met from 10:00 am - Noon at the City/County Library in San
Luis Obispo on April 21, 2016. The meeting was the third and final in a series of meetings held
to bring agency representatives together to design a process for improving communication
and collaboration regarding airport related land use planning decisions.
Representatives present included:
SLO Airport Land Use Commission: Bill Borgsmiller and Michael Cripe
City of San Luis Obispo: Mayor Jan Marx and Xzandrea Fowler and
County of San Luis Obispo: Bill Robeson and Craig Piper
Caltrans: Larry Newland
MIG Team: Daniel Iacofano (facilitator) and Joan Chaplick (note taker)
Caltrans representative Ron Bolyard was not able to attend. Brian Pedrotti, SLO County staff
was also present at the meeting.
Packet Pg. 109 AttachmentJ: h - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #3 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
2 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 3
I. Welcome and Introductions
Daniel opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda and meeting objectives. He also
reviewed the materials in the meeting packet that included the agenda, draft Planning,
Goals, Objectives and Issues Document, Meeting Summary #2 and draft collaboration
agreements including City and County resolutions and a draft Caltrans MOU.
II. Review and Confirm Meeting Summary #2
The draft minutes, including a photoreduction of the wallgraphic notes, were circulated for
review in advance of the meeting. There were no comments or requested edits and the group
finalized the meeting minutes.
III. Review and Discuss Draft Materials to Support Continued Collaboration
a) Draft Planning Goals, Objectives and Issues Document
Daniel asked the group to provide their final comments of this document since it would be
incorporated by reference in the resolutions and Caltrans MOU that would be discussed later
in the meeting. The final revisions requested by the group are identified below. The edits will
be made specifically to the numbered statements in the March 22, 2016 draft. The final
version will reflect the following revisions with the recommended text in italics:
Create D3 so the document includes a statement that references guiding laws and regulations.
It was suggested we adapt language from the “Agreement” section of the draft Caltrans MOU.
D3 would read as follows:
D3 The process will adhere to applicable federal and California laws and regulations,
including but not limited to the State Aeronautics Act and the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook.
Add definition of Smart Growth to the introduction of the document to provide clarity and
consistency since two objectives reference the term. A widely used definition found on
Wikipedia was agreed to by the group.
Smart growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates
growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl.
Modify E2 to reference the successful process used for the SLO Brewery development
proposal.
E2 Assist staff and policy makers of partner agencies to develop a consistent and unified
approach to airport land use decision making; continue to model the process and
coordination used by City and County staff during the review of the SLO Brewery
development proposal.
Packet Pg. 110 AttachmentJ: h - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #3 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
3 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 3
Create E5 to reflect the need to clarify the technical studies and documents that can be used
while the ALUP update is being completed. ALUC representatives confirmed that the ALUC
recently approved a new noise study and the realignment of GIS coordinates used to identify
the safety zones; these data sources could be used to support a development application. The
group agreed that applicants should reference the approved studies, the current approved
ALUP and additional data sources that help explain their approach. This will help provide
some increased level of certainty to the applicant. There continues to be an advantage for
applicants to do advance consultation with representatives of the City and County prior to
going to the ALUC.
E5 During the interim period while the ALUP update is being completed, provide
increased certainty to applicants by having them reference the approved studies, the
current ALUP and additional data sources that support their approach. Applicants will
be highly encouraged to seek advance consultation from City and County staff prior to
bringing their application forward to the ALUC.
b)TAC Formation
After discussion of a variety of issues and concerns, the group agreed to the following:
The name of the group is the Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC).
The TAC will provide assistance at the request and direction of the ALUC to assist with
the ALUP update and any subsequent issues and/or projects on an on-going basis. A
critical first step will be for the ALUC to draft a resolution establishing the TAC, using
the materials from this process, and then vote on the resolution. If the ALUC approves
the formation of the TAC, they will have an established process for convening the
group.
Along with the name change, participants suggested refining the language in the TAC
formation documents to emphasize and/or clarify the following:
The TAC is an advisory body that provides assistance to the ALUC. The main purpose of
the TAC is to assist with the ALUP update.
Once established, the ALUC can activate the TAC on an as-needed basis to assist with
large-scale, complex or unique issues.
IV.Collaboration Agreements
a.) City and County Draft Resolutions
The group reviewed the draft resolutions for the City and County. Xzandrea Fowler drafted
the documents and described how they were created. The group was satisfied with the drafts
and requested some modification to ensure consistency. For example, the documents would
consistently use the term- San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport).
Packet Pg. 111 AttachmentJ: h - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #3 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
4 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 3
b.) Caltrans Draft MOU
Caltrans provided a draft MOU that expressed language similar to the City and County
resolutions and would serve as the appropriate signature document for their agency. It was
requested that a statement be added to the City and County resolutions that their support for
the SLO Airport Collaborative process would also include them signing the Caltrans MOU.
MIG will work with Xzandrea Fowler to draft the statement for inclusion in the resolutions.
The group agreed it was appropriate for Caltrans to have an MOU signed by the four partners.
As follow-up, Caltrans will confirm the appropriate signatory to ensure support at the District
and Headquarters. The document could possibly be signed by the District Director, Caltrans
Director, or Caltrans Head of Aeronautics.
c.) Proposed Signature Process
The group discussed the timing and sequence of activities needed to finalize and formalize
the agreements made by the group. The following activities, meetings and dates were
identified:
Propose TAC formation to ALUC: the next ALUC Meeting is May 25, 2016. The proposed
resolution to form the TAC will be placed on the agenda so the ALUC can discuss and take a
vote. It was suggested the partners attend the May 25th meeting to show support for the
process.
Approval of Resolutions If the ALUC approved the TAC formation at their May meeting, the
City and County resolutions will be placed on the consent agenda at the June 7, 2016
meeting. (Note: since the meeting occurred, the City confirmed a new date- June 21, 2016).
Caltrans MOU Caltrans will identify the signatory and initiate the internal review process.
V. Public Process Recommendations
Daniel reviewed the five listed items and then took comments. It was confirmed that the
ALUC will soon be hiring their consultant and activities to update the ALUP will be initiated. It
was explained that the County will present the process for public input on the plan. It was
requested that at a minimum, a public workshop take place before the draft ALUP update is
released so there can be public input prior to ALUC approval.
It is recommended that the public workshop be sponsored jointly by all for partner entities to
demonstrate that all partners are in agreement on the recommendations.
The document identifying the Public Process Recommendations will be modified to reflect
these comments.
Packet Pg. 112 AttachmentJ: h - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #3 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
5 | P a g e
San Luis Obispo Airport Collaborative
Meeting # 3
VI. Summary and Next Steps
Daniel did a final check-in with each participant and asked for final thoughts and comments.
In general, participants expressed a high level of appreciation for everyone’s participation
and willingness to collaborate and move forward. The group also expressed appreciation to
Caltrans for funding the process and to the consultant team from MIG, Inc. for their work on
the process. Some additional comments expressed included:
Xzandrea Fowler noted that she had a few edits for the resolutions and will send them to MIG.
Bill Robeson mentioned that he had received an inquiry from the media about the process. He
requested that the group have some talking points to help respond to questions consistently.
Bill emphasized that we are working collaboratively and we want to convey that message.
Craig Piper expressed that he was pleased by the collaboration within the group and this
should make future discussions easier.
Michael Cripe confirmed this process is a substantive enough item for the ALUC to convene on
May 25th.
Bill Borgsmiller expressed that the public and agency representatives will be pleased to see
that the agencies are working together. He also believes the ALUC having a third party peer
review the draft ALUP will help the process to getting an approved updated ALUP.
Larry Newland repeated his key points requesting that we make sure the materials reference
the Caltrans Handbook and the State Aeronautics Act; that we engage the public in the ALUP
update in a way that airport land use planning issues are explicit- and not embedded in an
application. He also reiterated that Caltrans is ready and available to provide tools and
assistance to the ALUC when asked.
Jan Marx suggested the parties speak to their appropriate advisors in their organization
regarding the need for confidentiality on the process prior to any actions being taken by the
elected bodies.
Action items:
MIG will prepare the meeting summary and revise all the documents. The group will
receive one more opportunity to review before the documents are finalized.
MIG will follow-up with Caltrans regarding the MOU review process and signatory.
MIG will draft some talking points to assist with communications with the media. The
draft resolutions include language that will be useful to the process.
MIG will assemble a roster with the cell phone numbers for all the members to assist
with communications.
Packet Pg. 113 AttachmentJ: h - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #3 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
S a n L u i s O b i s p o A i r p o r t
L a n d U s e C o m p a t i b i l i t y E n g a g e m e n t
M e e t i n g # 3
April 21, 2016
Prepared By:
Packet Pg. 114 AttachmentJ: h - SLO Airport Collaborative Meeting #3 Summary (1387 : SLO Airport Collaborative)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Freddy Otte, City Biologist
SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 1 STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION AND
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR STORMWATER RESOURCES PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
1.Authorize a grant application to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Proposition 1
Stormwater Grant Program; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any other required grant application-
related documentation; and
3. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals, Specification No. 91489, for
Consultant Services for the preparation of a Stormwater Resource Plan; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if bids are within the project budget of
$45,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The purpose of this item is to authorize staff to apply for grant funding under the State Water
Resources Control Board’s Stormwater Grant Program (“SWGP”) and issue a Request for
Proposals (“RFP”) for a Stormwater Resource Plan (“SRP”). The SWGP requires the SRP to be
prepared as a condition of receiving implementation funding.
The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a team-based Stormwater Management Program that has
been established to provide a comprehensive, inter-departmental approach to implementation of
the objectives outlined in the City’s MS4 permit required by the State Water Resources Control
Board. Contemporary stormwater management entails objectives such as water quality,
groundwater percolation and recharge, flood control, and community education.
Proposition 1 Grant Funding
The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) was
passed by California voters in November 2014 and authorized $7.545 billion in general
obligation bonds to fund ecosystems and watershed protection and restoration, water supply
8
Packet Pg. 115
infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, and drinking water protection.
At this particular time, a grant opportunity promulgated by the State Water Resources Control
Board known as the Proposition 1 Stormwater Grant Program (“SWGP”) is accepting
applications. Staff has closely evaluated the published grant guidelines and finds this particular
grant program to be a strong match for planning and subsequent implementation of stormwater
protection initiatives for the City.
Council Authorization for Grant Application Required
The City’s Financial Management Manual, Section 740, requires City Council authorization to
submit grant applications in excess of $5,000. In particular, section 3(d) states:
For grants in excess of $5,000, prepare a Council agenda report requesting authorization to seek
grant funding. This report should describe the grant program's conformance with this policy,
including the results of the cost/benefit analysis.
The submittal of this grant application meets the City’s Grant Management Policy outlined in
Section 740 because there is an opportunity to significantly leverage City funds on balance with
only modest staff time required to prepare the grant application and all grant administration,
tracking, and reporting will be conducted in accordance with applicable City policy and any
requirements specified in an awarded grant contract.
Grant Proposal Partners
The Low Impact Development Initiative (LIDI) has agreed to work with the City’s Natural
Resources Program staff to develop a grant proposal, representing a significant partnership. Dr.
Darla Inglis, LIDI’s Executive Director, works with municipalities on program reviews, code
and policy updates to meet current requirements/regulations, and assists with grant writing for
project development and implementation. Dr. Inglis also works closely with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board on standards and pollutant load modeling and can assist staff in
implementing these more in-depth programs.
Natural Resources Program staff is also working with Public Works Engineering and Utilities
Environmental Compliance staff to develop the implementation project itself in response to the
Board’s goal of funding “Multi-benefit stormwater management projects which may include, but
shall not be limited to, green infrastructure, rainwater and stormwater capture projects and
stormwater treatment facilities.” The minimum grant size is $250,000, and the City’s application
is expected to be approximately $1,000,000.
Stormwater Resource Plan
The Stormwater Resource Plan, or a functional equivalent, is a requirement of the SWGP and
must be in place within 90 days of a prospective grant award and grant agreement. The
Stormwater Resource Plan is intended to be organized around a regional geographic area,
typically at the watershed level, and will identify and prioritize stormwater improvement
projects.
Due to the highly technical nature of the proposed SRP, staff has identified the need for
consultant services in order to complete the plan, together with staff’s input. The expected cost
8
Packet Pg. 116
of preparing the SRP is approximately $45,000; therefore, a RFP process is required under the
City’s Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Purchasing System.
The key tasks of the proposed RFP are as follows:
Task 1 – Compilation of Current Knowledge of Watershed and Receiving Water Quality
/ Health
i. Existing receiving water problems.
ii. Urban flooding.
iii. Groundwater condition (supply and quality).
iv. Location, status and importance of habitat, creeks, lakes, etc.
v. Identified watershed processes and disruptions to natural conditions.
Task 2 – Identification of Types and Locations of Priority Projects
i. Using Quantitative methods, identify, evaluate and document the types
and locations of projects (e.g., specific as well as programmatic projects)
that would address each category of the needs/issues identified in Task 1
(i.e. items i-v).
Task 3 – Develop a Priority Project/Program List and Initial Concepts
i. Using information from Task 2: i, conduct an integrated metrics-based
analysis to further evaluate and prioritize projects for their ability to
provide multi social, environmental and economic benefits.
ii. Develop concept opportunities for 4-6 projects (e.g. x-number of street
blocks of green street, x-acres of riparian restoration).
In addition, the following minimum credentials and experience have been identified:
1. Demonstrated experience with watershed planning especially as it related to water
resources.
2. Demonstrated experience with projects, policy and planning related to municipal
stormwater quality management; flood management; riparian habitat and biology;
creek fluvial processes; and, the influence of human disruptions to watershed
processes and the types of solutions to address those disruptions.
3. Experience with use of spatial analyses to identify program needs and priorities.
4. Experience with the development of capital project programs to support water quality
and quantity issues.
Once the City Council accepts the SRP, it will be forwarded to the State Water Resources
Control Board and the City will be eligible for implementation grant funding. The SRP will also
be beneficial to ensuring compliance with the City’s MS4 stormwater permit requirements.
Lastly, as the Stormwater Resource Plan is organized around a regional geographic area, in this
case the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, the City will work with Cal Poly as a potential
matching fund partner and also coordinate with the County of San Luis Obispo’s Public Works
Water Division.
8
Packet Pg. 117
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department concurs with the Stormwater Grant Program application in
support of the City’s efforts to accomplish its stormwater program objectives, as well as the
preparation of the required Stormwater Resource Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
There is no environmental review required for grant submittals as they are not a project under
CEQA. The SRP is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and individual implementing projects would also be subject to further review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Biologist has time allocated within his normal work program to prepare and submit
grant applications. The City Biologist’s work effort towards this endeavor will be substantially
augmented through technical assistance from the LIDI staff. The SWGP will have $200 million
in total available to be spread across several rounds of grants.
As indicated, above, a successful SWGP proposal will require that the Grantee (the City) have a
Stormwater Resource Plan, or functional equivalent, in place within 90 days of completing the
grant agreement. A budget of $45,000 has been scoped to support the preparation of the SRP
pursuant to the RFP, if authorized. The fund sources that have been identified are as follows:
Organization Source Amount Status
City of SLO Flood Control $10,000 Approved 2016-17
City of SLO Stormwater SOPC $25,000 Pending 2016-17
Cal Poly SLO Environmental Health
and Safety
$10,000 Approved
TOTAL $45,000
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Request additional information or analysis from staff.
2. Deny the request to submit the Stormwater Grant Program application.
3. Deny the request to issue a RFP for the Stormwater Resource Plan.
Attachments:
a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP
8
Packet Pg. 118
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan
Specification No. 91489
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for the preparation of a Stormwater
Resource Plan, or functional equivalent, in furtherance of the City’s Stormwater Management
Program pursuant to Specification No. 91489. All proposals must be received by the Finance
Division by 4 p.m., July 22, 2016 when they will be opened publicly in the foyer of 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 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:00 P.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 Freddy Otte,
City Biologist, by phone at (805) 781-7511 or by email at fotte@slocity.org.
Packet Pg. 119 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Specification No. 91489
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work 1
B. General Terms and Conditions 4
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 8
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 13
E. Insurance Requirements 15
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 17
Proposal Submittal Summary
References
Packet Pg. 120 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 1
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) seeks consultant services to support the development of a
Stormwater Resource Plan, or functional equivalent, for the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed
(“SLOSRP”), which is depicted as Figure 1 on page 3, and shall include the following
components:
1. GENERAL
The objective of the SLOSRP is to identify, evaluate and develop a framework to manage
rainwater/stormwater to achieve multiple benefits for protecting health and safety, for avoiding
the potential impacts of urban runoff to receiving waters, and for promoting the use of
stormwater as a resource for both water supply and aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, the City
wishes the SLOSRP to act as a Stormwater Resource Plan, or functional equivalent, in order to
address and satisfy requirements of Senate Bill 985 and allow the City to obtain Proposition 1
grant funds through the State Water Resources Control Board’s Stormwater Grant Program
(“SWGP”)1.
Interested consultants will provide a maximum 5-page proposal that outlines their approach for
the SLOSRP. The City expects to expend no greater than $45,000 for the SLOSRP contract.
Work must be completed by December 30, 2016.
2. PROJECT SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS
Each task described below is intended to inform subsequent tasks to develop a robust and
complete SLOSRP. Work will include meetings with the project team and possibly a
presentation to the City Council. Task Items 1-3 shall be compiled into a report with two drafts
and one final.
Task 1 – Compilation of Current Knowledge of Watershed and Receiving Water Quality /
Health
i. Existing receiving water problemsconditions.
ii. Urban flooding.
iii. Groundwater condition (supply and quality).
iv. Location, status and importance of habitat, creeks, lakes, etc.
v. Identified watershed processes and disruptions to natural conditions.
Task 2 – Identification of Types and Locations of Priority Projects
i. Using Quantitative methods, identify, evaluate and document the types and
locations of projects (e.g., specific as well as programmatic projects) that
would address each category of the needs/issues identified in Task 1 (i.e.
items i-v).
1 Proposers are encouraged to review the Proposition 1 Stormwater Grant Program guidelines. The municipal stormwater pollutant load
prioritization analysis indicated in the State Board’s Stormwater Resource Plan Guidelines will be conducted separately from this contract and
the consult will be asked to integrate the finding into the SLOSRP.
Packet Pg. 121 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 2
Task 3 – Develop a Priority Project/Program List and Initial Concepts
i. Using information from Task 2: i, conduct an integrated metrics-based
analysis to further evaluate and prioritize projects for their ability to
provide multi social, environmental and economic benefits.
ii. Develop concept opportunities for 4-6 projects (e.g. x-number of street
blocks of green street, x-acres of riparian restoration).
3. CREDENTIALS AND QUALIFICATIONS
a. Demonstrated experience with watershed planning especially as it related to water
resources.
b. Demonstrated experience with projects, policy and planning related to municipal
stormwater quality management; flood management; riparian habitat and biology;
creek fluvial processes; and, the influence of human disruptions to watershed
processes and the types of solutions to address those disruptions.
c. Experience with use of spatial analyses to identify program needs and priorities.
d. Experience with the development of capital project programs to support water
quality and quantity issues.
4. INTENDED USERS
a. City of San Luis Obispo
b. County of San Luis Obispo
c. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
d. State of California grant-making agencies
e. State of California regulatory agencies
5. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
a. It should be expected that the SLOSRP will be subject to review and approval
processes at the local and State level if City is successful with prospective grant
awards, which may result in requests for clarification, additional analysis, or
disqualification by those grant-making agencies.
b. The consultant may be requested to attend one (1) hearing with the City Council.
c. The consultant should assume that the City will supply pertinent background
reports and documentation as available and appropriate.
6. DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS
a. Four (4) complete, original color copies of the final SLOSRP.
b. One (1) “flash drive” or similar data device with a complete copy of the final
SLOSRP in Adobe .pdf format.
Packet Pg. 122 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 3
Figure 1: San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed and Sub -Basins
Packet Pg. 123 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 4
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 Invitation for Bids (IFB) or Request for
Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer
acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the IFB/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 st ated 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. 124 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 5
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. 125 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 6
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 o ther
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 del ayed 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 gra nt 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. 126 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 7
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 C ontractor 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. 127 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 8
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 amo unt 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 August 2016 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. 128 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 9
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. 129 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 10
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 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 7/1/16
b. Conduct pre-proposal conference 7/12/16
c. Receive proposals 7/22/16
d. Complete proposal evaluation 7/29/16
e. Conduct finalist interviews 8/1/16
f. Finalize staff recommendation 8/15/16
g. Award contract 8/19/16
Packet Pg. 130 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 11
h. Execute contract 8/26/16
i. Start work 8/30/16
j. Work products due 12/30/16
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:
Tuesday, July 12, 2016, 1:00 P.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.
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
Packet Pg. 131 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 12
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. 132 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 13
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 Consultant Services for the preparation of the
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan (SLOSRP), per Specification No. 91489.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
Consultant Services for the preparation of the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan
(SLOSRP).
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 Consultant Services for the preparation of the San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan (SLOSRP).
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91489 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 Consultant Services for the preparation of the San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan (SLOSRP), 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. 133 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 14
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 City Clerk
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. 134 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 15
Section E
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Consultant Services
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract ins urance 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: t he 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. 135 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 16
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, retur n 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. 136 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 17
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM Sample
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91489, 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. 137 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 18
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included withi n 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. 138 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page | 19
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary inte rest 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. 139 AttachmentK: a - Stormwater Resource Plan RFP (1381 : Stormwater Grant and RFP)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Teresa L. Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT
CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the collection of delinquent code enforcement fines by the San
Luis Obispo County Auditor by means of special assessments on the secured property tax role.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Building & Safety Division enforces building, housing, zoning, stormwater and property
maintenance provisions contained in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code through its Code
Enforcement and Neighborhood Wellness programs. When violations are confirmed, a Notice of
Violation is issued to the property owner describing the violation(s) and providing a time period
for correction. This is preceded by an effort to contact the property owner to discuss the
violation(s) and obtain voluntary compliance.
When the initial Notice of Violation is not effective in gaining compliance, an Administrative
Citation may be issued pursuant to SLOMC Chapter 1.24. Fines associated with Administrative
Citations range from $50, $100, and $200 per violation for the first, second and third citations,
respectively, issued for property maintenance related violations. For other violations of the
Municipal Code the fines are $100, $200, and $500 for the first, second and third citations,
respectively. Each day a violation exists is considered a separate and distinct violation;
therefore, fines may be assessed on a daily basis for continuing violations beyond the third
citation or in very delinquent or serious cases (SLOMC 1.24.050 D).
Collection of Delinquent Fines
Code Enforcement Administrative Citation fines are issued to property owners who fail to
correct violations within a reasonable time period after issued a Notice of Violation. The
property owner is afforded the right to appeal the Administrative Citation.
Unpaid fines become delinquent after sixty (60) days. Pursuant to SLOMC Section 1.24.150,
Government Code sections 53069.4, and 38773.5, unpaid fines may be collected by a special
assessment (Attachment A). Special assessments require certification of the amount of the fines
by the City Council. The recommended Resolution (Attachment B) authorizes the San Luis
Obispo County Auditor to assess the amounts due on delinquent fines as special tax assessments
9
Packet Pg. 140
against the properties listed.
A list of the outstanding fines for each property is attached hereto as Attachment C. Each
property owner has been sent a Notice of Proposed Special Assessment 10 days prior to the
hearing, which notifies them of the time and date of the Council Meeting when the assessment is
to be considered and providing them an opportunity to pay the delinquent fines prior to the
hearing.
The Community Development Department utilized extensive cross-checking with our tracking
spreadsheet and Energov payment and billing records to identify the fines that are outstanding.
Each case was then reviewed for accuracy, proper notice and service, and the completion of any
appeal submitted prior to inclusion in the resolution.
CONCURRENCES
This process is consistent with the procedure prescribed by Municipal Code Section 1.24.150.
FISCAL IMPACT
Projected revenue from the collection of delinquent fines by the County Auditor for Fiscal Year
2016-17 is expected to be $13,300.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the resolution and continue to forward unpaid fines to a collection agency. This is
not recommended as it typically does not result in fines being paid in an amount to cover the
fine, but more importantly placing liens does have the potential effect of causing the correction
of persistent violations as owners typically will want the lien cleared and pay the fines in
addition to addressing the violation.
Attachments:
a - SLOMC1.24.150
b - Resolution Collection of Delinquent Code Enf Fines
c - List of Properties - Attachment to Resolution
9
Packet Pg. 141
1.24.150 Collection of unpaid fines.
A. City Remedies. The city, at its discretion, may pursue any and all legal, equitable, and
administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. A civil administrative
fine shall be deemed unpaid the day after the due date set by the administrative citation, or if
appealed, the day after the due date set by the hearing officer or applicable board in its decision. If
the decision of the hearing officer or applicable board is appealed to, or petition for writ filed with,
the superior court, the civil administrative fine shall be deemed unpaid the day after the due date
set by the superior court. If the superior court upholds the administrative citation, but fails to set a
due date, the fine shall be deemed unpaid on the eleventh day after the superior court decision is
mailed.
1. Remedies Cumulative. Pursuit of one remedy does not preclude the pursuit of any other
remedies.
2. Refusal to Issue Permits. A city department may refuse to accept an application for a city
permit or license or refuse to issue, extend, or renew to any person who has unpaid delinquent
fines, liens, or assessments any city permit, license, or other city approval pertaining to the
property that is the subject of unpaid delinquent fines, liens or assessments.
