HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2017 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
4:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
STUDY SESSION
1. BISHOP PEAK EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS AND PUBLIC EGRESS STUDY
(OLSON – 90 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Provide guidance to staff to better inform the analysis of the public safety issues related to
Bishop Peak Emergency Fire Access and Public Egress based on staff’s preliminary
recommendation to:
1. Prohibit on-street parking on both sides of Highland Drive and Oakridge Drive from the
point at which these two streets split to the termination of both cul de sacs; and
2. Install a raised pedestrian crosswalk in the area of the Patricia Street trailhead.
RECESS TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2017
Packet Pg. 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 3, 2017 Page 2
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Gomez
PRESENTATIONS
2. PRESENTATION - UTILITY OF THE FUTURE AWARD PRESENTATION FROM
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION (MATTINGLY – 5 MINUTES)
APPOINTMENTS
3. COUNCIL LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2017 (GALLAGHER – 10
MINUTES)
Recommendation
Approve Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments for calendar year 2017 as outlined in the
2017 Subcommittee Worksheet.
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 aske d to
follow up on such items.
Packet Pg. 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 3, 2017 Page 3
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS – WATER AND WASTEWATER
ENGINEERING SERVICES (MATTINGLY / METZ)
Recommendation
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications to provide Water and Wastewater Engineering
Services, Specification No. 91537 and authorize staff to advertise the Request for
Qualifications.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend Purchase Orders for individual
consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized project budget.
6. FY 2015-16 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (BRADFORD
/ PARDO)
Recommendation
1. Review the 2015-16 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees; and
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, accepting the 2015-16 annual report on development impact fees,
reaffirming the necessity of development impact fees and make findings related to
impact fee balances and in-lieu fees.”
Packet Pg. 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 3, 2017 Page 4
7. 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING
RESERVATION LETTER TO TRANSITIONS-MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION
(CODRON / WISEMAN)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), authorize the Community
Development Director to execute the attached Reservation Letter authorizing the City to
reserve $200,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to Transitions -
Mental Health Association for property acquisition of Bishop Street Studios.
8. SAN LUIS OBISPO OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE GRANT APPLICATION (OLSON /
COX)
Recommendation
1. Authorize Fire Department staff to submit grant application to San Luis Obispo County
Off Highway Vehicle grant program in the amount of $32,628.00 to purchase one Off
Highway Vehicle, configured with a mobile radio and headset s ystem; and
2. Authorize City Manager to execute documents necessary to appropriate the grant funds
upon notification that the grant has been awarded; and
3. Delegate the Purchase Authority to the Finance Director to review quotes and award
contracts or purchase orders.
9. AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASES FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AND
MAINTENANCE (STANWYCK / STEPHENSON)
Recommendation
Authorize Finance Director to execute purchase orders in the total amount of $190,000 to
acquire four pieces of heavy duty equipment to accomplish the adopted Major City Goal of
Open Space Preservation using funding from the approved $285,000 2015-17 Capital
Improvement Project for Open Space Preservation: Maintenance.
10. OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN PROGRESS REPORT (STANWYCK /
STEPHENSON / ETTESTAD)
Recommendation
Receive and file the Parks and Recreation Department’s Open Space Maintenance Plan 2016
Progress Report.
Packet Pg. 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 3, 2017 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY DAVID BRODIE) OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW
FOUR STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 17 EXTENDED STAY HOTEL ROOMS AND A
REQUEST FOR A MIXED USE/SHARED PARKING REDUCTION OF 25%, WITH
A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (1042
OLIVE STREET, APPL-4010-2016) (CODRON / VAN LEEUWEN – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal filed by David Brodie and thereby approving the
development of a new four story mixed-use project including ground floor commercial/retail
space, 17 extended-stay hotel rooms, and a 25% mixed-use and shared parking reduction,
with a categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented in the City Council
agenda report and attachments dated January 3, 2017 (1042 Olive Street, APPL-4010-
2016).”
BUSINESS ITEMS
12. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT – DRAFT PREDESIGN
AND COST ESTIMATE - CH2M CONTRACT AMENDMENT (MATTINGLY / HIX
– 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Receive and file the Water Resource Recovery Facility Draft Predesign Report; and
2. Approve a CH2M contract amendment in the amount of $1,519,049 for changes in
project scope and membrane bioreactor preselection.
13. LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION UPDATE (OLSON / COX – 15
MINUTES)
Recommendation
Receive and File the 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Second Annual Update.
Packet Pg. 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 3, 2017 Page 6
STUDY SESSION
14. REVIEW OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE AND WATER BOTTLE
FILLING STATION REGULATIONS (JOHNSON / CARLONI – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Receive a presentation on single-use plastic water bottle and water bottle filling station
regulations and policy options; and
2. Provide direction to staff regarding any changes to current policies and practices.
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)
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Joint City Council and Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight
Commission Meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., at the Ludwick
Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, California for the purposes of
holding a Community Forum to discuss the 2017-19 Goal-Setting and Budget Process.
The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Packet Pg. 6
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 3, 2017 Page 7
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Packet Pg. 7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 8
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: BISHOP PEAK EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS AND PUBLIC EGRESS
STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
Provide guidance to staff to better inform the analysis of the public safety issues related to
Bishop Peak Emergency Fire Access and Public Egress based on staff’s preliminary
recommendation to:
1. Prohibit on-street parking on both sides of Highland Drive and Oakridge Drive from the
point at which these two streets split to the termination of both cul de sacs; and
2. Install a raised pedestrian crosswalk in the area of the Patricia Street trailhead.
DISCUSSION
Background
In response to concerns by residents, the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department conducted a
review of the risks associated with a fire along the eastern portion of Bishop Peak (