3. Suspension of Issued Permits. Notwithstanding any other provision of the code, any permit,
license, or any type of land use approval issued by the city to a person who has unpaid
administrative citations totaling five hundred dollars or more which remain delinquent for thirty
days or longer may be suspended by the department which issued the permit or other
entitlement. The suspension becomes effective ten days after the date the notice of the
suspension is placed by the issuing department in the United States mail postage prepaid,
addressed to the person, and continues until the administrative delinquency is paid in full. The
person may request an appeal or review hearing pursuant to the specific permit, license, or
other city approval procedures or ordinance if such a request is filed before the ten-day period
ends.
4. Criminal Remedies. The city attorney, at his or her discretion, may also issue a criminal
citation or complaint (infraction or misdemeanor) to any person for a code violation.
B. Violations Constitute a Public Nuisance. The director may pursue the remedies described in this
section whether or not the city is pursuing any other action to terminate an ongoing code violation
that was the basis for an administrative citation or to otherwise abate the violation or sanction the
property owner. To compel code compliance, the city may also seek to collect assessed fines by
means of a nuisance abatement lien or special assessment against the property where a property
related violation occurred in accordance with the procedures in Government Code Sections 38773.1
and 38773.5.
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1628, passed February 16, 2016.
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.150 Collection of unpaid fines.Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 142 AttachmentL: a - SLOMC1.24.150 (1383 : Special Assessment - Code Enforcement Fines)
C. Lien Conditions . To recov er any delinquent administrative fines as a lien or special as ses sment
on real property , the following conditions must be met:
1. The direc tor must submit to and rec eive approval from the city c ounc il for a res olution
c ertify ing the amounts of the liens and spec ial as sess ments sought to be collec ted from each
property owner; and
2. The total amount of the delinquent fine agains t the property owner must be delinquent for
s ix ty day s or more.
D. Lien Collec tions . The direc tor is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce collec tion of
the lien or s pecial ass essment, including but not limited to the following:
1. Request the c ounty rec order to record a notice of any lien or s pecial ass essment certified
by res olution of the c ity c ounc il.
2. Request the c ounty tax c ollector on behalf of the city to c ollect any special asses sments
c ertified by resolution of the city c ounc il.
E. Notice of Lien Collection Procedures. All adminis trativ e c itations s hall c ontain a notice that
unpaid fines are s ubjec t to the ass essment and lien collection proc edures of this c hapter. This
notice s hall s atis fy the notic e requirements of Government Code Sec tions 38773.1 and 38773.5
when an administrative citation is serv ed on the person. In addition, the direc tor s hall by firs t c lass
mail send notice to eac h property owner at leas t ten days before the city council c onsiders the
resolution to certify the amounts of the liens and spec ial as sess ments stating the date, time, and
location of the meeting. The lien or s pecial ass essment s hall be imposed on the date the
administrative citation for the code v iolation is is sued to the res ponsible person and s hall become
effective upon the rec ording of a notice of lien or special assessment by the c ounty rec order.
F. Contesting Certification of a Lien. A pers on may c ontest the amount or the validity of any lien or
special as ses sment for a c iv il fine at the public hearing when the city council c ons iders the
resolution to certify the liens or as s ess ments. Such c ontests shall be limited to the issue of the
amount or validity of the lien or assessment and may not consider whether the underlying code
violation occurred. Pursuit of suc h a contes t by a pers on is nec ess ary to ex haust the administrative
remedies concerning a legal challenge to the validity of any s uch lien or special asses sment. (Ord.
1625 § 1 (part), 2015)
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1628, passed February 16, 2016.
San Luis Obispo Muni cipal Code 1.24.150 Collection of unpaid fines.Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 143 AttachmentL: a - SLOMC1.24.150 (1383 : Special Assessment - Code Enforcement Fines)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2016 SERIES)
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
THE PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 53069.4(a)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53069.4(a) authorizes the City to adopt an
ordinance that governs the imposition, enforcement, collection and administrative review of
administrative fines arising out of violations of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.4(a), the City adopted
Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code, which has been subsequently amended; and
WHEREAS, Section 1.24.150 of the Municipal Code provides that the City may request
that the County Assessor collect, on behalf of the City, any administrative fines which are more
than 60 days delinquent, and which are certified by the City Council as special assessments; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of San Luis Obispo finds that all of the fine amounts for
the referenced properties listed below are at least 60 days delinquent; and
WHEREAS, the property owners responsible for the violations were notified of the
violations and received citations and were subsequently notified in writing by a notice mailed
June 10, 2016 pursuant to Section 1.24.150 (E) of the Municipal Code of this hearing and their
right to contest the assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this
reference as the findings of the City Council.
Section 2. Action. The City of San Luis Obispo hereby authorizes the San Luis Obispo County
Auditor to assess the amounts due on delinquent accounts as special assessments against the
properties listed on the Exhibit A, pursuant to California Government Code 54988, et seq.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
Packet Pg. 144 AttachmentM: b - Resolution Collection of Delinquent Code Enf Fines (1383 : Special Assessment - Code Enforcement Fines)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 145 AttachmentM: b - Resolution Collection of Delinquent Code Enf Fines (1383 : Special Assessment - Code Enforcement Fines)
Attachment to Resolution No. ______ (2016 Series)
List of Properties
Name of Property Owner Assessor's
Parcel #
Property Address Amount Citation #
Jane Gilmore 004-762-025 1010 San Carlos $50.00 00002823
Jane Gilmore 004-762-025 1010 San Carlos $100.00 00003471
Shaffer Gregory A Family Trust 001-063-006 1651 Hillcrest Pl $100.00 00003947
Shaffer Gregory A Family Trust 001-063-006 1651 Hillcrest Pl $200.00 00003947
Holloman John D Revocable Trust 001-171-010 500 Mountain View $400.00 00004509
Walter E & Louise Sullivan 004-622-007 1127 Seaward $100.00 00004805
Walter E & Louise Sullivan 004-622-007 1127 Seaward $100.00 00004972
Sloca LLC A Ca LLC 052-322-011 299 Albert $100.00 00003255
Sloca LLC A Ca LLC 052-322-011 299 Albert $200.00 00003883
Sloca LLC A Ca LLC 052-322-011 299 Albert $400.00 00004195
Richard Wise Revocable Trust 002-333-017 1301 Monterey $100.00 00003586
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $100.00 00003930
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $200.00 00004106
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $50.00 00004107
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $400.00 00004288
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $400.00 00004405
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $400.00 00004558
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $400.00 00004693
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $200.00 00004947
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $50.00 00005068
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $100.00 00005069
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $200.00 00005070
Christopher Nielsen 052-092-017 1274 Bond $50.00 00003611
Edward G &Christine L Bauer 052-322-007 253 Albert $100.00 00003457
Holdgrafer & Sager A Ptp 001-114-022 1186 Olive $100.00 00004915
Holdgrafer & Sager A Ptp 001-114-022 1186 Olive $100.00 00005048
Holdgrafer & Sager A Ptp 001-114-022 1186 Olive $200.00 00005049
James Schalich, Schalich Family 2005
Trust
052-072-007 301 Hathway $50.00 00004944
Jerry Burch 004-782-058 2505 Johnson $200.00 00004138
Jerry Burch 004-782-058 2505 Johnson $400.00 00004249
Jerry Burch 004-782-058 2505 Johnson $800.00 00004375
Jerry Burch 004-782-058 2505 Johnson $800.00 00004742
Jerry Burch 004-782-058 2505 Johnson $800.00 00004847
Jerry Burch 004-782-058 2505 Johnson $800.00 00004985
Jerry Burch 004-782-058 2505 Johnson $800.00 00005119
Kuznetsov Vladimir & Tsia 1997 Family
Trust
052-224-027 316 Leroy $100.00 00005223
Marie Dias 052-237-010 474 Henderson $100.00 00004262
Marie Dias 052-237-010 474 Henderson $100.00 00004374
Packet Pg. 146 AttachmentN: c - List of Properties - Attachment to Resolution (1383 : Special Assessment - Code Enforcement Fines)
Resolution No. ______ (2016 Series) Page 2
Marie Dias 052-237-010 474 Henderson $100.00 00004386
Marie Dias 052-237-010 474 Henderson $200.00 00004546
Marie Dias 052-237-010 474 Henderson $200.00 00004673
Mark Morrison 052-321-007 1503 Slack $200.00 00003725
Mark Morrison 052-321-007 1503 Slack $200.00 00003837
Mark Morrison 052-321-007 1503 Slack St $50.00 00001608
Mark Morrison 052-321-007 1503 Slack St $100.00 00001614
Marlin D & Cynthia A Vix 052-201-001 306 Hathway $200.00 00004136
Marlin D & Cynthia A Vix 052-201-001 306 Hathway $50.00 00004168
Phi Sigma Zeta House Corp Of Lambda
Chi Alpha Phi Sigma Zeta House Corp
052-071-011 1292 Foothill Blvd $50.00 00002952
Robert Kassis 052-351-035 120 Del Norte $100.00 00003497
Robert Kassis 052-351-035 120 Del Norte $200.00 00003680
Robert Kassis 052-351-035 120 Del Norte $100.00 00003349
Roy Fedotoff 003-687-052 2031 Sierra Way $200.00 00004917
SLO JPT II LLC A Ca LLC 052-351-008 125 Foothill Blvd $50.00 00001856
SLOCA LLC A CA LLC 052-203-012 1223 Stafford St $50.00 00001798
SLOCA LLC A CA LLC 052-202-026 1228 Stafford $100.00 00003168
Spade Family Trust/ Johnson Jeffrey S 052-231-008 430 Grand Ave $200.00 00005255
Steven R & Marilee Headen 052-072-005 281 Hathway $200.00 00004012
Traver Karen E Trust 004-041-022 1527 Oceanaire $200.00 00001927
Wayne Garcia Jr 004-552-004 3598 Cedar $50.00 00002785
Wayne Garcia Jr 004-552-004 3598 Cedar $100.00 00002944
Wayne Garcia Jr 004-552-004 3598 Cedar $200.00 00003143
Wayne Garcia Jr 004-552-004 3598 Cedar $200.00 00003342
Wayne Garcia Jr 004-552-004 3598 Cedar $50.00 00003343
Weipert Donn & Eileen Living Trust 052-201-003 322 Hathway $100.00 00004137
$13300.00 Total
Packet Pg. 147 AttachmentN: c - List of Properties - Attachment to Resolution (1383 : Special Assessment - Code Enforcement Fines)
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Dave Hix, Utilities Deputy Director – Wastewater
Howard Brewen, Water Resource Recovery Facility Supervisor
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY AERATION BLOWER
REPLACEMENT PROJECT-SPECIFICATION NO. 91448
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aeration blower
replacement for the Water Resource Recovery Facility, Specification No. 91448; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest proposal is within the
engineer’s estimate of $320,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The aeration bays (A-bays) were identified as one of the processes that were most affected by the
new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements that went
into effect December 2015. The A-bays are needed for the biological process that converts the
toxic ammonia found in wastewater to non-harmful nitrogen. This process requires that three
major disciplines (mechanical, biological, and chemical) work together in a complex manner to
achieve the desired outcome. The mechanical discipline consists of aeration blowers that are a
critical component for process control and in meeting regulatory requirements for the WRRF.
There are two existing aeration blowers in operation that are 20 years old, operate continuously
and have been rebuilt numerous times. The recently completed WRRF Facility Plan includes an
analysis of the aeration blower system and concludes that the aeration blowers are at high risk for
failure and replacement should not wait for the WRRF Project to commence.
Because the A-bays are undergoing a major transformation in the WRRF Project, the number
and size of aeration blowers required will be significantly different from the present.
Accordingly, Water Systems Consultants (WSC) was retained to find the best solution for
purchasing aeration blowers that could be redeployed in the future WRRF Project. The findings
concluded that one aeration blower that was sized larger would meet present demands and could
be integrated into the new aeration blower system included in the WRRF Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The replacement of two aeration blowers (smaller than the one proposed here) were identified in
10
Packet Pg. 148
the 2013-15 Capital Improvement Plan for WRRF Facility Major Maintenance page 3-169.
$175,000 was identified in 2014-15 and $175,000 in 2015-16 for a total of $350,000 available
for this project. The engineer’s estimate for the replacement is $320,000. The total available
balance of the major maintenance account is $559,677.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council may choose to deny or defer the approval to advertise this project. Should this
be Council’s choice, the existing aeration blowers, which have been identified as having a high
risk of failure, would continue to be rebuilt if possible or catastrophically fail. Given the critical
nature of oxygen to the biological process, failure could result in water quality violations and
potential fines.
Attachments:
a - Council Reading File - RFP 91280 WRRF Aeration Blower Replacement Project
10
Packet Pg. 149
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Mychal Boerman, Interim Utilities Services Manager
Judy Buonaguidi, Utilities Services Technician
SUBJECT: COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL ACCOUNTS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Assessor to assess amounts due to
San Luis Garbage Company on delinquent accounts for provision of solid waste collection and
disposal services as described in City Municipal Code Section 8.04.070 as liens against
properties involved.
DISCUSSION
Background
Based on the need to protect public health and safety, the Municipal Code establishes that
occupants of all developed properties within the City benefit from regular periodic collection of
solid waste. Section 8.04.070 of the Municipal Code states:
1. That all developed properties in the City must use the solid waste collection and disposal
service provided by the City's franchisee.
2. That the franchisee is responsible for collecting all fees for the service.
3. That the owners of developed properties are ultimately responsible for paying for the
service.
4. That once each year the franchisee may take actions to collect from delinquent solid
waste collection and disposal accounts.
5. That, after the franchisee has completed the actions established within the Municipal
Code, the City will adopt a resolution authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Assessor
to assess amounts due on delinquent accounts as liens against the properties.
San Luis Garbage Company has taken the actions prescribed in the Municipal Code to collect
delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts. In adherence to the Municipal Code, San
Luis Garbage Company has presented the City with a list of property owners whose accounts
were more than 120 days past due, has sent certified letters to those property owners requesting
payment, and has presented the City with a final list of property owners whose accounts are still
11
Packet Pg. 150
past due. Additionally, City staff has sent a separate notification to property owners on the list to
inform them of the action being taken by the Council.
The attached resolution authorizes the San Luis Obispo County Assessor to assess the amounts
due on delinquent accounts as liens against the properties.
CONCURRENCES
This process is consistent with the procedure prescribed in Municipal Code Section 8.04.070.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City. The Municipal Code states that any fees charged by the San
Luis Obispo County Assessor to lien the affected properties will be borne by the franchisee.
ALTERNATIVES
The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.04.070 provides a process for San Luis Garbage Company
to collect payment for delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts. The City Council
could choose not to approve the recommended action if it believes San Luis Garbage Company
has not taken the actions prescribed in the Municipal Code. Based on the information provided to
the City, staff has determined that San Luis Garbage Company has taken the actions prescribed
in the Municipal Code to collect delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts.
Attachments:
a - Resolution for Delinquent Solid Waste Accts 2016
11
Packet Pg. 151
R _______
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY ASSESSOR TO ASSESS AMOUNTS DUE ON DELINQUENT
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL ACCOUNTS AS LIENS
AGAINST THE PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 25828, ET SEQ.
WHEREAS, Section 8.04.070 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code establishes that all
developed properties in the City must use the solid waste collection and disposal service provided
by the City's franchisee, that the franchisee is responsible for collecting fees for its services, and that
owners of developed properties are responsible for paying for the service; and
WHEREAS, Section 8.04.070 of the Municipal Code further provides a method by which,
once each year, the franchisee may take actions to collect fees from the owners of developed
properties which have delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts; and
WHEREAS, the franchisee, San Luis Garbage Company, has taken the actions required
within Section 8.04.070 of the Municipal Code to collect fees from delinquent accounts as certified
by franchisee and incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the San Luis Obispo County Assessor is hereby authorized to assess the amounts due
on delinquent accounts as established and certified by franchisee San Luis Garbage Company as
liens against the properties listed below.
Property Owner Parcel Number Property Address Amount
GORDON, ROBERT L 001-136-010 1532 MONTEREY ST 442.44
SNYDER, CHARLES C 053-182-029 3191 S HIGUERA ST 415.44
SNYDER, ELEANOR G 003-564-007 1672 FAIRVIEW ST 191.62
SNYDER, CHARLES C 001-251-019 2038 SAN LUIS DR 263.12
VETTER, WILLIAM 002-313-024 673 SANTA ROSA ST 936.42
RONCA, STEPHEN C 052-485-003 625 AL-HIL DR 271.00
WINDES DANA 053-300-020 1286 CHAPARRAL CIR 191.62
WAMPLER, LAWRENCE M 053-414-003 966 FULLER RD 187.68
Packet Pg. 152 AttachmentP: a - Resolution for Delinquent Solid Waste Accts 2016 (1385 : Collection of Delinquent Solid Waste and Disposal Accounts)
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:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 153 AttachmentP: a - Resolution for Delinquent Solid Waste Accts 2016 (1385 : Collection of Delinquent Solid Waste and Disposal Accounts)
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources
Prepared By: Greg Zocher, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE FROM CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE
PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR LIABILITY
COVERAGE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Coverage (MOC) (Attachment A)
when final with California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) to participate in the
Excess Insurance Program for liability insurance coverage, subject to final approval as to
form and substance by the City Manager and City Attorney; and
2. Adopt a resolution delegating claim settlement authority to CJPIA (Attachment B); and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreement with Carl Warren for third party
administration services for liability insurance program (Attachment C), subject to final
approval as to form and substance by the City Manager and City Attorney.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo became a member of the CJPIA in 2003 for participation in the
liability program. Membership in the CJPIA means sharing risk with other member agencies.
However, the risk is shared among a large number of agencies, who share common goals of risk
avoidance, claims control and transfer of risk in order to eliminate or reduce exposure. By
following proven practices of risk management, member agencies assist each other in keeping
the cost of claims down. By sharing risk, the cost to an agency for a year with significant claims
experience is somewhat mitigated and spread out over a number of agencies.
After ten years of participation in the CJPIA and with direction from Council, it was appropriate
to explore alternatives to the CJPIA with the objective of reducing costs while effectively
managing the City’s risk and protecting the City’s assets. This analysis was conducted and
presented to Council in April 2014 with the recommendation to remain in CJPIA. The City
currently has “first dollar” coverage, meaning that CJPIA pays all eligible claims with lower
financial risk associated with the coverage under the CJPIA and costs for this type of coverage
were competitive based on the quotes received and analysis conducted. However, insurance
costs continue to be significant for the City and cost increases are unpredictable based on the
pool’s experience, thus warranting continued evaluation as identified in Other Important Council
12
Packet Pg. 154
Objectives – Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility.
Since its inception, CJPIA has offered its members “first dollar” or Primary Insurance Program for
covered liability claims, meaning that there is no Self Insured Retention (SIR) or deductible. This
results in the full amount of the claim being allocated and shared by members in the pool, just as
other members’ claims costs are shared by the City of San Luis Obispo. Similar to our
evaluation of CJPIA costs, other member agencies in the CJPIA pool began exploring other
insurance funding models outside CJPIA. In an effort to address their member agencies’ request
for more insurance options, CJPIA realized the need to develop a separate Excess Insurance
Program (EIP), wherein EIP members no longer share the risk with all CJPIA member agencies
and are able to select an SIR level which best fits the EIP member’s claim experience resulting in
a discounted insurance premium. The newly developed EIP allows members to select from five
SIR levels ranging from $150,000 to $1.0 Million. The newly developed EIP is for Liability
coverage only. CJPIA will explore expanding the EIP for the Workers’ Compensation program
at a later time. When developed, staff will analyze the merits of moving to the EIP for Workers’
Compensation coverage, and will make a recommendation to Council at that time. Until then, the
City will remain in the primary insurance program and continue to receive “first dollar” coverage
for Workers’ Compensation coverage.
Based on an analysis of claims experienced and potential savings, staff recommends moving to
the EIP liability coverage, with a $500,000 SIR. A draft version of the MOC is provided in
Attachment A. CJPIA is working with staff on finalizing contract language as this report is being
written and CJPIA will take the MOC to its Executive Committee to review requested
modifications and for final approval on June 22nd. In order to join the EIP effective July 1,
2016, staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Carl
Warren, the City’s current third party claims administrator, for continued third party claims
administration services under the EIP, as well as the MOC with CJPIA when finalized, subject to
City Attorney approval as to form and provided there are no significant substantive changes.
Primary Insurance Program vs. Excess Insurance Program
The City of San Luis Obispo has eleven years of claim experience with CJPIA’s Primary
Insurance Program. The concept of “pooling” risk means there is an allocation of costs among
all members in the insurance pool based on the pool’s claim experience, not the individual
agencies’ claim experience.
All costs, including third party claims administration fees, are allocated proportionally to all
members in the Primary Insurance Program. Historically, the City’s liability claim experience
has been relatively low (City normalized claim costs - $1.31 per $100 of payroll) compared to
other member agencies (Pool average normalized claim costs - $3.87 per $100 of payroll). In
fact, our annual contributions have averaged $1.3 million while the City’s claim experience has
only averaged $476,000. For many agencies “first dollar” Primary Insurance Program is
appealing because, in the event of a poor claim year, other agencies will help cover the claim
costs.
In the primary insurance program, costs are allocated based on both claim experience and agency
payroll. Agencies with larger payroll (exceeding $20 Million) and lower claim experience would
12
Packet Pg. 155
potentially find moving to an EIP more advantageous. While there is no set methodology when
choosing an SIR level, some insurance experts recommend using the agency’s annual budget as a
base and applying 1% of that figure to set the initial SIR level. Using this methodology, the
City’s annual budget ($123 Million) would suggest that an SIR option up to $1 Million could be
appropriate. However, choosing a higher SIR is not recommended, as the additional discounted
premiums for the higher SIR are not sufficient when compared to additional potential exposure.
Based on claim experience, which is stratified into loss layers, an agency can also make a
determination on which SIR would be most appropriate. With the Primary Insurance Program
there is little direct correlation between individual claim experience and premium costs. With
the EIP there is a stronger correlation between loss experience and premium costs. This means
an agency that continues to have good claim experience can more directly impact savings in
premiums. Under the EIP a discounted premium would be charged to cover program costs,
pooled retention costs, and to purchase Excess Insurance which pay for claims that exceed the
pooled retention. In addition, claims administration fees would need to be paid directly to the
third party administrator, Carl Warren. Other program characteristic differences, described in
Attachment D, have been evaluated and, based on staff’s analysis of the City’s claim experience,
found acceptable.
Liability Claim Experience
While not a perfect predictor of future claims, the City’s best indicator is to look back at actual
claims data to estimate potential savings (or costs) under the EIP model. For the past eleven
years, the City’s liability claim experience has averaged approximately $476,000 annually. Over
99% of these claims fall under $150,000 per claim. Based on the lower severity of claims
experienced over the last eleven years, moving to the EIP with a $500,000 SIR would potentially
lower premium and claim costs compared to the current Primary Insurance Program. For
illustrative purposes, by overlaying prior claim experience with current annual premiums costs,
the savings could be substantial (average as much as $500,000 annually). If claim experience
changes significantly from the historical average, the City would have the option to reevaluate
and potentially choose a different SIR level. However, moving to the EIP would require a three
year commitment before the City would have the option of returning to the primary insurance
program for “first dollar” liability coverage.
How Would the EIP Work?
Rather than pay a $2 Million premium under the Primary Insurance Program for first dollar
coverage, the City would pay a discounted rate of $984,500 and move into the EIP with a
$500,000 SIR. In addition, the City would pay a claims administration fee of approximately
$42,000 annually based on the number and type of claims averaged during the past eleven years.
The money not spent on the current Primary Insurance Program premium would need to be set
aside or “designated” to pay any claims incurred under the SIR (i.e. less than $500,000) level
during the fiscal year. Since it takes approximately three years for claims to close, it would be
advisable to set aside a similar amount ($1.0 Million) annually for three years. Once a claim
year closes out, any extra funds that were set aside and not needed to pay for claims could be
used to defray insurance costs for that year or other purposes as directed by Council.
For example, under the EIP for fiscal year 2016-17, instead of paying approximately $2 Million
in premiums to CJPIA, the City’s premium would be reduced to approximately $1 Million
12
Packet Pg. 156
allowing a set aside of approximately $1 Million. Claim year 2016-17 would likely close in
2019, at which time any funds set aside but not used to pay claims would be available for other
insurance costs or other purposes. Based on past experience average claim years, this could be
as much as $500,000; an amount that would have helped pay other members’ claims under the
Primary Insurance Program model.
Why CJPIA
Based on analysis, in April 2014 staff did not recommend moving to another Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) for EIP coverage. This was due to other JPAs not offering the “hands on” risk
management services, including claims administration, which would have required hiring
additional staff for claims management, legal services and claims settlement.
With CJPIA’s EIP, the City will have program continuity, the ability to utilize the same third
party administrator, and continue to have access to high caliber law firms that have represented
the City very well. The City historically has delegated authority to administratively process and
reject claims and, through our existing MOC, has delegated settlement authority to CJPIA. This
delegation has reduced staff time, and eliminated redundancies and the third party administrator
and CalJPIA staff have consistently worked collaboratively and effectively with City risk
management and legal staff. While the new EIP gives agencies the option to assume settlement
authority for most claims within the SIR, the option to continue with the current claim settlement
authority model is also available. For the past eleven years, staff has found the delegation of
claim settlement to work very well – CJPIA communicates regularly regarding claim status,
solicits staff and Council input on significant settlement decisions and is respectful of the City’s
input on claims and settlement decisions. Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution
(Attachment B) to continue to delegate claims settlement authority to CJPIA under the new EIP.
There are numerous other benefits that would come at no additional cost by remaining a member
of CJPIA and moving to the EIP. CJPIA provides access to ancillary insurance coverages at
reduced group rates. The City currently takes advantage of many of these insurance options
including: environmental and pollution, property, fidelity and special event insurance. CJPIA
offers numerous training opportunities that meet OSHA or other legal requirements and enhances
the City’s overall risk management program that puts the City in position to consider moving
from first dollar coverage to an EIP. In addition, CJPIA provides access to legal advisors in the
area of employment law, workers compensation and liability claims.
In addition to the insurance coverages described above, the CJPIA also provides a
comprehensive risk management program that includes a risk management evaluation every
three years. The risk management evaluation results in a Loss Control Action Plan (LossCAP)
which is a comprehensive program designed to assist the City in addressing areas in which risk
exposure indicates the need for changes to the City’s operations. The LossCAP provides
recommendations based on a review of various aspects of City operations including: policies,
procedures, contracts, agreements, insurance and risk transfer, facilities and infrastructure.
Recommendation from these evaluations will be implemented with continued reduction in claim
experience as the ultimate goal. Doubtless these services have been a factor in t he City’s
liability claim history.
12
Packet Pg. 157
FISCAL IMPACT
In the first three years the EIP would yield no cost reductions since the City will need to build up
the funds necessary to pay claims within its SIR level. After the third year in the EIP, based on
historical information, the City should experience significant cost reductions in the EIP when
compared to the primary insurance program assuming consistent claims experience.
ALTERNATIVES
Remain in the current Primary Insurance Program for liability claims. This alternative is not
recommended, since historically the City has paid three times its claim severity in premium costs,
whereas, the EIP allows for potential reduction in costs over current program.
Attachments:
a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage
b - Resolution for participation in excess insurance program
c - Draft Third Party Agreement
d - Program Characteristic Differences
12
Packet Pg. 158
Packet Pg. 159 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 160 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
2.
Packet Pg. 161 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
3.
Packet Pg. 162 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
4.
5.
6.
Packet Pg. 163 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
7.
Packet Pg. 164 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 165 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 166 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 167 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 168 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 169 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 170 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 171 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 172 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 173 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 174 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 175 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 176 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 177 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 178 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 179 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 180 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 181 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 182 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 183 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 184 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 185 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 186 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 187 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 188 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 189 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 190 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 191 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 192 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 193 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
Packet Pg. 194 AttachmentQ: a - Draft Memorandum of Coverage (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY’S EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo became a member of the California Joint Powers
Insurance Authority (CJPIA) in 2003 for participation in the liability primary insurance program;
and
WHEREAS, the CJPIA has developed a separate Excess Insurance Program (EIP), wherein
members may select a Self-Insured Retention (SIR) level which best fits claim experience; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo’s claim experience for the past eleven years
indicates moving to the EIP with an SIR of $500,000 could reduce insurance costs when
compared to remaining in the primary insurance program; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo’s current Memorandum of Coverage delegates
claim settlement authority to CJPIA, the EIP allows an agency to continue to delegate claim
settlement authority, and the City desires to do so;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of
Coverage with CJPIA for participation in the liability EIP subject to final approval as to substance
and form by the City Manager and City Attorney.
SECTION 2. The City’s SIR for program participation shall be $500,000.
SECTION 3. The Council authorizes continued delegation of claim settlement authority
to the CJPIA for amounts up to and in excess of the City’s designated SIR.
SECTION 4. The Director of Finance shall establish a trust account and take all necessary
steps to ensure claim settlement amounts within the SIR are available for settlement and payment of
claims.
Upon motion of ______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg. 195 AttachmentR: b - Resolution for participation in excess insurance program (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day of June, 2016.
___________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 196 AttachmentR: b - Resolution for participation in excess insurance program (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS
Packet Pg. 197 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 198 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 199 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 200 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 201 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 202 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 203 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 204 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 205 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 206 AttachmentS: c - Draft Third Party Agreement (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
Packet Pg. 207 AttachmentT: d - Program Characteristic Differences (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE
Packet Pg. 208 AttachmentT: d - Program Characteristic Differences (1386 : CJPIA PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE EXCESS INSURANCE
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Melissa Ellsworth, Senior Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: FY 2016-19 ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a three-year contract with the County of San Luis
Obispo for the continued provision of Animal Care and Control Services from July 1, 2016 to
June 30, 2019 in the amount of $146,307 for the first year, with annual adjustments thereafter.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City has contracted with the County of San Luis Obispo for the provision of Animal Care
and Control Services for many years. Services provided include:
1. Emergency and non-emergency response of Animal Services Officers for injured and
stray animals
2. Investigative services for animal bites, abuse, and neglect;
3. Sheltering and quarantine services;
4. Dog licensing;
5. Animal adoption and other services as required either by State law or City Municipal
Code.
The Police Department administers the contract on behalf of the CityThe current three-year
contract with the County is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2016. There will be no change in the
terms of the contract from FY 2013-16.
Service Fee Calculation
The calculation of contract costs in subsequent years is based on each city’s actual use of
services and revenue generated from animal licensing and other fees from each jurisdiction. This
method is based on four key facets of Animal Services’ operations: 1) field service, 2) licensing,
3) shelter operations, and 4) education services.
This process provides a direct and measurable relationship between the actual amount of service
being provided to a city, combined with the actual revenue generated by a city through animal
licenses and other fees, and the costs charged to the city for that service. Cities that have a lower
rate of service and/or generate more off-setting revenue pay lower contract fees than cities with
higher usage rates. This creates an incentive to educate and promote licensing.
13
Packet Pg. 209
Scope of Services
The proposed contract provides for the delivery of Animal Care and Control services to the City
of San Luis Obispo for three years, through June 30, 2019. Services include (as outlined in
Exhibit A of Attachment A), but are not limited to:
County Obligations
1. Sheltering Services – Provide shelter services in accordance with state regulations, local
ordinances, and policies governing the humane treatment of animals.
2. Field Services – Receive and respond to public calls for service related to alleged
violations of local or state codes pertaining to the care, keeping, treatment, and
management of animals.
3. Reporting – Provide to the City bi-annual service activity and financial reports reflecting
field services, licensing, shelter operations, and humane education programs.
City Obligations
1. Ordinance Conformity – Adopt animal control ordinances in substantial conformity with,
and ensuring no conflicts with or significant variation from, Chapter 9 of the San Luis
Obispo County Code.
2. Prosecution of Municipal Code Violations – Through the City Attorney, provide for all
preparation, filing and civil or criminal prosecution of cases involving violation of
municipal codes pertaining to the care, treatment, and keeping of animals.
3. Assistance – Provide such assistance and support to Animal Services personnel as may be
reasonably necessary to safely and effectively execute the operations required by this
contract within the City limits.
Animal Service Shelter
Staff is recommending the approval of the contract while Cities determine the best way forward
in terms of partnering with the other Cities and the County to construct a new animal services
shelter. Discussions are currently underway to discuss 1) service and shelter governance, 2)
schedule and 3) costs. The issue of governance is a topic parties feel that there should be a role
that the Cities have in terms of containing costs and looking at the most efficient way to provide
services consistent with state law and local preferences and standards. Schedule is a key issue in
terms of the timing that the shelter will be open which is expected to coincide with the end of the
term of this service agreement being considered by Council. Moreover, the timing of the
completion of the facility will impact future budgets. The last and final issue of cost is how to
best share the capital costs associated with the facility and the type of construction that
economically and efficiently meet the existing and future needs of the area being served. These
discussions are expected to wrap up by the end of summer and staff will return with a
recommendation to Council in early fall 2016.
CONCURRENCES
The Director of Finance and Information Technology concurs with the staff recommendation.
13
Packet Pg. 210
FISCAL IMPACT
The County has recently notified staff that the contract costs for FY 2016-17 have been
calculated at $146,307. This cost was less than staff had anticipated for the upcoming fiscal
year; therefore there is adequate funding in the Police department budget to cover this cost.
Additionally, based on service call trends for the City, staff does not anticipate any drastic
increases in service, so it is expected that costs would remain steady with only slight increases
(or decreases) anticipated during the three year contract.
The City will be notified in April of any adjustments for subsequent years and the Police
Department will budget accordingly.
In FY 2015-16, the City paid a total of $146,611; costs for FY 2016-17 have decreased
approximately 0.2% to $146,307. These amounts are included in the 2016-2017 budget.
ALTERNATIVE
The Council could choose not to approve a new agreement with the County for animal services.
This would leave the City without the ability to provide such animal services without a practical
in-house or contract alternative. Many of the services are required by law. Therefore, staff does
not recommend this alternative.
Attachments:
a - Contract 2016-2019
13
Packet Pg. 211
Page 1 of 2
CONTRACT
FOR
ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into by and between the County of San Luis Obispo, a
public entity in the State of California, (“County”) and, San Luis Obispo, an incorporated city in
the State of California, (“City”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, County has established the Division of Animal Services to provide animal
care and control functions including the enforcement of the ordinances of San Luis Obispo
County Code Title 9 and of California state codes pertaining to the care, keeping, and
management of animals; and
WHEREAS, County, through Animal Services, maintains and operates an animal
shelter and a humane education program; and
WHEREAS, City is desirous of contracting with County for the provision of such
services;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and
stipulations set forth herein, the parties hereby agree that County shall perform the services
described herein for the compensation set forth herein, subject to the terms and conditions set
forth herein.
1. Services. The parties agree to perform the services described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full at this point.
2. Compensation. The parties agree to the compensation described in Exhibit B,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full at this point.
3. Duration. The parties agree to the duration described in Exhibit C, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full at this point.
4. General Conditions. The parties agree to the general conditions described in Exhibit
D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full at this point.
5. Notices. Notices required in this contract shall be provided to:
COUNTY CITY
Eric Anderson, DVM Deanna Cantrell
Animal Services Manager Chief of Police
PO Box 4110 1042 Walnut St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
Packet Pg. 212 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Page 2 of 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the date set
forth below.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
An Incorporated City in the State of California
By: _________________________________ ___________________________
JAN HOWELL MARX Date
Mayor
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________ ___________________________
LEE PRICE, MMC Date
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _________________________________ ___________________________
CHRISTINE DIETRICK Date
City Attorney
COUNTY COUNSEL:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
RITA NEAL County Counsel
By: _________________________________ ___________________________
DAVID STOTLAND Date
Deputy County Counsel
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A Public Entity in the State of California
By: _________________________________ ___________________________
LYNN COMPTON Date
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
Packet Pg. 213 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Page 3 of 2
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________ ___________________________
TOMMY GONG Date
County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
Packet Pg. 214 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3
CONTRACT
FOR
ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1) County Obligations. The County shall perform the following duties.
a) Shelter Services
i) Maintain, or cause to be maintained, an animal shelter whereat stray, owner
surrendered, confiscated, quarantined and custodially impounded household pets are
received and provided with appropriate care, housing, and shelter services in
accordance with state regulations, local ordinances, and policies governing the
humane treatment of such animals.
ii) Provide services allowing sheltered animals to be returned to their owners, adopted
into new homes, or to be humanely euthanized.
iii) Provide for the receipt and publication of lost and found animal reports.
iv) Provide services for the humane euthanasia of household pets and for the disposal of
their remains.
b) Field Services
i) Receive and respond to public calls for service related to alleged violations of local or
state codes pertaining to the care, keeping, treatment, and management of animals.
ii) Provide for the response to any of the following circumstances 24 hours a day, seven
days a week:
(1) Domestic animals posing an active and present threat to public safety
(2) Domestic animals which are severely injured, ill, or in eminent risk and whose
owner is unknown or unavailable.
(3) Domestic or wild animal demonstrating signs of possible rabies infection.
(4) Calls for assistance from law enforcement or emergency response personnel.
(5) Reported animal bites where the animal remains in the area unconfined and whose
owner is unknown or unavailable.
(6) Loose livestock roaming on roadways or other public areas.
Packet Pg. 215 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3
iii) Provide for the response to any of the following during Animal Services’ normal
business hours:
(1) Pick-up and impoundment of unlimited numbers of stray confined, domestic
animals.
(2) Pick-up and disposal of unlimited numbers of dead domestic animals from
roadways, parks, and other public areas.
(3) Pick up and transfer to shelter of owned animals for surrender or euthanasia
(4) Pick up of dead owned animals for disposal
iv) Provide for the necessary medical treatment and emergency care for domestic animals
picked up by Animal Services personnel and for those domestic animals presented
directly to veterinarians by private citizens and emergency response personnel.
v) Provide for the receipt, processing and investigation of animal bite reports as well as
the subsequent quarantine of animals in accordance with state codes pertaining to
rabies control.
vi) Receive and respond to reports of animals, domestic or wild, which are suspected to
be rabid or to have been exposed to rabies infection and attempt to affect their
capture. Captured animals will be processed in accordance with state codes pertaining
to rabies control.
vii) Receive and process all applications related to the keeping and sale of household pets;
inspect and regulate permitted operations in accordance with local and state codes.
viii) Provide for the recording, investigation, administrative hearings, and issuance of
findings and orders related to animal nuisances, animal seizures or confiscations, and
dangerous or vicious animals. Nuisances which remain unresolved following the
issuance of an abatement order will be processed to court through the City Attorney’s
office.
ix) Assist in the preparation and filing of court documents related to the civil and/or
criminal prosecution of cases involving violation of municipal codes pertaining to the
care, treatment, and keeping of domestic animals.
x) Provide for the preparation, filing and civil or criminal prosecution of cases involving
violations of California state codes pertaining to the care, treatment, and keeping of
domestic animals.
c) Reporting: Provide to the City bi-annual service activity and financial reports reflecting
field services, licensing, shelter operations, and humane education programs. Reports will
detail this information for both the individual quarter and year-to-date.
Packet Pg. 216 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit A, Page 3 of 3
2) City Obligations. The City shall perform the following duties.
a) Ordinance Conformity: Adopt, either by direct incorporation in the municipal code or by
way of reference, animal control ordinances which are in conformity to and are not in
substantial conflict or in variation from Chapter 9 of the San Luis Obispo County Code.
b) Prosecution of Municipal Code Violations: Through the City Attorney, provide for the
preparation, filing and civil or criminal prosecution of cases involving violation of
municipal codes, pertaining to the care, treatment, and keeping of animals, including all
such codes incorporated into the municipal code by way of reference.
c) Assistance: Provide such assistance and support to Animal Services personnel as may be
reasonably necessary to safely and effectively execute the operations required by this
contract within the City limits.
3) Animal Care and Control Coordination Group: The County and City agree to meet and
confer periodically, along with other parties contracting for like services, to discuss current
issues as they relate to the fiscal and practical application of this contract. Such meetings
shall be coordinated by the Animal Services Manager from time to time as becomes
necessary, but no less than once annually.
Packet Pg. 217 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit B, Page 1 of 1
CONTRACT
FOR
ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION
1) First Year Service Fee: The City agrees to pay to the County the amount of $146,307 for
services provided under this Contract during the first year of service.
2) Subsequent Years’ Service Fee: The County shall compute on an annual basis a service fee
assessed to the City for services provided under this Contract.
3) Timing of Service Fee: The County shall calculate annual service fees and provided them to
the City prior to April 15th of each year, with service fees becoming effective on July 1st of
that year. No further action by either party is necessary to implement new fees in subsequent
years.
4) Service Fee Methodology: The County shall use a service based methodology for
determining city service fees. The service based methodology shall be based on four key
facets of Animal Services’ operations:
Field Service
Licensing
Shelter Operations
Education Services
a) Determination of Cost of Service – The cost of providing services to the City will be
calculated by determining the average percentage of service allocated to the City over the
preceding three years for each of the four facets of operations and multiplying this
percentage against Animal Services operational cost for each facet. Combined, this then
represents the City’s total service cost in proportion to the County and all other
contracting parties.
b) Credit for Fees – The average annual revenue generated from fees or fines assessed
directly to residents of the City by Animal Services over the preceding three years will be
applied against the City’s total service cost.
c) Determination of Service Fee – The fee assessed to the City for provision of services
outlined in this contract shall be determined by subtracting the average revenue as
determined by item 4b of this exhibit from the average cost of service as determined by
item 4a of this exhibit.
5) Billing – County shall bill City for contracted services in quarterly increments. City shall
remit payment to the County within thirty (30) days of receipt of billing.
Packet Pg. 218 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit C, page Page 1 of 1
CONTRACT
FOR
ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES
EXHIBIT C
DURATION
1) Effective Date: This contract shall be effective July 1, 2016 or fifteen (15) days following of
the date of the signature of the County, whichever is later. The County shall be the last to
sign this contract.
2) Service Date: City and County acknowledge that the services provided under this contract are
a continuation of those established during the preceding contract term and that these services
may have been provided uninterruptedly between July 1, 2016 and the date of execution by
the County in order to ensure the interest of public service.
a) Both City and County expressly and retroactively authorize the provision of those
services.
b) For the purposes of billing and determination of the First Year Service Fee as provided in
Exhibit B, the first year of service will be presumed to have begun on July 1, 2016.
3) Duration: The term of this Contract shall expire June 30, 2019 unless terminated sooner as
provided in Exhibit D.
Packet Pg. 219 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit D, Page 1 of 3
CONTRACT
FOR
ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1) Termination: Either party may terminate this contract at any time by giving the other party
thirty (30) days written notice of termination. Termination for convenience shall have no
effect upon the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of any services provided
occurring prior to the effective date of such termination. County shall be paid for all work
satisfactorily completed prior to the effective date of termination. In the event that the
contract is terminated prior to the conclusion of a quarterly billing cycle, the City shall remit
to the County a prorated amount based upon the number of days of service relative to the
total number of days in the billing cycle.
2) Indemnification: Nothing in the provisions of this Contract is intended to create duties or
obligations to, or rights in third parties not party to this contract, or affect the legal liability of
either party to contract, by imposing any standard of care respecting the regulation and
enforcement of laws regarding animals different from the standard of care imposed by law.
It is understood and agreed that neither City, nor any officer or employee thereof is
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by the County under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated
to the County under this Contract. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to
Government Code 895.4, County shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, all
officers, and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description
brought forth or on account of injuries or death of any person or damage to property resulting
from anything done or omitted to be done by the County under this Contract except as
otherwise provided by Statute.
It is understood and agreed that neither County nor any officer or employee thereof, is
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by the City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
the City under this Contract. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government
Code Section 895.4, the City shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the County, all
officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description
brought fourth on account of injuries or death of any person or damage to property resulting
from anything done or omitted to be done by City under connection with any work, authority
or jurisdiction delegated to the City under this Agreement except as otherwise provided by
Statute.
3) Notices: Any notice, payment, statement, or demand required or permitted to be given
hereunder by either party to the other shall be effected by personal delivery in writing or by
mail, postage prepaid. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses
Packet Pg. 220 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit D, Page 2 of 3
appearing below, but each party may change its address by written notice in accordance with
this section. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of three days after mailing.
Notices for County shall be addressed to:
Eric Anderson
Animal Services Manager
PO Box 4110
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
Notices for Contractor shall be addressed to:
DEANNA CANTRELL
CHIEF OF POLICE
1042 WALNUT ST.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
4) Status of the Parties' Officers/Employees/Agents: Neither party's officers, employees,
agents, partners, other contractors or subcontractors shall be deemed to be employees of the
other party at any time. Nothing in this contract shall be construed as creating a civil service
employer- employee relationship or a joint venture relationship. No officer, employee, agent,
partner, other contractor or subcontractor of the other party shall be eligible for membership
in or any benefits from any plan for hospital, surgical, or medical insurance, or for
membership in any retirement program, paid vacation, paid sick leave, other leave, with or
without pay, collective bargaining rights, grievance procedures, appeals to the Civil Service
Commission or any other benefits which inures to or accrues to an employee of the other
party. The only performance and rights due the other party are those specifically stated in this
contract.
5) Governing Law and Venue: This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California. Additionally, this contract has been formed and shall
be performed in San Luis Obispo County; the venue for any legal action on the contract shall
be in San Luis Obispo County.
6) Entire Agreement: This Contract embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto,
superseding all oral or written previous and contemporary agreements between the parties
relating to matters herein; and except as otherwise provided herein, cannot be modified
without the prior written agreement of the parties.
7) Severability: In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for
any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision thereof and this Contract
shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been
contained in this Contract.
8) Successors and Assigns: This Contract shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and, except as
otherwise provided in this Contract, their assigns.
Packet Pg. 221 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Exhibit D, Page 3 of 3
9) Captions: The captions to the various clauses of this Contract are for information purposes
only and shall not alter the substance of the terms and conditions of this Contract.
10) Authorization: Each of the parties represents and warrants to the other that this Contract has
been duly authorized by all necessary corporate or governmental action on the part of the
representing party and that this Contract is fully binding on such party.
Packet Pg. 222 AttachmentU: a - Contract 2016-2019 (1389 : FY 2016-19 Animal Care and Control Services Contract)
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Jennifer Lawrence, Engineering Technician III
Violeta Esparza-Reniere, Engineer III
SUBJECT: CMP REPLACEMENTS 2015, SPECIFICATION NO. 91268
RECOMMENDATION
1.Approve plans and specifications for "CMP Replacements 2015, Specification No. 91268”; and
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 $244,100.
DISCUSSION
Background
Corrugated metal pipe (CMP) replacement is an ongoing effort to phase out failing stormdrain pipe
that no longer conforms to City standards. Corrugated metal storm drain pipe has a life span of 20 to
30 years; whereas polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic storm drain pipe has a life span of 50 to 100
years. At the end of the CMP useful life, the bottom and or top of the pipe rusts through. Once the
integrity of the CMP has been compromised, the pipe often collapses and the soil surrounding it is
susceptible to failure. If the soil around the pipe collapses, costly roadway and other structural
repairs are needed. Therefore, CMP replacement is an important preventative maintenance program
that reduces the City’s long-term costs and potential liability.
This project includes improvements at the following locations, which have been identified as areas
where the existing storm drain system is in need of replacement:
1.Kentucky/Bond – Remove or abandon existing storm drain facilities. Install new cross-
gutter and ADA compliant sidewalk ramp.
2.Santa Ynez/Loomis – Remove existing CMP and replace with new plastic storm drain pipe.
Remove and replace existing catch basins and junction box/manhole.
3.Foothill/Carpenter – Remove and replace existing catch basin. Remove existing CMP and
replace with new plastic storm drain pipe. Relocate affected water laterals. Rehabilitate
bottom of existing 54” CMP across Carpenter.
This project will take approximately two months to complete. The Plans and Specifications are
available for review in the Council Reading File.
14
Packet Pg. 223
CONCURRENCES
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has determined that the project complies with the
City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
The Community Development Department has determined that this project is categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 (maintenance of existing facilities) and 15302
(replacement or reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is currently $625,600 in the Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement Master Account (90742)
to support this request of $287,062.
Corrugated metal pipe replacement is fully funded by the City’s Local Revenue Measure.
Construction (Engineer’s Estimate):$244,100
Construction Contingencies:$36,605
Potholing (design phase)$4,222
Materials Testing:$2,000
Printing & Misc.:$200
Total Estimated Project Cost:$287,127
Current CMP Master Account Balance:$625,600
Total Remaining Funding -$338,473
CMP Replacements 2015, Specification No. 91268
ALTERNATIVES
Deny authorization to advertise. The City Council may choose not to authorize project
advertisement. This is not recommended since summer is the best time to replace CMP. In
addition, school is out and neighborhood traffic volume is lower.
Attachments:
a- Council Reading File - Plans 91268 2015 CMP Project
b - Council Reading File - 91268 Special Provisions
14
Packet Pg. 224
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources
SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTION TO LEADERSHIP SAN LUIS OBISPO L 25 FUND
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize City Manager to contribute $10,000 to the Leadership San Luis Obispo (Leadership
SLO) L 25 Fund, based on determination by the City Council that there are ongoing
contributions and benefits to the City and local community derived from leadership opportunities
provided by the Leadership SLO program.
DISCUSSION
Background
Founded in 1991, Leadership SLO is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization governed by the San
Luis Obispo Community Leadership Foundation, Inc. with an independent fifteen member Board
of Directors. Because of its non-profit status, Leadership SLO does not take any political
positions and income is derived primarily from tuition, fundraising, and sponsorships. The San
Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce contributes less than ten percent of Leadership SLO’s
income.
Leadership SLO resulted from a need to have an ongoing flow of informed and motivated
community leaders, instead of calling upon the same pool of people to serve in community
leadership positions. The program is designed to provide graduates with increased knowledge of
San Luis Obispo County issues, to contribute potential solutions to these complex problems, to
enhance their own leadership style, and to effectively communicate with current community
leaders. Some of the benefits of participation include increased community networking;
improved ability to interact with diverse people representing diverse opinions; increased self-
confidence; and increased understanding of civic responsibility.
Each year, a diverse mix of approximately 35 people participate in the 10-month Leadership
SLO program, which meets for a two and a half day opening retreat in January, then meets once
monthly from February through October. Each session is highly participatory. Participants are
taught to recognize their leadership style and practice basic leadership skills including public
speaking, consensus building and critical thinking. Each class is encouraged to discuss typically
divisive issues in a non-hostile, supportive environment and each class is asked to do a Legacy
project with community benefit.
What is the L 25 Fund?
With over 800 graduates, Leadership SLO is now in its 25th year and has launched a campaign to
15
Packet Pg. 225
raise $250,000 to ensure the program is sustainable for the next 25 years. Leadership SLO costs
are defrayed through tuition charged to each participant, contributions from day sponsors, as well
as other fund raising efforts throughout the year. In 2016, tuition charged was $1,750 per
participant while published per participant costs are $3,000. The difference in cost is absorbed
by sponsorships and donations. In addition, Leadership SLO approves full scholarships for some
participants. The L 25 Fund goal will not eliminate the needs for sponsorships and donations,
but will help offset costs. The request to contribute to the L 25 Fund is provided in Attachment
A, Request to Contribute to the L 25 Fund.
Why Contribute to the L 25 Fund?
Each year the City encourages employees to participate in Leadership SLO. City employees
have participated in at least 22 of the 25 years of the program with anywhere from one to five
employees selected each year. Tuition is paid by the City’s training and development budgets.
Over the years, the City and local community have reaped benefits from the program as
participants develop a thorough understanding of the diverse nature of our broader community,
enhance public speaking and leadership skills, and grow their professional networks. For several
years it was the only leadership program available to City employees. More recently with
Council support of the Leadership and Learning Academy and partnership with the Centre for
Organization Effectiveness, participation in Leadership SLO is a complimentary program. The
knowledge of and exposure to various aspects of the community that participants may otherwise
not fully develop is invaluable. Further, it is a venue to put to use the skills developed in the
Leadership and Learning Academy and to discuss leadership philosophy and techniques.
In addition to sponsoring participation for employees as part of the City’s investment in
professional development, the City benefits from the program by recruiting leadership graduates;
both as employees and as advisory body members as well as ad hoc committee members.
Further, many City Council members over the years are Leadership SLO graduates. Community
involvement and civic engagement is a key outcome of the program that enhances the dialogue
around critical City issues. A recent community impact survey found that more than 75 percent
of Leadership SLO alumni volunteer their time at local nonprofits, and more than 37 percent
increased their charitable contributions since completing the program, all directly contributing to
the quality of life in the community. Most Leadership SLO classes contribute legacy projects to
the community. Again, the impact of these projects is difficult to quantify but is undeniably
large. Attachment B, Legacy Project Guidelines and Previous Legacy Projects, provides an
overview of the results of these efforts. Not only is there a focus on the sustainability of the
Leadership SLO program in these projects but also in giving back to the community. From tree
planting, to preschool programs, or trail maintenance, legacy projects supplement community
work that may otherwise be provided by City staff and resources.
The City’s Charter, Section 805, authorizes the Council to budget City contributions “…for
grants, subsidies, contributions, subventions and the like to economic, promotional,
environmental, cultural, or other agencies whose operations are unrelated to those of the City but
who contribute largely to the quality of life of the City,” following an opportunity for public
consideration of such requests. The Charter does not require a formal, “noticed public hearing,”
as is required by other provisions of the Municipal Code, largely relating to land use decisions
15
Packet Pg. 226
(i.e., SLOMC Sections 16.10 (tentative maps); 5.45 (Mobile Home Park Conversions)). Thus,
although expenditures of this amount would normally be within the discretion of the City
Manager, staff has placed this matter on the Council’s public meeting agenda and is
recommending Council approval based on the Council’s concurrence that the expenditure
advances the community benefits outlined above.
What Have Other Organizations Contributed to the L 25 Fund?
As of writing this staff report the Leadership SLO website indicates approximately $170,000 has
been raised towards the $250,000 goal. PG&E, Glenn Burdette, and the Harold J. Miossi
Charitable Trust are recognized as contributing $25,000 each. Cal Poly, Wacker Wealth
Management, and Cannon are recognized at the $10,000 contribution level.
The staff recommendation of $10,000 is based in part on considering listed donations of other
organizations. While no other cities in the county or the County of San Luis Obispo are listed as
major contributors at this point, staff considered the number of City employees who have
participated and the numerous benefits of the program to the City in recommending a
contribution level. Further, the City has ten departments so the contribution could be thought of
as a $1,000 contribution per department.
Contributions to Other Non-Profits in San Luis Obispo
The City of San Luis Obispo supports a variety of non-profit organizations through grant
programs. These grant programs are administered by the Human Relations Commission (HRC)
and Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) with support and recommendations by Staff
liaisons. These are annual grants in aid programs (funded through Community Development
Block Grants and General Fund) by which the advisory bodies make recommendations to the
City Council to fund specific projects or programs administered by local non-profits or other
eligible applicants. The Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) contributes to non-
profits and other organizations that promote particular events with a tourism nexus. TBID funds
are used to fund these types of events.
The City also funds non-profits directly and indirectly with housing funds. These funds are from
in-lieu housing fees and contributions to non-profits are to facilitate specific affordable housing
projects or indirectly assist with program overhead. In the case of indirect assistance, the City
provides funds to support administrative costs of the Housing Trust Fund so they have continued
capacity to advance a variety of housing programs and projects that benefit the City.
Other than the grant programs described, the City provided a challenge grant to the Homeless
Foundation of San Luis Obispo County to fund the one-time construction costs of the proposed
Homeless Services Center. The City also provided funding towards the Pismo Preserve. The
funding for these two efforts were not associated with a City grant making process.
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds exist in the Ventures & Contingencies account #26100.7303 which is available
for unanticipated requests such as this. There is currently a balance of $117,346.00 in the 2015-
2016 Ventures and Contingencies budget.
15
Packet Pg. 227
ALTERNATIVES
Leadership SLO requested the City make a $25,000 contribution to the L 25 Fund. There is no legal
requirement to make a contribution and therefore, Council could direct staff to make no contribution
or to contribute any amount within budget policies.
Attachments:
a - Request to Contribute to the L 25 Fund
b - LSLO Legacy Project Guidelines and Project History
15
Packet Pg. 228
L25 Cabinet
Chair
Jon Jaeger
L25 Fund Chair
Barry VanderKelen
L25 Parties & Alumni Reunion
Dwyne Willis
Patty Carpenter
Erica A. Stewart
Marketing Chair
Peggy Carlaw
Ambassadors Chairs
Jeff Lee
Sue Roberts
Staff
Sandi Sigurdson
Executive Director
Jazmin Cortez
Accounting Manager
Leadership SLO
895 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.786.2765
sandi@slochamber.org
Monica Irons, Human Resources Director March 8, 2016
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Monica,
Thank you for the opportunity to introduce you to Leadership SLO’s 25th Anniversary plans and
the role you and the City of SLO can play in ensuring another impactful 25 years.
The City of San Luis Obispo has a long and rich relationship with Leadership SLO boasting
many members of your team as graduates of the program including this professionally diverse
group of Pam Oulette, Hal Hannula, Christine Dietrick, Freddy Otte, Molly Cano and Fire Chief
Garret Olson. A very extensive list of additional graduates is attached.
Data from a recent alumni survey (with a 50% response rate!) illuminates the powerful results of
a year spent in Leadership SLO. Take a look at the attached infographic. To reference just one
data point here: 75% of alums volunteer for nonprofit organizations on a regular basis.
We cleave mightily to the hallmarks of Leadership SLO: diversity, respect, and civil civic engage-
ment. All critical values, but diversity of voices in each class is the key to Leadership SLO’s suc-
cessful community impact. And the key to ensuring diversity is affordability through scholarships
and a reasonable tuition. The Leadership SLO Board of Directors is committed to ensuring the
program’s financial security and have launched The L25 Sterling Anniversary Fund.
We are about half way to our $250,000 goal and proud to claim significant contributions from
Glenn Burdette, Cal Poly, Cannon, PG&E, Wacker Wealth Partners and many more. We are
counting on steadfast supporters like the City of San Luis Obispo to show off their leadership
and join 100% of the Leadership SLO Board in this campaign. We ask that you consider a one-
time gift of $25,000 payable over five years.
This is the future of Leadership SLO and now is the time to invest.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration. We are at your disposal for follow up dis-
cussion and questions.
Yours in leadership and service,
June McIvor Barry VanderKelen
Board Chair L25 Sterling Anniversary Fund Chair
Board of Directors
June McIvor
Board Chair
Jeremy Howard
Class 25 Chair
Dan O’Hare
SLO Chamber Chair
Ryan Caldwell
Treasurer
Ermina Karim
SLO Chamber CEO
Stacy Axan
Cheryl Cuming
Erik Justesen
Lee Johnson
Jeff Lee
Lisa Horowtiz McCann
Lisa Mumford
Bettina Swigger
Barry VanderKelen
Dwyne Willis
Packet Pg. 229 AttachmentX: a - Request to Contribute to the L 25 Fund (1378 : Authorize Contribution to Leadership San Luis Obispo L25 Fund)
Leadership San Luis Obispo
Legacy Project Guidelines
Purpose of the Legacy Project
To give class members a real world opportunity to use their new leadership skills and strengthen their
bonds with other class members.
To leave a long-lasting, positive benefit to the community.
To strengthen Leadership San Luis Obispo and its long term viability.
Essential Elements of a good Legacy Project
Direct community benefit (not a community benefit through another non-profit)
Uses the skills and talents of all of the class members; there’s a role for everyone.
Is an active project involving hands-on effort; not just fund raising.
Is fun and enjoyable for class members!
What isn’t acceptable as a Legacy Project
A project that’s political or controversial.
A project that’s a fund raiser for another non-profit.
A project that excludes any class member.
The Legacy Project approval process
The LSLO Foundation Board of Directors has delegated approval of Legacy Project proposals to Chamber
president/CEO Ermina Karim. As projects are considered, informal discussions with Ermina are
recommended. When a final proposal is ready, it should be submitted to Ermina in writing before any work
begins.
Funding the Legacy Project
Leadership SLO’s 501c3 tax status is its number one asset. The designation allows Leadership SLO to operate
and serve our community. Therefore it is guarded closely and not typically available for legacy project use.
In addition, tuition covers less than half of the costs of a Leadership SLO year. Donors (some forty-two day
sponsors, scholarship sponsors and major donors in 2014) make up the difference and their generosity keeps
the program affordable. Other reasons to avoid use of the Leadership SLO tax status is the potential for
double teaming established donors, providing donors with IRS receipts and uncertain responsibility for donor
recognition follow-through.
Finally, the part-time accounting team at the Chamber cannot take on additional responsibilities of processing
and tracking legacy donations.
If donations need to be collected in order to ensure completion of the legacy project, the benefitting entity
(City, County, nonprofit) has typically assumed the bookkeeping role.
Packet Pg. 230 AttachmentY: b - LSLO Legacy Project Guidelines and Project History (1378 : Authorize Contribution to Leadership San Luis Obispo L25 Fund)
Previous Legacy Projects
Class I- Focused on recruiting a class for the following year and keeping LSLO alive.
Class II- No project. Class III-No project.
Class IV- Class IV did thousands of hours of community service in the community. They created
a community service legacy list.
Class V- Class V built the first wall at Wonder Valley.
Class VI- Class VI created a fund that funded a Leadership SLO scholarship for the next 5 years.
Class VII- Class VII printed Leadership SLO logo t-shirts for sale as a fundraiser for the program.
Class VIII- Class VIII produced a video about Leadership SLO that could be used to help find
sponsors and recruit for the program.
Class IX- Class IX coordinated the first Leadership Alumni Mixer and the first Alumni award.
Class X- Class X took on a three-weekend clean-up/fix-up/paint-up of an old restored Victorian
home on Pismo Street, which houses youth who are runaways, or in rehab, or other
tough circumstances. They performed minor repairs, painted, put in new landscaping,
installed new appliances (stove and fridge), and other touch-ups just to make it more of
a home away from their original homes…and in this case, a better home that would put
them on a new path after they left.
Class XI- Class XI set up the Foundation for the ongoing Leadership SLO Endowment, they held
several fundraisers to create the start up fund.
Class XII- Class XII re-created the wall at Wonder Valley.
Class XIII- Class XIII focused on Literacy. They collected used books to donate to several
organizations including Prado Day Center and the EOC. They r aised money to buy
new books for the Library. They developed and printed a Children’s coloring book that
told the history of SLO County. Classmates also volunteered to go into classrooms to
read to kids and distribute the books.
Packet Pg. 231 AttachmentY: b - LSLO Legacy Project Guidelines and Project History (1378 : Authorize Contribution to Leadership San Luis Obispo L25 Fund)
Class XIV- Class XIV had three projects. First they planted trees at Damon Garcia Sports Complex.
Second, they helped to construct Santa’s House in Mission Plaza. And third, they
coordinated a leadership day for high school students at Hearst Castle.
Class XV- Class XV worked on restoring the Healing Garden at Transitions Mental Health's
Growing Grounds out off of Johnson. They restored the garden and gazebo as well as
built three mosaic benches.
Class XVI- Class XVI worked on redoing the Tiny Tigers Preschool at San Luis Obispo High
School. This included landscaping, moving trash dumpsters to behind the preschool,
created a gate for the area, moved the old shed and got a new shed for storage,
overhauled the sandbox and created a cover, put in a new sink for the kids. They
focused most of their work on the entrance of the preschool.
Class XVII- Class XVII worked on the hiking/mountain biking trail out at the Johnson Ranch,
located within the City of SLO. They worked on building the trail, coordinated
workdays, developed the interpretive signage, etc.
Class XVIII- Class XVIII worked with the three Rotary Clubs in the City of San Luis Obispo to
establish/enhance community gardens at Mitchell Park.
Class XIX- Created an outdoor classroom environment for the toddlers at the Child Development
Center, a child abuse intervention, prevention, and treatment program for families.
Class XX- Created a human sundial at the San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens. This project reflects
the class interest in sustainability, the arts, education and leaving a lasting legacy.
Class XXI- Created an interactive window box showcasing the riches of San Luis
Obispo County, to be displayed in the state capitol in Sacramento. The project is on
display at the California State Capitol Museum.
Class XXII Restored the Lemon Grove Trail on Cerro San Luis, planting 22 lemon trees and
agreeing to maintain the grove for 5 years.
Class XXIII- Created a Monarch Butterfly Garden Way Station in Santa Margarita of milkweed and
native plants to help preserve California’s threatened Monarch population.
Class XXIV- Is creating a water demonstration landscape plan and garden at City Hall in SLO.
Packet Pg. 232 AttachmentY: b - LSLO Legacy Project Guidelines and Project History (1378 : Authorize Contribution to Leadership San Luis Obispo L25 Fund)
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Principal Analyst
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND TRANSFER
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to transfer funds from Mayor Jan Marx’s professional development account to
Council Member John Ashbaugh’s professional development account for expenses related to
attendance at the 2016 International Town Gown Association Annual Conference.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City Council and Mayor are allocated funding for professional development - including
travel, conferences, meetings, dues, and start-up costs - as part of the Administration Department
budget. Chapter 2, Section 2.3, of the City Council Policies and Procedures Manual specifies the
policies associated with the Council member’s use of the professional development budget.
Chapter 2.5, General Procedures and Limitations, also states that:
"The Mayor and each Council member is expected to plan business activities so as to sta y
within his/her budget. When exceptional circumstances require that additional amounts
be allocated to accounts, formal Council action shall be required."
Additionally, Chapter 2.5.1 - Accounting, states:
"If any account is depleted prior to the end of the fiscal year, additional allocations shall
require a specific action of the City Council."
16
Packet Pg. 233
Council Member Ashbaugh requested to represent the City by attending the 2016 International
Town Gown Association (ITGA) Annual Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on June 5 - 8, 2016.
The expenses to attend this conference are approximately $1,863 which includes:
1. Registration - $500
2. Lodging (3 nights @ approximately $169/night) - $575
3. Flight (round-trip) - $503
4. Baggage Fee - $25
5. Meals (breakfast & dinners - lunches provided with conference registration) - $230
6. Transportation - $30
Council Member Ashbaugh currently has $328 available in his account after purchase of the
conference registration and the flight, but a total of approximately $860 is needed for lodging
and other expenses. Mayor Marx currently has $2,676 remaining in her account and has agreed
to transfer funds to cover these costs (approximately $532) if approved by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact from this action. Funds transferred from Mayor Marx’s account will not
exceed overall budgeted funds for City Council professional development.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny the transfer of funds from Mayor Marx’s professional development account to Council
Member Ashbaugh’s professional development account for attendance to the 2016 ITGA Annual
Conference.
16
Packet Pg. 234
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Daryl, Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public works
Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: COUNTY WIDE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the 2016 San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation
Investment Plan and recommend to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors to place a
9-Year Transportation Sales Tax Measure on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot.
Background
On May 3, 2016 the Council received a presentation from SLOCOG staff regarding the
SLOCOG Board’s approval to place a ½ cent Sales Tax on the November ballot for
transportation related purposes. The presentation focused on current transportation funding
issues and concluded state transportation funding for projects will likely be minimal in the
foreseeable future.
At that meeting, the Council conceptually approved (4-1) the draft Transportation Investment
Plan (“Plan”) proposal and requested SLOCOG to continue to refine the initiative and take final
action on the issue. Since that time, SLOCOG has continued to work with member jurisdictions
to refine issues and modify the funding proposals to improve equity and address items such as
maintenance of effort language and oversight provisions.
At its June 1st meeting the SLOCOG Board took final action on the Transportation Investment
Plan on a 10-2 vote. The Plan approved by the SLOCOG Board in June differs from the
conceptual plan presented in April in that funding allocation for Local Control projects has been
increased from 50% to 55%, and funding allocation for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity
projects has been decreased from 15% to 10%. The reduction of bicycle percentages was
coordinated with county bicycle advocates including the SLO County Bicycle Club and Bike
SLO County. Jurisdictions can use these Local Control funds for non-street purposes therefore if
the City decides to use these funds for bicycle projects it can do so, thus helping to meet our
modal split expenditure objectives. Additionally, 1% was shifted from general transit to Senior
Mobility efforts. These changes are highlighted in the attached SLOCOG staff memorandum
(Attachment A).
Attachment B of this report is the Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan presented for
17
Packet Pg. 235
Council's approval this evening. There is also information about the proposed Independent
Taxpayer Oversight Committee.
The proposed sales tax measure could mean more than $20M for San Luis Obispo in the Local
Choice component of the package over the nine year period. These funds can be used on a
flexible list of projects including arterial street repairs, pedestrian and bicycle projects and
transportation safety and circulation improvements. The funding can also be used as leverage for
matching state and federal grants such as the Active Transportation Program.
Additionally, for San Luis Obispo, the measure identifies another $17.5 M in for the Central
County in Regional Projects. Of that amount, $9.5 M is for east-west and north south regional
connections within the City of San Luis Obispo. The Bike and Pedestrian component generates
$5.6 M for the Central County. City residents would also benefit from the road and bike
improvements throughout the County. Finally, San Luis Obispo benefits from the Transit
component as $1.125 M per year is divided among the fixed route providers by formula. It is
estimated SLO Transit would receive approximately ½ of this funding for service improvements.
SLO residents would also benefit from the programs for senior and disable mobility,
approximately $750,000 year county-wide.
For these reasons, along with the substantial potential benefit to transportation funding for the
City, staff is recommending the Council approve placing the measure on the November general
election balance.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no impacts to the General Fund for the support for the County-wide Transportation
Investment Plan or supporting placing this matter on the ballot in November. The measure does
require a “Maintenance of Effort” provision to safeguard that jurisdictions do not simply
supplant existing transportation funding for maintenance purposes when the new funding
becomes available.
Specifically, new measure funds must be used to augment and not replace existing general funds
used for street and road purposes. A three-year average of discretionary general funds using
adopted State Controller Reports will be used for this purpose. The measure also includes
provisions that allow for special consideration for extraordinary funding levels in that three year
period or consideration of extraordinary circumstances that may not allow jurisdictions to fund
at a prior level (such as the recession). Staff has reviewed this language and concludes it is
appropriate as a safeguard to ensure fair use of the new funds and at the same time allow
flexibility to jurisdictions.
The City would receive about $20 million for local choice funding over the nine year life of the
measure, $9.5 million for east-west connections within the City of San Luis Obispo as well as a
significant amount of transit funds yet to be determined. Additionally, there are many traffic
congestion relief, bike, pedestrian and transit projects that would be eligible for annual
discretionary funding through the county competitive process if this measure passed.
17
Packet Pg. 236
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may choose not support a County wide transportation investment program and
decline to adopt Resolution. The impact of this decision is dependent upon the actions of other
jurisdictions and could lead to the inability to place the measure on the November ballot for
consideration of the general populace if multiple jurisdictions do not indicate support of the
measure to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments:
a - Self Help Information
b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan
c - Resolution
17
Packet Pg. 237
SLOCOG’s Self-Help County Efforts
June 1, 2016
(Information for Member Jurisdictions)
SUMMARY
Available transportation revenues, from local, state, and federal governments, are inadequate,
declining, and unable to fully support our existing system. In order to maintain, improve, and make
safety improvements to our existing transportation system, additional transportation funding will be
necessary. Twenty California counties (containing 84% of the State’s population) have already
addressed this funding challenge by becoming a Self-Help county with a voter-approved local option
sales tax measure for transportation purposes.
In April and May, each City Council and the Board of Supervisors reviewed Self-Help materials and
information, and each conceptually supported these efforts. On June 1, 2016, the SLOCOG Board
directed that the Investment Plan and Measure Materials be sent to member agencies for approval,
and introduced Ordinance No. 2016-01: San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation
Investment; Waived the Full Reading, and Continued the item to July 13, 2016 for Final Adoption.
DISCUSSION
The road, transportation and
circulation systems within the cities
and unincorporated areas of San
Luis Obispo County are of regional
concern, and the quality of such
systems has a direct impact on
residents, visitors, agriculture,
business, industry and general
economy within the county.
Available revenues, including
monies from Local, State, and
Federal governments, are not adequate to support needed maintenance, upgrading or safety
improvements to the existing infrastructure or the construction of the new infrastructure that our
County and Cities anticipate will be needed to meet the demands of the future.
To maintain and improve the quality of life and to preserve the unique and natural amenities
available to all residents in San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
has developed the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan to
establish a dedicated local funding source for local agencies to address special and localized
transportation needs, including:
Road and pothole repair, traffic relief, and transportation safety improvements.
Mobility investments for senior, veterans, and persons with disabilities.
Safe Routes to School projects in every city and community.
Public Transportation improvements, increasing frequency and service options.
Matching funds to leverage and secure State and federal funding for transportation.
Highway congestion relief:
o U.S. 101 in Pismo Beach/Shell Beach straits
o Highway 227 south of San Luis Obispo
o Congested major freeway interchanges in the North County
Bicycle and Pedestrian safety and connectivity improvements.
Packet Pg. 238 AttachmentZ: a - Self Help Information (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
Packet Pg. 239 AttachmentZ: a - Self Help Information (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
Summaries of the Attachments and Major Changes
Minor changes to the format (font size, type, margins, layout, etc.) of these attachments should be
expected to fit the County Clerk printing requirements.
Transportation Investment Plan (Attachment A)
The most significant change to previously reviewed materials is a one-third (1/3) reduction to the Bike
& Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity program from 15% to 10%, and an increase from 50% to 55% to
the Local Control program. The result of this shift is an additional $11m of Measure funds going to
“Local Control” – this is an increase of 10% to each jurisdiction over the previous Local Control
allocations.
The Transportation Investment Plan corresponds with, and expands upon, the key elements identified
in the updated 1-page summary on the prior page, and includes:
1. Local Control (50% 55%, $112.5M $123.75M)
a. Formula allocation to each jurisdiction with key projects identified by each community.
i. Additional, future, projects to be identified by each jurisdiction.
b. 4% for Safe Routes to School.
c. Removed 10% requirement for Community Enhancements
d. Increased $11M from 50% to 55%.
2. Regional Projects (25%, $56.2M)
a. Amount by sub-regions with key projects and key benefits identified.
i. South County $20M
ii. Central County $17.5M
iii. North County $17.5M
iv. North Coast $1M
3. Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity Program (15% 10%, $33.8M $22.5M)
a. Allocated to each sub-region with key projects and key benefits identified.
i. South County $5.625M
ii. Central $5.625M
iii. North County $5.625M
iv. North Coast $5.625M
b. Decreased from 15% to 10%, with an equal split to the four sub-regions.
4. Public Transportation (10%, $22.5M)
a. 6% for Transit (reduced in May from 7%).
b. 3% for Mobility for Seniors, Veterans, and Persons with Disabilities (increased in May
to 2%).
c. 1% for Transportation Demand Management.
Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (Attachment B) identifies the roles, responsibilities,
and membership details. This Committee will be created to provide an enhanced level of
accountability for expenditures made under the Transportation Investment Plan to the financial integrity
and performance of the Measure.
Plan Administration and Implementing Guidelines (Attachment C) includes the governing board
structure and the strategic plan development requirements and principles.
Ordinance (Attachment D) was primarily developed based upon Public Utilities Code section 180000,
et. seq. in consultation with SLOCOG legal counsel and the State Board of Equalization to meet the
legal requirements of the authorizing legislation.
Packet Pg. 240 AttachmentZ: a - Self Help Information (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
Upcoming Schedule
In order to place the Measure before the voters in November, first, the Transportation Investment Plan
must be approved by the Cities (at a minimum, a majority of cities with a majority of the incorporated
population); second, the Transportation Investment Plan must be approved the Board of Supervisors;
third, the SLOCOG Board must adopt the Transportation Investment Plan and approve the Ordinance;
fourth, the Board of Supervisors must place it on the November ballot. Final approval of the measure
requires two-thirds of the voting public.
Meeting Schedule for Cities:
Jun. 7: Pismo Beach City Council
Jun. 14: Morro Bay City Council
Jun. 20: Grover Beach City Council
Jun. 21: San Luis Obispo City Council
Jun. 21: Paso Robles City Council
Jun. 28: Arroyo Grande City Council
Jun. 28: Atascadero City Council
Jul. 12: Board of Supervisor.
Jul. 13: SLOCOG: Adopts Plan and calls for election (only if approved the by BoS).
Jul. 19: Board of Supervisors: Place materials on Nov. 2016 Ballot
Nov. 8: Election Day
Safeguards
The following safeguards are included to ensure strict adherence to the limitations on the use of the
Revenues provided by this Ordinance to ensure that funding from the one-half of one percent retail
transactions and use tax is used in accordance with the specified voter-approved transportation
project improvements and programs.
San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation Investment Plan: This Plan identifies the
specific projects and programs supported by the voters to be funded by revenue raised by
this transactions and use tax.
Sunset Date: 9 years.
Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee. This Committee will be established to provide
citizen review and to ensure that all Measure funds are spent in accordance with provisions
of the Transportation Investment Plan and the Ordinance.
Maximum of 1% for Administrative Costs Restriction. Expenditures on staff salaries, wages,
benefits and overhead necessary to administer the program will be limited to no more than
one percent of the annual gross revenues provided by the measure.
Leverage State/Federal Funds. SLOCOG will continue to seek maximum funding for our
local transportation improvements through State and federal programs with the additional
leverage provided from these funds.
Spending Assurances. This one-half of one percent transactions and use tax is statutorily
dedicated for transportation planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance only
in San Luis Obispo County and its Cities and cannot be used for other governmental
purposes or programs.
Local Control. 55% of the Revenues are distributed by formula directly to local agencies for
transportation priorities. (Projects selected by each city and the county.)
Protected from State Raids. These funds cannot be taken by the State.
Packet Pg. 241 AttachmentZ: a - Self Help Information (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
Maintenance of Effort. Requires Measure funds be used to augment not replace existing
general funds used for street and road purposes. [3-year average of discretionary general
funds using State Controller Reports less extraordinary funds and consideration of
extraordinary circumstances].
Annual Audits and Annual Reporting. Annually, SLOCOG shall publish a report, based on
an independent audit, on how all revenues have been spent and on progress in
implementing projects in the Transportation Investment Plan, and shall publicly report on the
findings.
BACKGROUND:
About SLOCOG: SLOCOG is an association of local governments, which is made up of the seven
cities and the county. It has a 12-member Board, including, one member from each City Council and
all of the County Board of Supervisors. SLOCOG’s prime responsibilities include transportation
planning and funding for the region, while serving as a forum for the study and resolution of regional
issues. SLOCOG is responsible for coordinating, planning, and programming transportation
programs and projects countywide, including: Highways, interchanges, streets, public transit, biking,
walking, safe routes to school, and ridesharing. SLOCOG develops the 20+ year Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) to identify fundable, needed transportation projects of every mode.
Transportation Funding Problem: State and Federal revenues provided to our local transportation
systems have been in decline for over a decade. More critically, since the release of the 2014
Regional Transportation Plan, the State funding estimates have dropped significantly. This drop is
attributable to the fact that transportation revenues are based on Gas Taxes and due to both low fuel
prices (which decreases the amount of Gas Tax) and more electric and hybrid vehicles (which
decreases overall consumption). In the FY15/16 programming cycle there was ZERO State gas tax
dollars for SLOCOG to program. These funds typically cover a significant share of the cost of
highway improvements like local interchanges (LOVR, Brisco). Recently, SLOCOG shifted funds that
are typically used for local downtown enhancements, bike and pedestrian projects, etc. to keep
some of the big highway projects moving forward. This includes project development for congestion
relief on 101 South in the Shell Beach/Pismo Beach area.
Over the next 20 years, San Luis Obispo County’s population is expected to grow by another 44,000
people. This will result in more demand on our streets, highways, and transit. Also worth
consideration, our local economy is bolstered with tourists and visitors (using our transportation
systems) from around our State which will grow by another seven million people. With the current
inadequate funding, our transportation systems will fall further behind.
SLOCOG Public Engagement: SLOCOG staff and consultants engaged the public to garner
information, feedback, and level of support at over 75 meetings with stakeholders, organizations,
and clubs (see Attachment A). Over 700 meeting participants provided immediate feedback on
problems and priorities through interactive clicker technology. An additional 143 people responded
using a survey on SLOCOG’s website. Consultant efforts also included four Focus Group meetings
and a 600 likely-voter (landline, cellular, e-mail), statistically valid poll. This information was used in
preparation of the Transportation Investment Plan.
Packet Pg. 242 AttachmentZ: a - Self Help Information (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
1
www.selfhelpslo.org
FPO
[insert measure name/ letter]
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 243 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
2
State and federal transportation funding has dropped severely in recent years, with once dependable funds
becoming increasingly unreliable. Transportation’s primary fund source, the gas tax, hasn’t been raised in
20 years and our cars are more fuel efficient than ever. Therefore, revenues available to operate, maintain
and improve our local transportation system have not kept up with the needs of our community. Over the
next decade, SLO County’s population will continue to grow and our senior population will almost triple.
This means without new funding San Luis Obispo County will have increased congestion, increasingly
deteriorating roadways and fewer and more costly transportation services.
A new, reliable source of transportation funding is needed
to maintain our communities and quality of life.
San Luis Obispo County voters are being asked to approve a 9-year, ½ cent sales tax to address these needs.
Twenty other counties in California have already approved similar ballot measures making them ‘Self-Help’
Counties. With these voter-approved local transportation funds, Self-Help Counties are able to maintain
and improve their transportation systems. They are also more successful in competing for funding and
leveraging a larger share of state and federal dollars. Self-Help funds generated must stay local and can only
be spent on transportation.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 244 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
3
The San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan was developed through a
comprehensive public outreach program that asked residents to identify their priorities for future
transportation programs and projects. Outreach included over 75 meetings with community organizations
and leaders representing diverse viewpoints. Additionally, a series of focus groups representing the
southern, northern and central portions of the county, plus the north coast were conducted along with a
statistically valid phone poll. The Plan has been approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments,
all seven cities in the region and the County Board of Supervisors.
Self-Help in SLO County:
•Generates $25 million new dollars per year to fix our roads and improve transportation, half of
which would be paid for by visitors to our county
• Can only be used for local projects and transportation priorities
• Prohibits Sacramento from taking possession of these locally generated funds
• Allows SLO County to compete for State and Federal grants and leverage funds, thereby increasing
revenues
• Delivers a Transportation Investment Plan with a list of projects and programs
• Includes an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee to ensure projects and programs in the
Plan are actually funded and/or completed
INTRODUCTION
Local Control
55%Bike & Pedestrian
Safety and
Connectivity
10%
Public
Transportation
10%
Regional Projects
25%
1% max in administrative costs off the top
9-Year Proposed Investments
Arroyo Grande $ 8.5 M
Atascadero $ 13.4 M
Grover Beach $ 6.8 M
Morro Bay $ 5.6 M
Paso Robles $ 13.9 M
Pismo Beach $ 4.5 M
San Luis Obispo $ 20.2 M
Unincorporated $ 50.9 M
South County $ 20.0 M
Central County $ 17.5 M
North County $ 17.5 M
North Coast $ 1.0 M
South County $ 5.6 M
Central County $ 5.6 M
North County $ 5.6 M
North Coast $ 5.6 M
Transit $ 13.5 M
Seniors, Veterans,
Persons w/ Disabilities $ 6.75 M
Transportation Demand
Management $ 2.25 M
“84% of Californians live in a Self-Help County”- Self-Help Counties
Coalition
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 245 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
4
Revenue Estimates and Distribution: Over the course of the 9-year plan, $225 million dollars
will be generated for local transportation investments. Most projects will be funded by a mix of funding
sources, using the locally generated sales tax revenues to leverage state and federal funding sources.
Allocation of Self-Help revenues is established within this Plan. The estimated revenue and allocation
among categories is based upon 2016 value of money and is not binding or controlling. Transportation sales
tax funds shall be allocated by percentage of the actual revenue received.
This funding will serve as an investment that will leverage future local, state and federal funding. Funds
would be used for all phases of project implementation, including: planning, environmental, permits, and
design, right-of-way, and/or construction capital and operations projects. State and federal fund sources
that may also be used to implement transportation projects and programs in the next decade include
the State Regional Transportation Improvement Program (regional-estimate $25M), Inter-regional
Transportation Improvement Program, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act Freight and
Highway Projects Program, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (regional-estimate $15M), Regional Surface
Transportation Program Funds (regional-estimate $10M), and Local Funding (e.g. developer fees, general
funds, and Measure “Local Control” funds).
9-YEAR PLAN TOTALING $225 MILLION Percent of
Funds
Fund
Allocation
($ millions)
Local Control Funds controlled by local jurisdictions with at least 4% for
Safe Routes to School 55%$123.8
Arroyo Grande 6.9%$8.5
Atascadero 10.8% $13.4
Grover Beach 5.5% $6.8
Morro Bay 4.5% $5.6
Paso Robles 11.2% $13.9
Pismo Beach 3.7% $4.5
San Luis Obispo 16.3% $20.2
SLO County 41.1% $50.9
Regional Projects
• Shell Beach/Pismo Beach congestion relief on
US 101 South
• Safety and congestion relief in south SLO City area
(Prado & Hwy 227)
• North County 101 and 46E congestion relief
• North Coast Highway 1 improvements
25%$56.2
Bike & Pedestrian
Safety and Connectivity
Regional connectors including:
• City-to-the-Sea/Bob Jones
• Atascadero/Templeton Connector
• Morro Bay/Cayucos Connector
• Plus local bike/ped improvement program
10%$22.5
Public Transportation
Transit (6%); Improved mobility for Senior, Veterans,
Persons w/Disabilities (3%); Transportation Demand
Management (1%)
10%$22.5
TOTAL 100% $225
Note: Dollar amounts shown in millions reflect
amount from a ½ cent sales tax generating $25M/
year for 9 years; while percent per category would
not change, actual amount generated by a local
sales tax per year would fluctuate based on local
retail sales.
Local Control distributed by formula of
$150k base per jurisdiction, plus share
of regional population
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 246 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
5
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
£¤101
£¤101
= Incorporated Area (7 Jurisdictions)
= Unincorporated Area (SLO County,
including 10 communities)
KEY
PACIFIC OCEAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
LOCAL CONTROL ALLOCATION BY JURISDICTION
Grover Beach
Pop. 13,144
Allocation $6.8M
Arroyo Grande
Pop. 17,428
Allocation $8.5M
Morro Bay
Pop. 10,284
Allocation $5.6M
San Luis Obispo
Pop. 45,802
Allocation $20.2M
Oceano
Community Projects +
$2.5M Maintenance
Los Osos
Community Projects +
$2.5M Maintenance
Nipomo
Community Projects +
$3.0M Maintenance
Santa Margarita
Community Projects +
$500K Maintenance
Avila Beach
Community Projects +
$500K Maintenance
Atascadero
Pop. 29,169
Allocation $13.4M
Pismo Beach
Pop. 7,711
Allocation $4.5M
Cayucos
Community Projects +
$500K Maintenance
Cambria
Community Projects +
$1.0M Maintenance
Templeton
Community Projects +
$1.0M Maintenance
Paso Robles
Pop. 30,522
Allocation $13.9M
Shandon
Community Projects +
$500K Maintenance
San Miguel
Community Projects +
$500K Maintenance
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 247 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
6
Local Control, 55%, $123,750,000
Formula based upon $150k base per jurisdiction with balance
allocated by population, and modified in 2022 with new
population percentages
Recognizing that local streets are the backbone of our
transportation system, this Plan provides funds to local cities
and San Luis Obispo County, distributed primarily based on
2015 population to support local roads. These funds may
be used for used for any transportation purpose at the
discretion of each jurisdiction such as, road and pothole
repair, sidewalks, bridge and seismic safety investments,
local match funding for highway improvements and public
transit.
Based on local jurisdiction priorities, 4% of the total Revenues
collected will be used for Safe Routes to Schools and Colleges. Safe Routes to School funds promote the
safety and health of children by funding projects and encouragement programs that improve bicycle
and pedestrian access and safety near or to schools and colleges.
Local jurisdictions are also encouraged to use these funds for community enhancements such as
improvements to downtown areas, additional pedestrian and bike paths, wayfinding, lighting, street or
median trees and other local enhancements.
Every city and community has identified specific projects they want funded in this Plan.
Allowable uses for the Local Control funding category include:
THE PLAN: LOCAL CONTROL
• Roadway drainage facilities,
• Traffic signal coordination, intersection and
channelization,
• Traffic management,
• Landscaping Maintenance,
• Reduced transit fares for seniors, veterans,
students, and persons with disabilities,
• Education and incentives designed to reduce
single occupant auto trips,
• And other transportation purposes as allowable
under the Surface Transportation Program.
• Maintaining, improving or constructing
streets, roads, bridges, and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities,
• Community Enhancements, such as downtown
streetscapes, transportation enhancements,
wayfinding, and accessibility improvements,
street lighting, street furniture and trees,
• Safety Improvements,
• Bus and rail transit services and support facilities,
• Programs that reduce transportation demand,
• Storm damage repair to transportation facilities,
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 248 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
7
Projects selected through public engagement by each jurisdiction include:
LOCAL CONTROL CITY ALLOCATIONS, TOTAL $72.6M
ARROYO GRANDE, TOTAL $8.5M
Street maintenance and repair; Congestion relief and operational improvements: E. Branch/E.
Grand area, Halcyon Corridor improvements; Operational and bike/pedestrian safety
improvements at E. Branch/Crown Hill/Huasna
ATASCADERO, TOTAL $13.4M
Street maintenance, repair and rehabilitation; Congestion management at key intersections;
Bike/Pedestrian safety improvements and connectivity
GROVER BEACH, TOTAL $6.8M
Repair and maintenance of local major streets; Grand Avenue Enhancements; Sidewalk infill and
accessibility improvements; Gateway entry and Wayfinding Signs; Grover Beach bike paths per
Bike Master Plan
MORRO BAY, TOTAL $5.6M
Local street reconstruction, rehabilitation and repair
PASO ROBLES, TOTAL $13.9M
High-priority street repair, maintenance and reconstruction; Union Road and Golden Hill
intersection improvements; other high-priority traffic and intersection improvements;
congestion management
PISMO BEACH, TOTAL $4.5M
Street maintenance and repair; Local interchange/intersections improvements; Boardwalk
extension; Downtown, Shell Beach, and other streetscape and pedestrian improvements
SAN LUIS OBISPO, TOTAL $20.2M
Roadway Repair & Maintenance: Madonna, Foothill, Los Osos Valley Road, Grand Ave; Broad
Street Corridor Improvements; Bike and Pedestrian Improvements; Safe Routes to School
projects
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 249 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
8
LOCAL CONTROL SLO COUNTY ALLOCATION, TOTAL $50.9M
Community Projects Additional Maintenance Funding
Avila Beach •Pedestrian and Parking Improvements
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$500,000
Cambria •Burton Drive Pedestrian Path
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$1,000,000
Cayucos •Ocean Avenue Downtown Pedestrian
Improvements
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$500,000
Los Osos •Los Osos Valley Road Multi-Use Path
•El Moro Avenue Path
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$2,500,000
Nipomo
•Orchard-Tefft-Hazel Ped Improvements
•Tefft Street Operational Interchange
Improvements
•Olde Towne Nipomo Streetscape
•Los Berros and Dale Ave left turn lane
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$3,000,000
Oceano •Front Street Enhancements
•17th Street Pedestrian Improvements
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$2,500,000
San Miguel •Mission Street Sidewalk Improvements
•Tenth Street Sidewalk Improvements
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$500,000
Santa Margarita •Safe Routes to School Pedestrian Path
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$500,000
Shandon •San Juan Creek Pedestrian Bridge and
Pedestrian Path
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$500,000
Templeton
•Theater Drive Bike Lanes
•Florence St. sidewalks
•Bethel/Vineyard signalization
•Las Tablas Operational Interchange
Improvements
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$1,000,000
All
•Regional roadways improvements,
such as intersection improvements on
Highway 227 and Los Ranchos
Plus additional
maintenance funding of
$20,500,000
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 250 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
9
PACIFIC OCEAN
REGIONAL FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
North Coast
$1.0M Regional Projects
$5.6M Bike & Pedestrian
Safety and Connectivity
Central County
$17.5M Regional Projects
$5.6M Bike & Pedestrian
Safety and Connectivity
South County
$20.0M Regional Projects
$5.6M Bike & Pedestrian
Safety and Connectivity
North County
$17.5M Regional Projects
$5.6M Bike & Pedestrian
Safety and Connectivity
Regionwide Public Transportation
$13.5M Transit
$6.75M Seniors, Veterans and
Persons w/ Disabilities
$2.25M Transportation Demand
Management
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 251 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
10
Regional Highway and Major Roadway Projects, 25%, $56,250,000
These funds would be used for planning, project development,
right-of-way, and/or construction of major corridor, capital
projects. Proposed regional projects are at different stages
of implementation. Improvements in the South and Central
County are at a higher level of planning and design than
project improvements planned for the North County.
Sub-regional allocation targets are based on general
population, need for improvement(s), and project(s)
readiness over the nine-year time horizon. This funding will
serve as an investment that will leverage future local, state
and federal funding. Allocation targets are also based on
factors such as location of employment centers and housing,
and the net impact to related transportation facilities.
South County - Highway 101 congestion relief and
interchange improvements - $20M:
Highway 101 in the Shell Beach/Pismo Beach area and interchanges in the South County area are
experiencing increasing congestion during peak traffic hours and heavy summer/seasonal and
weekend events. The traffic flow is easily disrupted by access movements at ramps or lane drops near
ramp connections, including the truck lane merging. Potential improvements include: adding lanes,
extending and consolidating on/off ramps, and improving interchanges.
THE PLAN: REGIONWIDE
PROJECT BENEFITS:
• Improves safety and relieves peak hour and
summer traffic congestion on US 101
• Reduces congestion and the disruption of
mainline traffic flow and increases safety at
local interchanges
• Improves access for local residents and visitors
• Supports regional travel, goods movement and
our economy
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 252 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
11
Central County- Congestion relief and safety improvements - $17.5M:
Funding is recommended in the Measure to address emerging traffic congestion in two areas: Southern
San Luis Obispo arterials, intersections and freeways ($9.5M); and Highway 227 south of the airport to
Los Ranchos Road ($8M).
Southern San Luis Obispo City is experiencing increasing traffic on its east-west connector routes
impacting all intersections and the adjacent Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road interchanges.
Due to a lack of east-west and north-south road connections, the existing roadways in the south SLO
City area must bear the burden of local and regional traffic, and increasing congestion. Funding will be
matched with local developer fees to improve traffic operations in congested areas.
Highway 227, which serves as an alternative to
Highway 101 during congested periods, is experiencing
increased traffic volumes. Traffic counts showed a 30%
increase in traffic from 2005 to 2013, and, over the next
20 years, further increases of 25%-35% in peak hour
and daily traffic are projected. Residents of this area
have access issues and serious safety concerns during
peak-hour congestion. Funding will implement a plan
to improve the traffic flow between the Airport and Los
Ranchos Road.
PROJECT BENEFITS:
• Improves East-West and North-South
connections within the City of San Luis Obispo
• Provides traffic operations improvements at
intersections that relieve congestion
PROJECT BENEFITS:
• Provides traffic congestion relief, and
eliminates stop and go traffic
• Improves safety at intersections
• Improves access to SLO Regional Airport
• Includes safe bicycle and pedestrian
improvements
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 253 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
12
North County - Highways 101 and 46E congestion relief - $17.5M:*
Highways 101 and 46 in the North County are experiencing minor problems today, but worsening in
the near future. For some interchanges, a safety improvement with a longer ramp or a wider ramp with
additional turn lanes would improve operations (Las Tablas, 46E), others have recurring congestion
at the interchanges (Traffic Way, Curbaril, Main Street, Santa Rosa, 46W). At-grade crossings where
vehicles must cross multiple high speed lanes to turn left onto or from Highway 101 pose another
safety issue on the corridor (Wellsona). A similar issue
exists on 46E at several intersections.
Funds would be used for planning, project development,
and construction of capital projects on the corridor, on
parallel routes, and for key interchanges in Atascadero,
Templeton, and Paso Robles. Improvements will be
selected based on their contribution to improving
system reliability, safety, reducing congestion, cost, and
local funding contributions.
North Coast Highway 1 improvements - $1M:
These funds would be to augment existing funding to
construct an improvement to reduce the congestion,
pedestrian conflicts, and improve safety at the 41/1/Main Street intersection in Morro Bay.
PROJECT BENEFITS:
• Improves congestion and highway access
at interchanges
• Improves safety and access for local residents
and our growing tourist economy
• Creates safe, improved bicycle and pedestrian
features at congested interchanges
PROJECT BENEFITS:
• Improves major congested
interchange
• Provides safe connection from
neighborhood to Morro Bay High
School across Highway 1
* Subregional dollar amounts may not total full amount
due to rounding. Actual dollars will be distributed based on
percent share.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 254 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
13
Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity
Program, 10%, $22,500,000
The following proposed bike and pedestrian improvements
are at different stages of implementation. Funds would be
used for planning, project development, right-of-way, and/
or construction of capital projects. Leverage of other local,
state, and federal funding may require improvements to be
phased, yet provide independent utility.
Funding in this program is equitably divided by the four
sub-regions of the county. Improvements will be selected
based on project readiness, cost, benefits and ability to
leverage state, regional and federal funds.
South County - $5.6M
• Highway 1 bike and pedestrian improvements
(Pismo Beach to Oceano)
• Coastal Trail Boardwalk, extend Grover Beach
Boardwalk to Grand Ave
• Other regional bikeway improvements
Central County - $5.6M
• City to the Sea / Bob Jones Multi-use Path
(SLO to Avila Beach)
• Other regional bikeway improvements
North County - $5.6M
Intercommunity Bikeway Improvements: including
• The Atascadero/Templeton Connector;
• Templeton to Paso Robles roadway improvements
(Main Street and Theater Drive)
• Highway 41 bike and pedestrian improvements
between 101 and San Gabriel Road.
• Other regional bikeway improvements
North Coast - $5.6M
• Coastal Trail: Morro Bay to Cayucos pathway
• Other regional bikeway improvements
Other Regional Bikeway and Shoulder Improvement Programs
Within each sub region, additional projects may receive funding through a competitive grant process to
expand and improve the regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities network. Local cities and the County
would be eligible to compete for funding or cosponsor with other agencies or districts. Funds would be
used for planning, project development, and construction of capital projects, and education programs.
Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: new and extended bike routes and pedestrian paths
connecting communities, eliminating gaps and missing links in the regional network, and improving
high use rural roads with wider shoulders.
PROJECT BENEFITS:
• Provides safe connections
between residential areas,
schools, work place, regional
parks and city services
• Enhances property values
along the corridors
• Provides community health
benefits from active
transportation alternatives
• Creates economic benefits from
associated retail, hospitality,
and competitive events.
* Subregional dollar amounts may not total full
amount due to rounding. Actual dollars will be dis-
tributed based on percent share.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 255 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
14
Public Transportation, 10%, $22,500,000:
This Plan provides approximately $22.5 million for our local
and regional public transportation system preservation
and improvements. This includes funding for transit,
point-to-point improvements for seniors, veterans and
people with disabilities; and, support of Transportation
Demand Management programs and projects that are
meant to be a low cost alternative to system efficiency
improvements.
Transit - 6%
The goal of this program is for system preservation and
improvement. Three quarters, 75% ($1,125,000/year) of
this apportionment would go to fixed route operators by
formula, based on 40% revenue hours, 40% riders, 20%
passenger miles; and, one-quarter, 25% ($375,000/year)
for capital grants. Recommended uses may include: New
routes, enhancing existing services, express service, night/
weekend services, buses, bus shelters and/or other capital
improvements.
Mobility for Seniors, Veterans and Persons with
Disabilities - 3%
This funding ($750,000/year) provides funds for local
solutions to the growing transportation needs of older
adults, veterans, and people with disabilities. Funds will
be provided to Dial-a-Ride operators via a formula, and
specialized transportation services mandated by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition, funds
will be provided for local programs aimed at improving
mobility for seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities
via point to point services.
Transportation Demand Management - 1%
This funding ($250,000/year) provides funds for low cost
deployment, monitoring and promotion of alternative
transportation choices (other than driving alone) programs
and projects such as first/last mile solutions (shuttles, taxi
subsidies, park and ride lots, et al) that encourage transit
use, vanpool and carpools promotion and programs,
intelligent transportation systems investments, additional
support of the employer commute program and Safe Routes
to School non-infrastructure public outreach and advocacy.
PROJECT BENEFITS:
• Triples regional investment in
senior and veteran
transportation options
• Supports independent travel by
people with disabilities
• Provides more reliable senior and
veteran transportation options
• Supports more cost effective
solutions to system wide
congestion issues
• Includes funding for system
preservation
• Increases frequency and span of
service for fixed route system
• Reduces greenhouse gas
emissions
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 256 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
15
This Transportation Investment Plan includes strong taxpayer safeguards to ensure that the projects and
programs approved by the voters are funded and delivered.
Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee: This committee will be created to provide an
enhanced level of accountability for expenditures made under this investment plan to ensure that
all voter mandates are carried out and that the financial integrity and performance of the program is
maintained.
Annual Independent Audit and Annual Reporting: Annual fiscal and compliance audits will
be conducted by a CPA, selected by the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee, to assure that the
revenues expended are necessary and reasonable. The audit’s results and annual report must be published
and made available to the general public.
Sunset Date: This measure terminates in 9 years.
1% Administrative Expense Cap: Expenditures on staff salaries, wages, benefits and overhead
necessary to administer the program will be limited to no more than one percent of the annual gross
revenues provided by the measure.
No revenue generated from this tax shall be used to replace fair share contribution
from new development: Revenues provided from this measure shall not be used to replace private
developer funding that has been or will be committed for any project to help alleviate the direct traffic
impacts of any new or redeveloped residential, commercial or industrial development in San Luis Obispo
County or its cities.
Eligibility Verification: The cities and County will select transportation projects that meet eligibility
criteria as identified in this Plan. The local jurisdictions will certify in the annual verification submitted
to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments that these transportation funds were used for eligible
expenses.
Maintaining Local Transportation Funding Efforts: The local jurisdictions will certify in the annual
verification submitted to San Luis Obispo Council of Governments that these transportation funds will be
used to augment and not supplant local resources spent. For purposes of this calculation an average of the
prior three (3) years spent for local transportation purposes as defined in the Ordinance will be used.
Strategic Plan: SLOCOG will prepare and adopt a Strategic Plan within twelve months of the sales tax
taking effect. The Strategic Plan will include project cost estimates, revenue estimates, other matching
funds, and a draft timeline for regional project delivery. Its prime purpose is to clarify program and
project costs, schedule, financial plans and project readiness to expedite project delivery and to
allow projects that are ‘ready’ to proceed forward within the parameters of this Investment Plan.
SAFEGUARDS BUILT INTO THE PLAN
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 257 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
16
SLOCOG is an association of local governments representing all seven cities and the County of San
Luis Obispo that brings creative, big-picture solutions to transportation in the San Luis Obispo region.
SLOCOG builds consensus, makes strategic plans and obtains and allocates funding and resources
for to regionally significant transportation projects and oversees regional land use modeling and the
determination of regional housing needs. By allocating federal and state funds and planning for the
future, SLOCOG connects our communities by facilitating the collaboration of all levels of government,
interested parties, and residents toward a common goal.
This plan was developed in partnership with the following member jurisictions of the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments:
ABOUT THE PLAN
www.selfhelpslo.org
Appendices:
Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee
(attachment B), Plan Administration and
Implementing Guidelines (Attachment C).
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to inquire about the Measure process, discuss the
candidate projects and programs contained within this Plan, or to inquire about the next steps in the
Measure process.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 258 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
17
Attachment B:
Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee
Voter approval of this Measure shall result in the creation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee
(Committee).
Committee Purpose and Responsibilities
To select, and have access to, a professional auditor to conduct the fiscal and compliance audits of
expenditure of all Measure funds, under the competitive procurement rules of SLOCOG and with the
active involvement of the SLOCOG Executive Director. No professional audit firm shall conduct
more than four consecutive fiscal audits during the course of the Measure.
To receive, review, inspect, and recommend action on independent annual fiscal and compliance
audits related to the Measure to ensure that all revenues and expenditures are spent by SLOCOG in
accordance with all provisions of the voter-approved Plan and Ordinance.
To annually present Committee recommendations, findings, and requests to the public and SLOCOG
in a formal annual report to inform San Luis Obispo County residents how funds are being spent.
To receive, review, and recommend action on other periodic reports, studies and plans from
responsible agencies. Such reports, studies and plans must be directly related to Measure
programs, revenues, or expenditures.
Membership and Selection Process
The Committee will consist of 13 members. The Committee is designed to include an appropriate balance of
transportation users representing the geographic, social, cultural, and economic interests in the county. The
Committee will be designed to reflect the diversity of the county and include members with demonstrated
experience in the field of transportation, finance, business, or construction.
All members should fulfill the requirements of:
Commitment and ability to participate,
Demonstrated interest in community activities and special emphasis on transportation-related
activities,
Lack of conflicts of interest.
The membership selection and composition will be:
1- One representative from a major private sector San Luis Obispo County employer, nominated by
the San Luis Obispo County Economic Vitality Commission.
1 - One representative representing bicyclists and pedestrians, nominated from 4-member committee
with 2 representatives from the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club and 2 representatives from Bike
SLO County,
1 - One representative representing transit, nominated from a 4-member committee with 1
representative from the San Luis Obispo Mass Transit Committee, 2 representatives from the
Regional Transit Advisory Committee, and 1 representative from the Social Services
Transportation Advisory Committee.
1 - One representative nominated by a labor organization.
1 - One representative nominated by the Home Builders Association.
8 - One representative from each city (7) and the county (1); selection to be determined by the local
governing board. SLOCOG encourages nominations from the local citizen oversight committees
(if one exists) or citizens at large.
An open application process will be held with reviews by the appropriate agency to address any lack of
member nominations or appointments. Final appointments will be made by the SLOCOG Board.
Committee Formation
The Committee will be formed within seven (7) months upon approval of the Measure by the voters
of San Luis Obispo County in November 2016 and continue as long as Measure funds from this
authorization are made available.
The Committee shall not be amended out of the Plan.
Eligibility
U.S. citizen 18 years of age or older, registered voter, who resides in San Luis Obispo County.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 259 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
18
Not an elected official at any level of government.
Not a public employee at any State, County, local transit operator, or local city agencies.
Must submit an annual statement of financial disclosure consistent with Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) rules and regulations and filed with SLOCOG.
Must not have a contract for services with SLOCOG during their tenure on the Committee.
Terms and Conditions
Terms of membership will be for four (4) years. No member may serve more than 8 consecutive
years.
Any member may, at any time, resign from the Committee upon written notice delivered to the Chair.
Acceptance of any public office, the filing of intent to seek public office, including filing under
California Government Code Section 85200, or change of residence to outside the region, shall
constitute a Member’s automatic resignation.
Any member who has three consecutive unexcused absences from meetings of the Committee shall
be removed as a Member. Any absence shall be considered unexcused unless, prior to or after
such absence (1) the Member submits a written request to other Members to excuse such absence,
and (2) a majority of the other Members agree to excuse such absence.
This is a volunteer position and no monetary compensation will be paid to Committee members.
In an effort to maintain Committee member consistency, during the first two (2) years of the
Committee, terms will be staggered with half of the members to serve a two-year term, the remaining
members will serve a four-year term. The length of the first terms will be determined via random
selection.
Proxy voting will not be permitted.
The Committee shall select a Chair and Vice Chair from the members to serve a one (1) year term.
The duties of the Chair will be to call meetings, set agendas, and preside over meetings.
The duties of the Vice Chair will be to perform the same duties described above in the absence of
the Chair.
Committee Meetings
The Committee will hold one formal meeting annually, with additional meetings scheduled as needed
by the Committee.
All Committee meetings must be held in compliance with the Brown Act.
All meetings will be conducted per “Robert’s Rules of Order.”
A quorum will be no less than 7 members of the Committee.
An action item of the Committee may be approved by a simple majority of those present, as long as
the quorum requirement is met.
The Committee may elect to form subcommittees to perform specific parts of its purpose. All
subcommittees shall have an odd number of members.
Staffing
SLOCOG will staff the Committee and provide technical and administrative assistance to support
and publicize the Committee’s activities.
SLOCOG services will be paid using the Transportation Measure Administration revenues.
SLOCOG, with the direct participation of the Committee, shall hold publicly noticed meetings, which may or
may not be part of a regularly scheduled Board meeting, to consider the findings and recommendations of
the audits. A report of the findings and recommendations of each audit by the Committee shall be made
readily available to the public in print and on SLOCOG’s website.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 260 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
19
Attachment C:
Plan Administration and Implementing Guidelines
Governing Board and Organizational Structure
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) was designated as the San Luis Obispo County
Local Transportation Authority on April 19, 2016 by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, in
compliance with Public Utilities Code 180000 et seq. If the Measure is approved by San Luis Obispo County
voters in November 2016, SLOCOG will be responsible for administering the Measure programs in
accordance with plans and programs outlined in the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation
Investment Plan.
The SLOCOG Board is comprised of twelve (12) members including:
Five (5) members of the Board of Supervisors
One (1) member representing each of the seven cities in San Luis Obispo County: Arroyo Grande,
Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo consisting
of members of the city council appointed by the city council.
In accordance with Public Utilities Code commencing with 180100, acting as the SLOCOG, a chair person
and vice chairperson must be annually designated, rules for its proceedings adopted, annual budget
adopted, and all meetings conducted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of
Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
For the number of processes that SLOCOG must also perform to support the Plan, it is recommended that
SLOCOG be allocated 1% of transportation sales tax revenue to address the essential activities described
below:
Prepare Annual Work Elements, Program, and Budget;
Prepare the Strategic Plan every two years;
Develop the priority list of Measure projects for regionally allocated funding;
Conduct an annual independent fiscal and compliance audit of Measure programs and funds;
Conduct an on-going public information program including annual reporting of Measure
expenditures;
Develop and maintain the required agreements;
Allocate Measure proceeds to the local jurisdictions consistent with the Plan requirements;
Implementing Guidelines
In compliance with schedules mandated in federal and state law, SLOCOG regularly updates the long-range
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that updates and renews a list of candidate projects for all
transportation modes (streets, highways, public transportation, bikeways, pedestrian, aviation, etc.). If funds
are available for any projects (Regional Projects, Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity, Public
Transportation programs) beyond those now listed in the Plan, they will be drawn from that list for SLOCOG
approval within the Strategic Plan. If funds are available for any projects (Local Control program) beyond
those now listed in the Plan, they will be submitted by the appropriate agency to SLOCOG, as described
under the Strategic Plan.
Measure funds will be based on a “pay as you go” system; SLOCOG will not issue bonds to deliver projects
and programs contained in the Plan, but may advance local or regional transportation projects to reduce
project costs by delivering them earlier, if a guaranteed and timely source of funding is identified and
provided that the advancement will not interfere with the delivery of other programs or projects defined in the
Plan. SLOCOG may also consider the use of Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes to advance projects.
Strategic Plan
All of the projects and programs included in the Plan are considered essential to meet the transportation
needs of San Luis Obispo County and its Cities. The Strategic Plan will be the master document for delivery
of the Plan projects and programs and may be amended by a majority vote of SLOCOG. However,
amendment of the Strategic Plan shall not serve to amend provisions of the San Luis Obispo County Self-
Help Local Transportation Investment Plan. The purposes of the Strategic Plan are to identify: the priority for
projects and dates for project implementation (based on scope, cost, schedule, and ability to generate
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 261 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
20
leveraged funds of each project), accomplishments and critical issues, details the revenue projections and
possible financing tools needed to deliver the Plan.
After holding a public hearing, each local jurisdiction shall annually adopt by resolution a five-year program
of projects including information about each of the projects to be funded with Local Control Program
revenues allocated according to the Plan. Local agencies shall submit their program of projects in a format
specified by SLOCOG and shall include project location, scope, schedule, cost and funding sources to
ensure that the program can be easily understood by members of the public. The program of projects shall
also include a detailed description of local jurisdiction expenditures of Local Control Program funds from the
most recently completed fiscal year, including expenditures for Safe Routes to School as defined in the Plan.
Each year, SLOCOG will adopt an annual budget that projects expected sales tax receipts; other anticipated
revenues and planned expenditures for administration, and the local jurisdictions’ programs and projects for
inclusion in the Strategic Plan.
SLOCOG will also prepare the Strategic Plan, biennially, synchronized with SLOCOG’s Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Both Local and Regional project descriptions will be detailed
and fully defined for inclusion, and will seek to provide geographic equity in overall funding allocations. It will
be vital during development of each Strategic Plan to consider including financing for all transportation
modes in order to ensure a balanced and efficient transportation system. Both the budget and the Strategic
Plan will be adopted at a public meeting of SLOCOG. Expenditures may be made on projects using Local
Control program funds only if they are included in SLOCOG’s most recently adopted Strategic Plan. The
following steps will be taken by SLOCOG to prepare and adopt the Strategic Plan:
Each agency shall conduct a local public hearing and adopt a Resolution in support of the proposed
program of projects prior to submitting the project list to SLOCOG.
Each agency shall annually develop and submit to SLOCOG a five-year program of projects to be
funded with revenues made available from the Local Control program.
SLOCOG staff working with member agencies and affected stakeholders will develop the initial
Strategic Plan by June 15, 2017. Subsequent updates will be developed in conjunction with the
biennial RTIP.
The SLOCOG Board receives the initial Strategic Plan, and its subsequent updates, and schedules
public hearings for review.
The SLOCOG Board adopts the Strategic Plan.
SLOCOG may amend the Strategic Plan to account for unexpected revenues, to take into
consideration unforeseen circumstances, or to revise with the locally approved program of projects.
Other Requirements and Principles
This plan is guided by principles that ensure that the revenue generated by the transportation sales tax is
spent in the most efficient and effective manner possible, consistent with the desires of the voters of San
Luis Obispo County and its Cities. Accountability is of utmost importance in delivering public investments
with public dollars. SLOCOG is committed to transparency and accountability as a public agency. The
principles outlined in this section provide flexibility needed to address issues that may arise during the life of
the Plan.
Transparency and Accountability
1. Funds only Projects and Programs in the Plan: Revenues shall be used only for transportation
purposes identified in the Plan. The penalty for misspending is full repayment of all misspent funds
and an additional repayment of 10% of the misspent amount.
2. All Decisions Made in Open Public Process: Activities of SLOCOG shall be conducted in an open
and public meeting process according to state law, through publicly noticed meetings. The annual
budgets, strategic plans, annual reports and audits shall all be prepared for public review.
3. Salary and Administration Cost Caps: The salaries and benefits for administrative purposes shall
not exceed 1% of the gross revenues of the sales tax. The allocated cost of staff that directly
implements specific projects or programs included in the Strategic Plan are not included in
administrative costs.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 262 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
21
4. Amendments: No provision is included to allow SLOCOG to amend the percentage distribution
between the major funding categories (Regional Projects, Local Control, Public Transportation, or
Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity). Plan amendments require review and approvals of city
councils, Board of Supervisors, and the SLOCOG Board. SLOCOG may amend the five year
Strategic Plan to maximize the transportation funding available throughout the county.
5. Augment Transportation Funds: Funds generated by the transportation sales tax shall be used to
supplement and not replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes. No funds may
be used to replace private developer funding committed to any project or improvement.
6. Annual Fiscal and Compliance Audits: The Authority’s financial reports are subject to an
independent audit by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firm, on an annual basis. In addition, the
audit shall determine if funding is compliant with the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local
Transportation Investment Plan and Ordinance, and that no more than one percent of the total
proceeds of the tax are used for administrative staff salaries and benefits in implementing the Plan.
7. Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee: Annually, the Committee will review expenditures
and draft audit report and prepare an annual report on spending and progress in implementing the
Plan that will be published and made available to the public.
Funding Restrictions
8. Complete Streets: To the maximum extent feasible and consistent with adopted plans, recipients
should fully consider the needs of non-motorized travelers, including pedestrians, bicyclists and
persons with disabilities, in all planning, project development, maintenance, construction, and
operations except where such accommodation would be infeasible, illegal, inappropriate, or where
the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. In order to maximize
Complete Street improvements, SLOCOG encourages local agencies to partner with SLOCOG for
regional discretionary funds received under State and Federal sources during the biennial
programming cycle and to pursue State and federal grants.
9. Commitments from Fund Recipients: All recipients of funds allocated in this Plan will be required
to sign a Master Funding Agreement, which details their roles and responsibilities in spending sales
tax funds. Funding agreements will include performance and accountability measures. All funds will
be allocated through open and transparent public processes. In addition, fund recipients will be
required to have an annual fiscal and compliance audit conducted by an independent CPA to ensure
that funds are managed and spent according to the requirements of this Plan. All entities receiving
tax funds must report annually on expenditures and progress in implementing projects.
10. No Expenditures Outside San Luis Obispo County: Under no circumstances may the proceeds
of this transportation sales tax be applied to any purpose other than for transportation improvements
benefitting the residents of San Luis Obispo County and its cities. Under no circumstances may
these funds be appropriated by the State of California or any other State or federal governmental
agency.
11. Compliance and Consistency with Regional, State, and Federal Requirements: All projects
funded by these revenues must be consistent with the SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan and
are subject to laws and regulations of federal, state, and local government, including but not limited
to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act, as applicable.
Project Financing Guidelines and Managing Revenue Fluctuations
12. Administrative Responsibility: SLOCOG is given the fiduciary duty of administering the
transportation sales tax proceeds in accordance with all applicable laws and with the Plan. The
Measure monies collected through SLOCOG shall be accounted for and invested separately, unless
and until the funds are turned over to a local recipient in accordance with the Plan. At such time, the
local recipient shall keep a separate accounting of the monies and any and all expenditures to
ensure that the monies, and any interest, are spent in accordance with the approved Plan.
For the benefit of the residents and businesses of San Luis Obispo County, it is preferred to annually
expend all Measure funds as outlined in the Strategic Plan, however, funds may be accumulated by
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 263 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
22
SLOCOG or recipient agencies over a period of time to pay for larger and longer-term projects
pursuant to the policies adopted by SLOCOG. All interest income generated by these proceeds will
be used for the purposes outlined in this Plan and will be subject to audits.
To maximize the effective use of funds, revenues may be transferred or exchanged between or
among jurisdictions provided that the percentage of funds allocated as provided in the Plan is
maintained over the duration of the period of time the tax is imposed.
Cooperative Agreements to exchange funds, including fund repayment provisions, must be approved
by SLOCOG and shall be consistent with all rules adopted or approved by SLOCOG relating to such
exchanges.
SLOCOG may exchange revenues for State or federal funds allocated or granted to any public
agency within the area of SLOCOG to maximize effectiveness in the use of the revenues. SLOCOG
shall maintain for public review an accounting of all balances that are subject to cooperative
agreements approved pursuant to this section.
13. Programming of Funds: Actual revenues may, at times, differ than expected in this Plan due to
changes in receipts and fluctuations in the economy; additional funds may become available due to
grants, increased opportunities for leveraging or project costs less than expected. Estimates of
actual revenue will be calculated annually by SLOCOG during its annual budget process. Any
excess revenue will be programmed in a manner that will accelerate the implementation of the
projects and programs described in this Plan, at the direction of SLOCOG.
SLOCOG will also have the ability to set aside a contingency fund of up to 5% of the annual receipts
from the tax. Revenues to fund the contingency may be accumulated through the following:
revenues exceed projections or a project’s cost (exclusive of the Local Control program) is lower
than anticipated resulting in excess funds. When a Local Control program project’s cost is lower
than anticipated resulting in project savings, these funds shall be reallocated to, and for the benefit
of, the responsible agency. In the event that actual revenues in any given year are less than the
budgeted revenues, SLOCOG may use the contingency fund to make up the difference between the
budgeted revenues and the actual revenues. The contingency fund may also be used to fund
projects where the actual cost exceeds projections.
14. Fund Allocations: Should a planned project become undeliverable, infeasible or unfundable due to
circumstances unforeseen at the time this Plan was created, or should a project not require all funds
programmed for that project or have excess funding, funding for that project will be reallocated to
another project or program of the same type within the Major Line Programs: Local Control,
Regional Projects, Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity, and Public Transportation.
15. Leveraging Funds: Every effort shall be made to maximize matching regional, state and federal
transportation dollars. SLOCOG will give preference to use the savings resulting from said grants
toward other projects or programs which primarily benefit the agency responsible for obtaining said
grants. Any additional, unexpected, revenues received solely as a direct result of the approval of this
measure shall be distributed based upon the voter-approved Plan resulting in accelerated delivery
and augmentation of the Plan’s programs and projects.
16. Advancing Projects: Local agencies may elect to advance a Plan project or program using local
funds, other SLOCOG discretionary funds with SLOCOG Board approval, or Tax Revenue
Anticipation Notes with approvals from both the local agency and SLOCOG. The recipient would be
eligible for repayment for the amount advanced (with no interest) subject to SLOCOG approval of the
advancement and the year of reimbursement. SLOCOG will also be able to use other means to
accelerate the delivery of the Plan projects and programs, including partnering with other COGS, the
State of California, the Federal Government, and other government agencies, federal authorization
funds, federal earmarks, partnering with private entities, seeking outside grants and matching or
leveraging tax receipts to the maximum extent possible. SLOCOG will have the capability of loaning
transportation sales tax revenues, at prevailing interest rates, to local agencies for the
implementation of needed transportation projects, provided that a guaranteed revenue stream is
devoted to repay such a loan over a maximum amount of time, and provided that the loan will not
interfere with the implementation of programs or projects defined in the Plan. Loaning of funds
requires SLOCOG approval.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 264 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
23
Attachment D:
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-01
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SELF-HELP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
Guiding Principles and Preamble
The road, transportation and circulation systems within the cities and unincorporated areas of San
Luis Obispo County are of regional concern and the quality of such systems have a direct impact on
residents, visitors, agriculture, business, industry and general economy within the county. Available
revenues, including funding from Local, State, and Federal governments, are not adequate to
support needed maintenance, upgrading or safety improvements to the existing infrastructure or the
construction of the new infrastructure that the County and Cities anticipate will be needed to meet
the demands of the future.
To maintain and improve the quality of life and to preserve the unique and natural amenities
available to all residents in San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
has adopted the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan to establish
a dedicated local funding source for local agencies to address special and localized transportation
needs, including:
Road and pothole repair, traffic relief, and transportation safety improvements.
Mobility investments for senior, veterans and persons with disabilities.
Safe Routes to School projects in every city and community.
Public Transportation improvements, increasing frequency and service options.
Matching funds to leverage and secure state and federal funding for transportation.
Highway congestion relief: US 101 in Pismo/Shell Beach straits, major congested
interchanges in North County, and recurring congestion on Highway 227.
Bicycle and Pedestrian safety and connectivity improvements and extensions
Included Safeguards: The following safeguards are hereby established to ensure strict adherence
to the limitations on the use of the Revenues provided by this Ordinance to ensure that funding from
the one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax is used in accordance with the specified
voter-approved transportation project improvements and programs:
Transportation Investment Plan
Spending Assurances
Local Control
Maintenance of Effort
Administrative Costs Restricted to 1%
Leverage-advantage for State/Federal Funds
Annual Audits and Annual Reporting
Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee
The Governing Board of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments acting as the Local Transportation
Authority ordains as follows:
Section 1. Title
This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local
Transportation Investment Plan and may also be referenced as the “Ordinance” herein. “Ordinance” shall
mean and include Attachment A entitled “San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment
Plan” or “Plan”, Attachment B entitled “Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee;” and Attachment C
entitled “Plan Administration and Implementing Guidelines,” which Attachments A, B, and C are attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. This Ordinance shall be applicable in the
incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Luis Obispo, which territory shall be referred
to herein as “District” (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7252).
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 265 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
24
Section 2. Summary
The Ordinance provides for the implementation of a transportation Expenditure Plan, referred to as the San
Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan, which will result in countywide
transportation improvements for freeways, highways, local streets and roads, bus transit, transit services for
seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities; and bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity. These
needed improvements will be funded by the imposition of one-half of one percent (0.5%) retail transactions
and use tax for a period of nine (9) years. The Revenues shall be deposited in a special fund and used
solely for the identified improvements authorized by the Ordinance.
Section 3. Definitions
A. “SLOCOG” means the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), also designated as the
Local Transportation Authority, previously created and designated pursuant to Division 19
(commencing with Section 180000 et. seq.) of the California Public Utilities Code, authorized to
impose a retail transactions and use tax ordinance, in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with
Section 180200) of Division 19 of the California Public Utilities Code, and with Part 1.6 (commencing
with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
B. “Board of Supervisors” means the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors.
C. “County” means the County of San Luis Obispo, a political subdivision of the State of California.
D. “State” means the State of California.
E. Measure __ means the proposed ballot measure included within this Ordinance.
F. Measure __ “Gross Revenues” means all of the revenues generated from the transactions and use
tax plus any interest or earnings.
G. “Revenues” shall be allocated solely for the transportation purposes described in the Ordinance and
include all Gross Revenues remaining, after the deduction for: (i) amounts payable to the State
Board of Equalization for the performance of functions incidental to the administration and operation
of the Ordinance, and (ii) costs for the administration of the Ordinance as provided herein.
H. Retail Transactions and Use Tax is to be identified as specified in Part 1.6 (commencing with Section
7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation code.
I. Operative Date means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days
after the adoption of this Ordinance, the date of such adoption being set forth below.
J. San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan, sometimes identified as
the “Expenditure Plan”, or “Plan”, is required by Public Utilities Code section 180206 and is attached
to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference as Attachment A.
Section 4. Purpose
This Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions
hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
A. To establish a local funding source for transportation system maintenance and improvements set out
in detail in the attached Expenditure Plan.
B. To adopt an Expenditure Plan setting forth an investment strategy to maintain and improve the
transportation system in San Luis Obispo County.
C. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Division 19
(commencing with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code, and Part 1.6 (commencing
with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, which authorizes
SLOCOG to adopt this tax Ordinance which shall be operative if two-thirds (2/3) of the electors
voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.
D. To impose and collect retail transactions and use tax and allocate revenues derived from the tax
toward transportation safety and investment projects within the incorporated and unincorporated
areas of San Luis Obispo County, consistent with the provisions and priorities of the Plan.
E. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of
the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent
with the requirements and limitations contained in Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of
the California Public Utilities Code, and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code.
F. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure
therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that
adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 266 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
25
statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering
and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes.
G. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will
be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Division 19 (commencing with
Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code, and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251)
of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the
transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon
persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 5. San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan Implementation
and Amendment
Revenues generated from the imposition of the retail sales and use tax provided for in this Ordinance shall be
made available and allocated to specific transportation projects and programs in accordance with this Ordinance
and the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Local Transportation Investment Plan. No Plan amendment shall be
made to change the percentage distribution of the major programs (Regional Projects (25%), Local Control (55%),
Public Transportation (10%), and Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity (10%). The SLOCOG Board may
amend the Plan to account for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected
revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances, if such amendment has first received the
approval of the Board of Supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the
county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas in the county.
Section 6. Contract with State
Prior to the operative date, SLOCOG shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all
functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax; provided, that if
SLOCOG shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall
nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar
quarter following the execution of such a contract.
Section 7. Transactions Tax Rate
For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in
the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of
the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible property sold at retail in said territory on and
after the operative date of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Place of Sale
For the purposes of this Ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer
unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or its agent to an out-of-state
destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such
sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax,
regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of
business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales
are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the
State Board of Equalization.
Section 9. Use Tax Rate
An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the District of tangible personal
property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this Ordinance for storage, use or
other consumption in said territory at the rate one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the sales price of the
property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use
tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
Section 10. Adoption of Provisions of State Law
Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the
provisions of Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code and Part
1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the
provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation
Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein.
Section 11. Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes
In adopting the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the California Revenue
and Taxation Code:
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 267 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
26
A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of SLOCOG
shall be substituted therefor. The substitution, however, shall not be made when:
1) The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of
Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;
2) The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against SLOCOG or any
agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in
performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.
3) In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior
boundaries of the State of California, the result of the substitution would be to:
a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other
consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax
while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under
the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the California
Revenue and Taxation Code, or;
b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible
personal property which would not be subject to tax by the State under the said provisions of
that code.
4) In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code.
B. The word "District" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in
this State" in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203 of the California Revenue
and Taxation Code.
Section 12. Permit Not Required
If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the California Revenue and Taxation
Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this Ordinance.
Section 13. Exemptions, Exclusions and Credits
A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any
sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant
to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered
transactions or use tax.
B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of the transactions tax the gross receipts from:
1) Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to
be used or consumed principally outside the District in which the sale is made and directly and
exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority
of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.
2) Sales of property to be used outside the District which is shipped to a point outside the District,
pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery
by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this
paragraph, delivery to a point outside the District shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to
Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the California Vehicle Code, aircraft
licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the California Public Utilities Code, and
undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the
California Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-District address and by a declaration under
penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal
place of residence; and
b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-District, and
declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from
that address.
3) The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price
pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.
4) A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property for any period of
time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to
the operative date of this Ordinance.
5) For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal
property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 268 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
27
for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or
lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this Ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption
in this District of tangible personal property:
1) The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-
administered transactions and use tax Ordinance.
2) Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by
such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or
property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued
pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in
addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the California Revenue and
Taxation Code.
3) If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered
into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.
4) If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises
under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the
lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of
this Ordinance.
5) For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or
possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not
to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the
contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether
or not such right is exercised.
6) Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the District shall not be
required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships
or delivers the property into the District or participates within the District in making the sale of the
property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a
place of business of the retailer in the District or through any representative, agent, canvasser,
solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the District under the authority of the retailer.
7) "A retailer engaged in business in the District" shall also include any retailer of any of the following:
vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3
of the California Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the California
Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with
Section 9840) of the California Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from
any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the District.
D. Any person subject to use tax under this Ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or
reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a city or county imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions
tax pursuant to Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code and
Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code
with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is
subject to the use tax.
Section 14. Amendments to the Ordinance
All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue
and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7
of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2
of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this Ordinance, provided however,
that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance.
Section 15. Enjoining Collection Forbidden
No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or
proceeding in any court against the State, the County, or SLOCOG, or against any officer of the State, the
County, or SLOCOG, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Division 19 (commencing
with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code or Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of
Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be
collected.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 269 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
28
Section 16. Bonding Authority
This Ordinance provides no authority for SLOCOG to use bonding to finance transportation improvements or
operations.
Section 17. Compliance with CEQA
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), adoption of this retail transactions and use tax
Ordinance as a government funding mechanism is not a project subject to the requirements of CEQA.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15276, CEQA does not apply to the Expenditure Plan (Plan,
Attachment A).
Section 18. Maintenance of Effort
It is the intent of the Legislature and SLOCOG that revenues provided from this Ordinance be used to
supplement existing revenues being used for transportation improvements and programs. Each local
jurisdiction receiving Local Control Funds pursuant to the Plan shall meet the requirements in that section.
The Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funding for street and road purposes shall be an amount not less than the
jurisdiction’s average annual general fund monies used for street and road purposes during the 2011-12,
2012-13, and 2013-14 fiscal years as reported in the State Controller’s Streets and Roads Annual Report
adjusted to exclude extraordinary local discretionary expenses. In calculating the average annual minimum
level, if a local jurisdiction had extraordinary local discretionary fund expenditures noted as “one-time” or
“non-recurring” expenditures in their adopted budgets, then these amounts shall not be included in the
determination of the average annual MOE. A local jurisdiction must supply a resolution adopted by the local
governing board that provides justification and documentation of this conclusion.
Through a petition to the SLOCOG Board, a local jurisdiction may additionally request a revision to its MOE
funding beyond the subtraction of extraordinary local discretionary expenses. In this instance, SLOCOG
may allow the establishment of a new minimum level for that jurisdiction's MOE requirement. A local
jurisdiction petitioning SLOCOG under this provision must supply evidence of the need for special
consideration. The SLOCOG Board shall reasonably consider all such requests after appropriate due
diligence.
Annually, each jurisdiction shall adopt a resolution stating its adherence to the determination of the average
annual expenditures of general funds for transportation maintenance, improvements, and program purposes
and indicate how it has continued that minimum level of funding under its most recently adopted budget (by
July 1). Each jurisdiction shall submit a year-end resolution certifying compliance no later than December 31
following the close of the fiscal year. SLOCOG shall verify amounts through annual audit reports, council
minutes and other legal documentation. An agency may request authorization to carryover their local MOE
requirement for purposes of saving their general funds to apply to a larger eligible project. The agency must
make said request, with justification, in writing to SLOCOG prior to the three year expenditure window.
SLOCOG shall reasonably consider all such requests after appropriate due diligence.
Any agency that does not meet its average annual local MOE requirement over any three consecutive years
shall be reviewed by SLOCOG for a penalty determination. If an agency violates these provisions they may
be subject to a penalty up to and including loss of future Local Control funds plus a 10 percent penalty on
one year of Local Control funds. Should such a determination be made by SLOCOG then SLOCOG may
redistribute the forfeited local funds and the penalty to the remaining eligible jurisdictions.
Section 19. Creation of Special Fund
All Measure __ Revenue, plus interest, will be deposited in a special fund for Measure __ projects. The fund
authorized under Measure __ will be administered by SLOCOG pursuant to this Ordinance and to the
provisions of Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code, and Part
1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Any
interest generated by Measure __ Revenue will be treated as Measure __ Revenue for the purpose of using
the interest for Measure __ projects.
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 270 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
29
Section 20. Administration of Plans
SLOCOG shall impose and collect the tax, shall allocate revenues derived from the tax, and shall administer
the Plan included in this Ordinance, consistent with the provisions and priorities of the Plan, and consistent
with the authority cited herein.
A. SLOCOG may expend revenues for the actual expense of salaries, wages, benefits, and those
services, including contractual services, necessary to administer the Ordinance; however, in no case
shall such administrative expenditures exceed one percent (1%) of the annual Gross Revenues
provided by the Ordinance.
B. Administrative functions include providing overall program direction and management necessary to
implement SLOCOG policy, formulating organizational goals and objectives, coordinating activities
with other agencies and organizations, performing finance, accounting, purchasing, personnel,
government and community relations, and legal matters.
Section 21. Execution of Duties
SLOCOG may engage, contract with, employ and compensate any public or private agency, party,
contractor or professional, in accordance with the Public Contract Code and/or any of the provisions for
public employment of professional services for public agencies, for the planning, finance, approval, design,
construction, acquisition of right of way, maintenance, operation, control and repair of any road, highway,
bus, rail or other transportation facility. However, SLOCOG shall not be responsible for the maintenance or
operation of any State highway facilities following construction contract completion.
Section 22. Use of Proceeds
The revenues derived from the tax shall be used for transportation purposes only and may include, but are
not limited to, the administration of this Ordinance and the Plan, including costs for initial and subsequent
preparation and election, costs for legal actions related to the election, Ordinance and Plan, and the costs
and fees required for California State Board of Equalization services, and any and all costs and fees related
to the transportation purposes set out in the Plan. These purposes include expenditures for planning,
environmental review, engineering and design costs, related special and expert consultant costs, and related
right-of way acquisition and the administrative and legal costs associated therewith.
Section 23. Designation of Facilities
Each project or program funded in whole or in part by Revenues from this Ordinance shall be clearly
designated with appropriate project signage, as defined within the approved Strategic Plan, at the project
site during its construction or implementation as being provided by Revenues from this Ordinance.
Section 24. Establishment of Appropriations Limit
The annual appropriations limit established pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution and Section 180202 of the Public Utilities Code shall be $50,000,000.00 for fiscal year 2017/18.
This appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law.
Section 25. Call for Election
SLOCOG requests the Board of Supervisors to call an election for voter approval of the following measure,
below, which election shall be held on November 8, 2016, and consolidated with other elections to be held
on that same date. The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for
the conduct of elections by a County. The sample ballot to be mailed to the voters shall be the full
proposition as set forth in this Ordinance, and the voter information handbook shall include the Plan.
Approval of the attached measure, and imposition of the tax, shall require the vote of a two-thirds (2/3)
majority of the electors voting on the attached measure at the election described in this section.
The proposition to be placed on the ballot shall read substantially as follows:
To improve our region's transportation system, by:
Fixing potholes, repaving local streets, relieving traffic congestion;
Improving street, highway and bridge safety;
Making bike and transit improvements within and between communities;
Increasing senior, veterans, disabled and student transit; and
Providing safe routes to school;
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 271 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
30
shall San Luis Obispo County voters enact a half cent transportation sales tax, providing
$25,000,000 annually for 9 years, requiring independent citizens' oversight, where all funds stay
local and cannot be taken by the State?
Section 26. Effective Date
This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the District transactions and use taxes and shall go
into effect immediately, subject only to the Operative Date set forth in Section 3(I) of this Ordinance. The
increase in the transactions and use tax, if so approved, shall be imposed and collected for a period of nine
(9) years thereafter.
Section 27. Termination Date
The authority to levy the tax imposed by this Ordinance shall expire nine (9) years from the Effective Date of
this Ordinance.
Section 28. Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not
be affected thereby.
Section 29. Captions
The titles and headings to the sections set forth in this Ordinance are not part of this Ordinance and shall
have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part hereof.
Section 30. Publication
The SLOCOG Board determined that it was not possible to prepare a fair and accurate summary of this
Ordinance and so ordered that a display advertisement of at least one-quarter of a page in a newspaper of
general circulation be published at least five days prior to the SLOCOG meeting where this Ordinance was
considered. Within 15 days after the adoption of this Ordinance the Clerk of the SLOCOG Board shall cause
a second quarter page display advertisement to be published in the same way indicating the general nature
of the Ordinance and providing information about it sufficient to allow the public to obtain complete copies of
it along with the names of those SLOCOG Board members for and against.
The foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, State
of California, at an adjourned regular meeting held on the ___ day of ____, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: ____ / NOES: ____ / ABSTAIN: ____ / ABSENT: ____
ATTEST: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS
________________________ ________________________
Ronald L. De Carli, Executive Director Jan Marx, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Timothy McNulty, SLOCOG Counsel
3pm, June 1, 2016
Packet Pg. 272 AttachmentAA: b - SLOCOG 2016 Transportation Investment Plan (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2016 SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY SELF-HELP TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN AND
RECOMMENDATION TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS TO PLACE A 9-YEAR TRANSPORTATION SALES
TAX MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL ELECTION
BALLOT
WHEREAS, available revenues, including funding from Local, State, and Federal
governments, are not adequate to support needed mainten ance, upgrading or safety
improvements to the existing infrastructure or the construction of the new infrastructure that the
County and Cities anticipate will be needed to meet the demands of the future; and
WHEREAS, the road, transportation and circulation systems within the cities and
unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County are of regional concern and the quality of such
systems have a direct impact on residents, visitors and tourism, agriculture, business, industry
and the general economy within the county; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Board has developed the
2016 San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation Investment Plan pursuant to the
authority of Public Utilities Code Section 180206; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation Investment Plan was
guided by outreach efforts including over 70 meetings and presentations, a statistically valid
phone survey, four focus groups, and review, input, and support to continue these efforts in April
and May 2016 from all seven cities and the County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation Investment Plan and
Ordinance was introduced by the governing body of the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments on June 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the detailed, 9-year San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation
Investment Plan will: generate revenue, of which 55% will be specifically and solely for local
projects selected by local agencies, provide additional funds for need-based, point-to-point
transportation services for seniors, veterans and persons with disabilities, better leverage state
and federal funds to support local projects, create jobs that support economic development
through regional projects that account for 25% of revenue generated, establish an Independent
Taxpayer Oversight Committee to ensure that all funds are spent consistent with the voter-
approved investment plan, and collect over half of the total revenue from visitors who use our
local streets and roads; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined in prior court cases and in particular, Sustainable
Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Association of
Governments (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 113, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District , that
establishing a Transportation Investment Plan and corresponding measure does not constitute a
Packet Pg. 273 AttachmentAB: c - Resolution (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
project under the State of California Environmental Quality Act and that the City does not need
to make an environmental determination at this time; and
WHEREAS, the interests of San Luis Obispo County and its residents and businesses
will benefit by the implementation of the 9-year San Luis Obispo County Self-Help
Transportation Investment Plan through the new half-cent sales tax for transportation in San Luis
Obispo County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby approves the
2016 San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation Investment Plan introduced by the San
Luis Obispo Council of Governments on June 1, 2016.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo recommends that
the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors place the San Luis Obispo County Self -Help
Transportation Investment Plan on the November 8, 2016 ballot together with a transportation
sales tax measure.
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that
the above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act and is not subject to environmental review
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:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Packet Pg. 274 AttachmentAB: c - Resolution (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
R ______
_____________________________________
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg. 275 AttachmentAB: c - Resolution (1393 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager
Molly Cano, Tourism Manager
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE 2015-2016
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the Economic Development Strategic Plan Update.
DISCUSSION
Background
On October 16, 2012, the City Council approved the adoption of the Economic Development
Strategic Plan (EDSP). The EDSP focuses on creating a system that supports and sustains
industries creating head of household jobs. The EDSP continues to be organized into four
overarching strategies:
1. Break Down Barriers to Job Creation
2. Actively Support Knowledge & Innovation
3. Promote and Enhance the San Luis Obispo Quality of Life
4. Build on Existing Efforts and Strengthen Regional Partnerships
Each strategy has an underlying list of actions, metrics and outcomes that contribute to achieving
the goals of the strategic plan. While the EDSP is managed by the Economic Development
Program, the actions are cross-departmental and require the support and cooperation of many
people in the City organization and partner organizations. The remainder of the update focuses
on each of the overarching strategies, the status of each strategy and the focus for the next 12
months. The EDSP and Appendix A: Background Report can be found on-line at
www.slocity.org.
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation
The first overarching strategy is breaking down the barriers to job creation. The primary actions
are grouped into two sub-areas, (1) Processing, and (2) Infrastructure and Fees.
1. Processing (Strategies 1.1 and 1.2)
A. Update. All processing strategies are considered to be ongoing and progress has been
made in key areas. The Development Review Team (DRT) continues to evolve to ensure
a consistent and expedient approach across all departments involved in the development
18
Packet Pg. 276
review process. The DRT now has an internal, automated tracking solution to determine
which projects are on schedule and to measure progress over time. Over the last six
months, the number of projects behind schedule has moved from a high of over 50% to
less than 20%. The improvement is attributable to a combination of more resources,
increased visibility, ease of access and improved data quality.
The Continuous Improvement Group (CIG) ensures that there is cross-department and
cross-functional input, action and alignment with the improvement process. The initial
work on external performance measurements that align with the financial plan has been
completed and the automation of the measurements is in final testing. These performance
measures will soon be reported as part of the mid-year annual report and reviewed with
the City Manager and other staff on at regular intervals.
The City continues to use various proactive approaches like pre-application meetings,
quick response teams, fast track permitting and pre-determinant scheduling to ensure that
major projects can move forward as quickly as possible.
B. Moving forward. The Community Development Department (CDD) is in the process of
rolling out organizational changes that will contribute to continued improvement in our
entitlement and permitting processes. These changes include increased counter hours, a
one-stop shop and a dedicated Customer Service Team (CST). The focus of the CIG will
be will be to continue to identify opportunities for improvement in the permitting process
and to support the CDD organizational changes. Staff will continue to use creative,
proactive approaches to streamline the current process while work continues on the long-
term changes.
Once the CIG group has implemented the process changes that improve the timing and
efficiency of permit processing within the existing policy framework, the group will work
to identify any policy changes that would require Council consideration and approval that
could further streamline the review process.
The zoning update planned for the 2016-17 work program has the potential to
significantly address concerns about process issues and to streamline the permit process
and directly impact future economic development while also increasing the quality of
development projects.
2. Infrastructure and Fees (Strategies 1.3 to 1.9)
A. Update. Following the infrastructure study sessions in March of 2014, Council directed
staff to develop prioritized list of infrastructure projects for the City to invest in from an
Economic Development and Quality of Life perspective. That initiative evolved into the
Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund (IICF) and Infrastructure Investment Capital
Improvement Project (IICIP) which Council Approved in March of 2015.
B. Moving forward. In conjunction with the Community Development Department and
Public Works, a white paper outlining the City’s infrastructure funding process as well as
18
Packet Pg. 277
the basics of prioritization is under review and will be circulated when complete. The
proposed review and update of the AB1600 fees during the 2016-17 work program will
have major implications for the City in the long term.
Actively Support Knowledge and Innovation
Focusing on businesses and infrastructure that rely on knowledge and innovation is a critical
aspect of the EDSP (Strategies 2.1 through 2.3). Given the unique aspects of San Luis Obispo,
this strategy was split into the two subareas of Entrepreneurship and Access to Broadband.
Strategy 2.1 includes items that are short term and ongoing.
1. Entrepreneurship (Strategy 2.1)
A. Update. The Economic Development Program is actively working with our partners to
promote an environment that supports entrepreneurship and start-ups. The City continues
to support the SLO HotHouse financially and professionally. In 2015, the HotHouse
started 17 new businesses, counseled 123 clients, created 64 jobs and had an overall
investment in the companies of more than $3.7 million. The City is a sponsor of the
Chamber’s Insight Studios program. The program consists of an out of the area business
trip, workshops, a leadership event and the World of Business Forum in New York. The
City supports the SLO MakerSpace that acts as an incubator for “hands on” businesses
that require access to equipment such as metal working machines, wood working tools
and 3-D printers. The City also sponsors SCORE to help local small businesses to start
and grow.
B. Moving forward. The City will continue to work productively with its partners in 2016-
17. Some key ideas to continue to explore are: how to continue to grow the City’s
entrepreneurial culture, how to develop more co-working opportunities, how to leverage
our diverse tourism marketing efforts to attract existing and potential entrepreneurs to the
City, and how to continue to build the database of local companies at the County level to
increase interaction between organizations and help attract companies and individuals to
the area.
2. Access to Broadband (Strategies 2.2- 2.3)
A. Update. The City has been working with a Tri-County consortium through the Economic
Vitality Corporation (EVC) to develop a broadband road map that can be used by the various
jurisdictions to develop their own broadband roadmaps (strategy 2.3). The first draft of the
road map has been completed and is under review.
B. Moving forward. Once the work of the consortium has been further developed, the City will
consider transitioning the Ad Hoc committees that have worked on specific issues in the past
into a full time committee (Strategy 2.2). The City is also working with the Downtown
Association to investigate options for Wi-Fi in the downtown area.
18
Packet Pg. 278
Promote and Enhance the San Luis Obispo Quality of Life
The EDSP recognizes that the same quality of life attributes that make San Luis Obispo such a
great place to live also attract tourists and new and expanding businesses. The Tourism Manager,
who oversees the City’s Community Promotions program, is part of the economic development
team. Community Promotions is now fully integrated into the City’s economic development
efforts to ensure a comprehensive approach to quality of life activities supported by the City.
Strategies 3.1 and 3.4 are short term and ongoing, all other actions are medium or long term.
1. Tourism and Community Promotions (Strategies 3.1 and 3.4)
A. Update. From July 2015 through March 2016, the hotel industry continued to expand and
grow. The City collected just over $5 million in transient occupancy tax (TOT), which
represents a 6.3% average increase in collection compared to the previous year. While the
growth rate has slowed compared to the unprecedented 2014-15 fiscal year, overall the
lodging properties have returned to steady occupancy rates that met or exceeded business
prior to the recession. Much of this success can be credited to a coordinated and focused
strategic tourism efforts lead by the City’s Tourism Business Improvement (TBID)
district and laid out through the TBID’s 5-year strategic clarity document. In 2015-16 the
TBID executed a multi-faceted tourism campaign which included the following elements:
a.A complete redesign of the City’s tourism website SanLuisObispoVacations.com
which included the full integration of the #ShareSLO campaign into the site and
the customized booking system called Helium,
b. Expanded the compelling and award-winning advertising campaign for use in
print, digital and email marketing outreach, developed tourism promotion assets
including video and photography, strengthened the #ShareSLO outward facing
social media campaign on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter,
c.Attended more than a dozen events and tradeshows to promote the SLO brand,
and extended the tourism advertising reach into new markets like San Diego.
Additionally, the TBID constituency expanded to include the City permitted
homestay properties.
The Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) continued the commitment to enhance
the San Luis Obispo experience for residents as well as visitors. The PCC funded vital
promotional grants to over 25 local non-profit organizations through the annual grants-in-
aid process in an effort to enrich the social, cultural, and diverse community events and
activities available throughout the City. To support these activities as well as all events in
the City, the PCC enhanced the smart phone app created last year, called SLO
Happenings, to serve as the community go-to resource for all of the happenings in San
Luis Obispo.
Additionally, the PCC provided financial and program support to boost the visitor service
offerings in the City through the funding of programs like the tear-off city maps for
visitors and financial contribution to the operational costs for the downtown Visitors
Center. Together the TBID and PCC supported 10 major events within the City and
streamlined the application and review process. Events serve a dual purpose: they are
18
Packet Pg. 279
enjoyed by residents and attract visitors to our community. Additionally, In 2015-16 the
City also hosted more than 45 media outlets, travel writers and bloggers, facilitating
articles, feature stories and videos showcasing the Central Coast as more than a one-night
stopover. This effort resulted in hundreds of prominent placements in publications
including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Sunset Magazine and
Travel+Leisure, among others, recognizing SLO as a destination. Through the
commitment of the TBID and PCC, San Luis Obispo topped over a dozen “Best Of” lists
in 2015-16 including: Best Places for Women Entrepreneurs; 2015 Best-Performing
Cities; Best Commuter Cities in California; 100 Best Places To Live.
B. Moving forward. The TBID will continue the implementation of the Strategic Clarity
Document. Major areas of focus include: expansion of strategic partnerships to maximize
promotional opportunities, development and participation in tourism sales efforts, and
enhancement of the SLO tourism brand to drive awareness of the area. The PCC will be
focusing on defining the role of the PCC and its programs through a strategic planning
process, and further developing the SLO Happenings program to drive awareness of
events in the community.
Build on Existing Efforts and Strengthen Regional Partnerships
The City’s regional partnerships are critical to our economic development as a City. These
partnerships allow the City to build, retain and attract businesses. At this time, the primary
partnerships include: (in alphabetical order); Cal Poly, Chamber of Commerce, Central Coast
Economic Forecast (CCEF), Cuesta College, California Central Coast Research Partnership
(C3RP), Downtown Association, Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC), San Luis Obispo
County and the SLO HotHouse.
Strategies 4.1 through 4.7 cover four topics: Business Retention, Business Attraction, Business
Support, and Support for Downtown. Strategies 4.3, 4.6, and 4.7 are identified as ongoing.
A. Update. Relationships with the primary partners (Strategy 4.1 & 4.2) continue to be
strong. Some highlights include: increased focus with the Chamber on specific business
attraction opportunities; coordination with the EVC on airport expansion and broadband
strategies; coordination with the Chamber, CCEF and SLOCOG on data development;
participation with and presentations to committees at the Chamber, the Downtown
Association and the EVC. The City also participates in the Cal Poly President's Cabinet
Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee.
The City’s updated website has proven to be extremely helpful to the business
community and continues to be enhanced to provide a valuable resource for doing
business in the City.
The process of refining an economic development dashboard (Strategies 4.3 & 4.4) to
help assess the impact of our activities as well as quantify the economic health of the City
will continue in coordination with the City efforts to develop a dashboard showing
metrics from all City departments. The City’s Economic Development Team has gained
access to confidential employment data for the City of San Luis Obispo. The access to
18
Packet Pg. 280
this data for every establishment enrolled in the State’s Unemployment Insurance
Program (Strategy 4.3 & 4.4) creates visibility to more granular and specific information
about the job market in the City of San Luis Obispo.
B. Moving forward. Cooperation with the regional partners will form the basis for external
activities in the coming year. Staff will continue to focus on the core economic
development functions of business building, business retention and business attraction. In
addition to the expansion of the ongoing initiatives, staff will focus on coordinating
efforts to provide access to information for current and potential businesses through
multiple channels with particular focus on continuing to improve our web presence
(Strategy 4.1). Staff continues to support the Downtown Association efforts as well as
working on projects in the downtown.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Economic Development Program continues to operate within budget and there is no direct
fiscal impact as a result of this report.
Attachments:
a - Council Reading File - Economic Development Strategic Plan
18
Packet Pg. 281
Meeting Date: 6/21/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Freddy Otte, City Biologist
SUBJECT: ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES
PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR 2016
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Activity Report for 2016.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Natural Resources Protection Program was formally established
in 1995. At the present time, the City has protected over 7,000 acres of open space comprised of
both fee simple and open space or conservation easement interests (Attachments A: Open Space
Inventory and Attachment B: Open Space Map), including:
1. Operation of open space properties that are held in open space, natural reserve, ecological
reserve, or agricultural reserve status that are managed for resource protection and are
also available for passive recreation where compatible.
2. Administration of conservation easements acquired for permanent habitat, scenic, and
agricultural protection purposes.
3. Protective management and restoration activities in many areas of open space lands, as
well as along San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries.
4. Recovery efforts associated with threatened, endangered, or special-status species in
coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.
5.Continued review and assessment of acquisition opportunities for land within the City’s
Greenbelt.
The Natural Resources Protection Program works in close collaboration with the Parks and
Recreation Department’s Ranger Service Program to ensure the highest care, long-term
stewardship, and appropriate public use of the City’s open space network, while also partnering
with Central Coast Grown and ECOSLO to build additional capacity for land stewardship and
educational purposes (Attachment C: Central Coast Grown Annual Report; Attachment D:
ECOSLO Semi-Annual Reports).
19
Packet Pg. 282
In addition, program activities include:
1.Organizational leadership for the City’s Stormwater Management Program, insuring
water quality in compliance with the City’s Regional Water Quality Control Board
permits.
2.Collaboration with City Rangers and the Police Department to enforce the City’s creek
protection ordinance.
3. Coordination with other resource agencies such as the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife to help City departments acquire permits and implement and monitor required
mitigation measures associated with infrastructure construction projects.
Open Space Major City Goal for 2015-17.
The Natural Resources Protection Program in partnership with the Parks and Recreation
Department’s Ranger Service and the Fire Department work together on the Council’s 2015-17
Major City Goal for Open Space Preservation: Protect and Maintain Open Space, focused on
expansion, maintenance and enhancement. The key components of the Major City Goal, and
progress completed to date, are as follows:
1. Natural Resources Roundtable
The Natural Resources Roundtable is comprised of 15 members of the community that
possess interest, knowledge and expertise on matters pertaining to natural resource
management and protection, as well as pertinent City Staff (Attachment E: Project Plan).
The Roundtable began meeting monthly in January 2016; five meetings have occurred
with the sixth, final meeting scheduled for June 23rd. Meeting topics have included: 1) a
comprehensive overview of the Greenbelt Protection Program; 2) Biological Resources;
3) Agricultural Resources; 4) Trails and Passive Recreation; and, 5) a Landowner’s
Forum. Following the culmination of the Roundtable meetings, staff will prepare a
vision plan with a set of prioritized projects and program initiatives that could take place
over the course of the next 20 years that will be brought forward for Council and
community consideration in the spring of 2017.
2. Open Space Maintenance Plan
The City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan was adopted by
Council on December 15, 2015. It consists of three main focus areas: 1.) Maintenance
Activities; 2.) Trailhead Amenities; and 3.) Open Space Locations (where maintenance
and activities and trailhead amenities are described and mapped for each of the City’s 15
open space properties). In addition, the plan includes two technical appendices: 1.)
Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis
Obispo (2015-2020); and 2.) City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management Plan: The
Wildland–Urban Interface.
3. Complete Land Acquisitions
The Natural Resources Protection Program is currently pursuing three separate land
19
Packet Pg. 283
conservation project opportunities pursuant to Council direction. These are the Miossi
Brothers La Cuesta Ranch and the Ahearn Ranch located in Cuesta Canyon in the
northern portion of the Greenbelt, and the Waddell Ranch located adjacent to the City’s
existing Irish Hills Natural Reserve in the southern portion of the Greenbelt.
4. Open Space Maintenance Plan Implementation
Natural Resources and Ranger Service staff have been working diligently to implement
the Open Space Maintenance Plan. New entry gates, fencing, kiosks, and trash
receptacles with Mutt MittsTM are being installed at various City open space properties at
present, while design work for new interpretive panels is now also underway. Several
areas of trail erosion have been repaired and other unsanctioned trails have been closed
and decommissioned. Additional funding included in the 2016-17 Supplemental Budget
will allow for substantive implementation measures to occur in the areas of invasive
species control and Wildland-Urban Interface fuel reduction and management.
Laguna Lake Other Important Objective for 2015-17.
The Natural Resources Protection Program, in partnership with the Public Works Engineering
Division, is working together on the Council’s 2015-17 Other Important Objective Laguna Lake:
Implement the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. There are two key components
to this effort, which are as follows:
1. Dredging and Sediment Management
The City Council approved on January 19, 2016 a master contract with MNS Engineers
to prepare the project design and engineering, environmental permitting, and financing
options that will be necessary to make the project “shovel ready” by the end of the 2015-
17 Financial Plan period. Each of these tasks are underway, and staff anticipates
additional public outreach later this summer to be followed by a City Council hearing in
Fall where staff will recommend a preferred project alternative that considers expected
costs and benefits, as well as assessments of technical, environmental / regulatory, and
financial feasibility.
2. Laguna Lake ADA Trail
This facility is being designed in-house by Public Works Engineering Division staff.
Current plans and specifications are at the 50% level and construction is anticipated in the
spring/summer of 2017. The trail will start at the boat launch area and extend westerly
along the lakefront providing views of the lake and marsh areas, the grassland meadow,
and the south-facing sides of the Morros.
FISCAL IMPACT
Since its inception in 1995 the Natural Resources Protection Program has utilized approximately
$4,302,500 in City general fund monies for Open Space acquisition. This included $952,500 in
Local Revenue Measure Funding (Measure Y) funds since July 2007. This total has been
19
Packet Pg. 284
matched by $4,785,000 in outside funding support, including private, other local, State, and
Federal sources, as well as $4,050,000 in donated land value. The total value of all Open Space
acquisitions since 1996 is $13,137,500. In addition, many enhancement projects have also
utilized City funds and outside grants, or have benefitted from donations and/or in-kind volunteer
support.
The land transaction history and cost breakdown is included in the attached Open Space
Inventory. The currently budgeted funding for the Open Space Acquisition Fund No. 430 is
$900,000, which is comprised of $400,000 from 2013-15 and $500,000 from 2015-17 of
Measure Y and Measure G funds, respectively. Staff anticipates that these funds will be
expended on current open space acquisition projects, if approved and successful The historic
average, or benchmark, since the inception of the Greenbelt Protection Program for the
expenditure of City Open Space Acquisition Funds is 33% of total project value.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Direct staff to make minor revisions to the status report. Staff will make these revisions
following the meeting and publish a final report at the City’s website.
2. Continue the item and direct staff to significant revisions to the status report or include
additional information.
Attachments:
a - Open Space Inventory
b - Open Space Map
c - Central Coast Grown Annual Report
d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report
e - NRR Project Plan FINAL
19
Packet Pg. 285
Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo
as of January 1, 2016
I. pre-1996 open space lands
Terrace Hill Open Space, 30 acres
Lemon Grove Open Space, 43 acres
Ferrini Open Space, 136 acres
Laguna Lake Open Space, 140 acres
Let It Be Nature Preserve, 5 acres
South Hills Open Space, 62 acres
Reservoir Canyon Open Space, 203 acres
Lopez Canyon Open Space, 320 acres
Wolfe Open Space Easement Dedication, 95 acres
Madonna Open Space Easement Dedication, 20 acres
Islay Hill Open Space Easement Dedication, 70 acres
Total: 939 acres fee, 185 acres easement (1,124 acres total)
II. Lands Acquired 1996 through 1999
Guidetti Ranch Easement, 1,480 acres (November 1996)
$400,000 City funds
Maino Open Space, 75 acres (March 1997)
$950,000 City funds
$400,000 donation value
Bishop Peak Open Space, 108 acres (February 1998)
$400,000 City funds
$450,000 State and private funds
Total this period: 183 acres fee, 1,480 acres easement
III. Lands Acquired, 2000 – 2001
Filipponi Ecological Area, 75 acres (March 2000)
$175,000 City funds
$350,000 State grants
Stenner Springs Open Space, 49 acres (April 2000)
$55,000 City funds
$10,000 Federal grant
DeVaul Open Space, 182 acres (December 2000)
$182,000 donation value
Prefumo Canyon Open Space, 360 acres (January 2001)
$360,000 donation value
Guidetti Ranch Easement amendment, 1,480 acres (January 2001)
$50,000 City funds
$950,000 State and private grants
Hastings Open Space, 284 acres (March 2001)
$70,000 City funds
$130,000 State grant
Froom Ranch Easement Dedication, 150 acres (May 2001)
$150,000 donation value
Foster Open Space, 154 acres (September 2001)
Packet Pg. 286 AttachmentAD: a - Open Space Inventory (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
$300,000 City funds
$915,000 Federal and State grants
Johnson Ranch Open Space, 242 acres (November 2001)
$300,000 City funds
$1,300,000 Federal, State, and private grants
$150,000 donation value
Bowden Ranch Easement Donation, 195 acres (December 2001)
$195,000 donation value
Total this period:1,346 acres fee, 345 acres easement (plus amendment on 1,480 easement
acres)
IV. Lands Acquired 2002 – June 2007
Bowden Ranch Open Space Dedication, 27 acres (August 2003)
$54,000 donation value
Kuden Donation, 2 acres (September 2003)
$300,000 donation value (per appraisal)
Olson Donation, 1 acre (December 2004)
$250,000 donation value (per appraisal)
Boysen Ranch Easements, 30 acres (June 2005)
$60,000 donation value
Congregation Beth David Easement, 63 acres (June 2005)
$126,000 donation value
Bowden Ranch Fee Donation, 185 acres (50% undivided interest)(October 2005)
$90,000 donation value (per appraisal---encumbered by easement)
Gearhart/McBride Donation, 12 acres (November 2005)
$60,000 donation value (“basic” farmland value)
Brughelli Ranch Easement, 390 acres (December 2006)
$650,000 City funds
$100,000 private grants
$250,000 donation value
Margarita Area Easement donation (King), 71 acres (June 2007)
$142,000 donation value
Union Pacific Railroad property donation (Land Conservancy), 315 acres (June 2007)
$448,000 donation value (per appraisal)
Total this period: 542 acres fee, 484 acres easement
V. Lands Acquired July 2007 – present (Using Measure Y funds)
Elks Lodge Creek and Trail Easement donation (Elks Lodge), 3 acres (May 2008)
$6,000 donation value
Stenner Ranch and Stenner Creek Road property easements, 852 acres (December 2008)
$300,000 Measure Y funds
$200,000 from sale of 14 acre property
$350,000 Federal funds
$150,000 donation value (Stenner Ranch)
$28,000 donation value (Stenner Creek Road property)
Bowden Ranch Open Space , 185 acres (December 2008)
$120,000 from sale of surplus 14 acre property
Packet Pg. 287 AttachmentAD: a - Open Space Inventory (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Froom Ranch agricultural easement (Irish Hills West, Inc.), 7 acres, June 2010
$35,000 donation value
Froom Ranch, 310 acres, July 2010
$310,000 Measure Y funds
$350,000 Federal and private grants
$40,000 donation value (Phyllis Madonna)
BLM property management agreement, 78 acres, July 2010
No financial consideration
Prefumo Commons donation (Irish Hills Plaza West, Inc.), 12 acres, August 2010
$60,000 donation value
O’Connor Ranch agricultural conservation easement (held by Land Conservancy of SLO
County), 191 acres (October 2010)
$107,500 City funds
$850,000 Federal grant
300 Lawrence Drive lots donation (Inland Pacific Co.), 1 acre, December 2011
$2,000 donation value
Rockview Close open space lot donation, (Asset Logic Group), 3 acres, December 2011
$6,000 donation value
Foster/Spangler property conservation easement donation, 38 acres (December 2011)
$250,000 donation value
Righetti Hill and Righetti Homesite conservation easements, 56 acres (April 2012)
$112,000 donation value
Upper Goldtree Vineyard Tract lots, 89 acres (June 2012)
$235,000 City funds
$15,000 Land Conservancy of SLO County grant
$325,000 donation value (Filipponi / Twisselman)
Total this period: 493 acres fee, 952 acres easement
Total Since Inception of Natural Resources Protection Program: 2,564 acres fee, 3,331 acres
easement (5,895 acres total)
Overall Total: 3,503 acres fee, 3,446 acres easement (6,952 total)
Total City Funds Expended : $4,302,500 (Including $952,500 in Measure Y funds)
Total of all “Outside” Funding Support: $4,785,000
Total Donation Value: $4,050,000
Grand Total: $13,137,500
Packet Pg. 288 AttachmentAD: a - Open Space Inventory (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 289 AttachmentAE: b - Open Space Map (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
December 17 2015
To: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Steven Marx, Board President, Central Coast Grown (CCG)
Re: City Lease milestone report
CCG’s lease with the City states that by December 31 2015, we shall "Submit a plan for
public programming and the demonstration gardens consistent with the Premises Master
Plan…and secure the funding necessary to implement the planned public programming and
demonstration gardens.”
The Mission of City Farm SLO’s Educational Outreach Plan is to utilize a thriving farm to
support the work of local groups and organizations in their ag advocacy, food awareness, and
outdoor education efforts
The Vision of this program is of a community that uses innovation, knowledge, and inspiration
to cultivate a resilient food system
Since beginning management of the City Farm property, CCG has undertaken several public
programming initiatives. In April 2014 we held a ground breaking inaugural celebration
attended by over 200 people, including present and former elected officials and City Staff
members. (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/smarx/albums/72157643597495573) Costs for
this event were covered by a USDA/CFDA Grant earlier secured by CCG.
Starting in June 2014, CCG has carried out the City Farm School Program in collaboration
with Pacific Beach High School. At-risk students at this Continuation High School attend
classes for credit on the Farm twice or three times a week from August through June. We are
expecting this program to continue during the next academic year 2016-2017. The
considerable costs for this program have been funded by grants secured by CCG from Henry
Mayo Newhall Foundation, the Miossi Trust, the San Luis Obispo Community Foundation,
and the SLO County United Way. (See http://cityfarmslo.org/city-farm-school-project/)
Since Winter 2015, CCG has partnered with the SLO Permaculture Guild to facilitate develop
of Our Global Family demonstration garden. CCG provides land, irrigation and other
infrastructure and management services for this program and the Permaculture Guild supplies
volunteer labor and supplies. (See http://cityfarmslo.org/global-family-educational-garden/)
Packet Pg. 290 AttachmentAF: c - Central Coast Grown Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
CCG has provided drawings and secured building permits to provide for the construction of a
pergola at City Farm which will provide a venue for future public activities, including
educational workshops and classes, cooking demonstrations and meals, and instructional
programs on sustainable agricultural methodologies for local farmers. The funding for this
project has been provided by a grant secured by CCG from PG and E. (See appendix A)
CCG has developed plans and received conditional approval to build a farm stand at the
entrance to the property on Calle Joaquin. It will serve as a place for our tenant farmers as
well as CCG itself to market produce grown on the land. It will also serve as a place where
the public can interact with farmers and onsite agricultural activities. Most of the building
supplies for this project have been contributed by Home Depot. (See appendix B)
CCG is presently developing plans for a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) beginning
in May 2016 and lasting until November 2016. This will bring 15 share owners to the farm
weekly to pick up boxes of fresh produce grown there and will involve them in ongoing
educational and participatory engagement with farm operations. It is expected that the CSA
will expand membership during succeeding seasons of harvest. The CSA is expected to create
a revenue stream for CCG.
CCG is now planning another large event in May 2016 to mark the reopening of public access
to the Farm. This celebration will be well publicized, financed with sponsorships and
contributions, and will serve as a high profile introduction of CCG’s ongoing agricultural and
educational programs.
The programs mentioned above—Farm stand, CSA, and Spring Planting and Harvest Festival-
-have been on the drawing board for more than a year but have been delayed by the
construction of the temporary freeway off-ramp which closed off all public access.
In the long term, contingent upon further organizational growth and funding, CCG envisions
expanding three kinds of public educational programs at City Farm SLO:
Youth based – school partnership, YMCA, summer camp
Farmer training – beginning farmer classes, Farmers Guild, Food Safety
Community – workshops, volunteer opportunities, interns
To build a foundation for the development of such programs in the future, CCG has already
established collaborative partnerships with the community organizations listed here:
SLO County Food Systems Coalition; Farm to School Working Group
Food Bank, GleanSLO
UC Cooperative Extension
Dept of Public Health
Center for Sustainability at CalPoly
STRIDE at CalPoly
Heal SLO
One Cool Earth
Pacific Beach High School
Packet Pg. 291 AttachmentAF: c - Central Coast Grown Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Prepare Program
SLO Grange
Farmers Guild
The Farm Bureau, Young Farmers & Ranchers (YF&R)
SLO Permaculture Guild
School Gardens SLO
Living Schoolyard Network
CREEC
YMCA
Restorative Partners
CCG’s funding sources for the programs listed above for FYE 8/31/2016 are as follows:
Current - grants received or pledged for current year - $53,130
Grants pending $25,000
Fundraising and events (once access is available) spring and fall 5,000
Crop sales/CSA $15,000
Packet Pg. 292 AttachmentAF: c - Central Coast Grown Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 293 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 294 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 295 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 296 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 297 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 298 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 299 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Packet Pg. 300 AttachmentAG: d - ECOSLO Semi-Annual Report (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Project Plan
Project Title : The Natural Resources Roundtable:
The 20th Anniversary Proceedings of the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt
BACKGROUND
The City of San Luis Obispo formalized its open space program in 1994 with the adoption of an updated
General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element, with the allocation of open space acquisition
funding in 1995, and the hiring of the first Natural Resources Manager in early 1996. A subsequent
General Plan update resulted in the establishment of the Conservation and Open Space Element that
was adopted in 2006. Other key policy and regulatory documents include the Conservation Guidelines
for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002), adopted property-specific Conservation
Plans, as well as various sections of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code such as: Urban Storm Water
Quality Management and Discharge Control (12.08); Open Space Regulations (12.22); Creeks,
Tributaries, and Riparian Corridor Regulations (12.23); and Tree Regulations (12.24).
The City of San Luis Obispo has: acquired approximately 3,700 acres of open space lands comprised of 14
major properties held in open space reserve, natural reserve, agricultural reserve, or ecological reserve
status; protected 3,500 acres of land with open space or conservation easements; installed a trail network
of nearly 50 miles; and, undertaken maintenance, patrol, and site stewardship of portions of every major
creek system in the City.
Council Direction
The City Council has directed staff to undertake renewed outreach efforts with the environmental and
conservation community, and, separately, asked staff to prepare a strategy for ascertaining the appropriate
resources (e.g. staffing and program structure, facilities and equipment, maintenance funding levels, etc.)
for effective long-term stewardship of natural resource values and passive recreational amenities
appurtenant to City open space properties in existence now and that are planned for the future. The City
Council has also supported the exploration of an Open Space Committee, and this process will inform how
such a potential future committee may be constituted. Lastly, the Natural Resources Roundtable is
incorporated into the adopted Open Space Preservation Major City Goal work program that is a part of the
City’s 2015-17 Financial Plan.
PROJECT STRATEGY AND SCOPE
The overarching strategy contemplated in undertaking the Natural Resources Roundtable is to seek the
community’s input on the future direction of the Natural Resources and Greenbelt Protection Program
in order to strategically forecast and plan for potential opportunities and partnerships, as well as threats
PURPOSE
Establish an ad-hoc committee in order to undertake “The Natural Resources Roundtable: The 20th
Anniversary Proceedings of the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt” resulting in the preparation of a long -term
vision plan, Saving Special Places III: Towards a Sustainable Greenbelt , with a focus on long -term
strategic open space acq uisition priorities, maintenance and enhancement project priorities, future
staffing and equipment, and funding strategies.
Last Updated: 1 /1 2 /16
Packet Pg. 301 AttachmentAH: e - NRR Project Plan FINAL (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
and disruptions , with the long-term goal of working towards a sustainable program (e.g. fiscal, social, and
environmental) and addressing matters pertaining to future program priorities and the effective long-term
stewardship of natural resource values in and around the City of San Luis Obispo.
To implement this strategy, there are eight phases proposed for the project:
1. Internal and external policy review, programmatic history, and preliminary mapping and strategy for
long‐term conservation acquisitions and programming;
2. Formulate the project plan for the Natural Resources Roundtable;
3. Identify potential committee members based on a cross section of community non‐ profits in the
environmental and conservation field, Cal Poly academia, pertinent City Advisory Bodies, and at‐large
community members with interest and experience in open space matters, as well as appropriate internal
team members;
4. Prepare a Council Memo;
5. Conduct the Natural Resources Roundtable over the course of six months;
6. Ongoing public information for all subsequent phases consistent with the Public Engagement Manual
(press releases, website, interested parties list, etc.);
7. Prepare a report of major findings and strategies for the future (Saving Special Places III: Towards a
Sustainable Greenbelt for the City of San Luis Obispo); Meet with Natural Resources Roundtable to
review report draft and receive final input;
8. Public hearings and adoption.
ROUNDTABLE MEETINGS
The project proposes the following major themes, one per meeting over the course of six months, in the
following order:
1. Introduction of the Natural Resources and Greenbelt Protection Programs (Accomplishments, Challenges,
and Current Operations) – invite EQTF and other former staff and community members with program
history
2. Biological Resources – invite the experts
3. Agricultural Resources – invite the experts
4. Trails and Passive Recreation Use – invite the experts
5. Landowner’s Forum – invite Greenbelt property owners
6. Towards a Sustainable SLO Greenbelt
7. Review Draft Final Report (meeting date TBD)
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
1. Continued support from the City Council
2. Active and collaborative dialogue with Roundtable Members and Team Members
PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
1. No formal budget or funding has been identified for this project
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND TEAM
Project Manager:
Bob Hill - Natural Resources Manager
Project Team:
Katie Lichtig – City Manager
Derek Johnson – Assistant City Manager
Packet Pg. 302 AttachmentAH: e - NRR Project Plan FINAL (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Freddy Otte – City Biologist
Shelly Stanwyck – Parks and Recreation Department Director
Doug Carscaden – Senior Ranger
Michael Codron – Community Development Director
Garret Olson – Fire Chief
STAKEHOLDERS
Greenbelt open space conservation is a topic of considerable interest and concern for a wide array of
stakeholders. Among those affected by successful open space protection and maintenance activities are:
This project is fundamentally a stakeholder outreach process. Accordingly, each level of the Public
Engagement and Noticing Manual will be reached. The Roundtable meetings will be open to the public.
The following individuals / organizations have agreed to take serve as Roundtable me mbers:
Environmental and Conservation Groups:
Andrew Christie – Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter
Mary Ciesinski – ECOSLO
Daniel Bohlman – The Land Conservancy of SLO County
Greg Bettencourt – Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers
Steven Marx – Central Coast Grown
Bill Waycott – California Native Plant Society, San Luis Obispo Chapter
Academia and Advisory Bodies:
Matt Ritter – Cal Poly Professor, Biological Sciences; City of SLO Tree Committee Chair
William Riggs – Cal Poly Professor, City & Regional Planning; City of SLO Planning Commission
County of SLO
Trevor Keith – County Planning and Building Dept., Deputy Director, Policies and Programs
Marc Lea – County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner
At-Large:
Gary Felsman – The Land Conservancy of SLO County , Honorary Trustee
Eric Meyer – LUCE Taskforce Chair and County Planning Commissioner
Clint Pearce – Madonna Enterprises, Greenbelt Landowner, TBID Chair
Carla Saunders – EQTF and LUCE (1994 and 2014) Taskforce Member
Residents Neighbors
Property owners
Passive recreation users
Local businesses
Academia
Regional partners, agencies, and
non-governmental organizations
Native plant communities and
wildlife
Future generations
Packet Pg. 303 AttachmentAH: e - NRR Project Plan FINAL (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
PROJECT TASKS AND SCHEDULE
AVAILABLE REFERENCES
Adopted Policy Documents (available on-line):
1. Conservation and Open Space Element (2006)
2. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002)
3. Open Space Ordinance (Ord. 1332 § 1 (part), 1998)
4. Land Use Element (2014)
Adopted Open Space Conservation Plans (available on-line):
1. Agricultural Master Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve (2011)
2. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2015 Update)
3. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005)
4. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2011 Update)
5. Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan (2008)
6. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2014)
7. South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2007)
8. Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2009)
9. Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2013)
10. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan (2015)
Adopted Maintenance Plan (available on-line):
1. City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan (2015)
Greenbelt Planning Documents (available in member binders):
1. A Vision for Sustainability in San Luis Obispo: Recommendations of the Environmental Quality Task Force
(1995)
2. Saving Special Places: A Study of Open Space Values in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt (1995)
3. Saving Special Places II: Revisiting Open Space Priorities and the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt (2004)
Public Opinion (items 1 and 2 available in member binders; item 3 on-line):
1. Land Use and Circulation Element, Resident Survey (2012)
2. San Luis Obispo County Voter Attitudes Towards Land Conservation. Fairbank, Maulin, and Metz (2011)
3. City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey. Riggs et al. (2015)
Task Who When
1. Policy Review, History, Mapping Hill 7/15-9/15
2. Finalize Roundtable Project Plan Hill 9/15-12/15
3. Identify and Solicit Roundtable Members Hill 7/15-10/15
4. Council Memo Hill 1/16
5. Roundtable Meetings Hill; Select Team 1/16-6/16
6. Report of Major Findings and Strategies Hill; Select Team 7/16-12/16
7. Advisory Body and City Council Hearings Hill; Select Team 1/17-3/17
Packet Pg. 304 AttachmentAH: e - NRR Project Plan FINAL (1382 : Natural Resources Protection Program Annual Report for 2016)
Page intentionally left
blank.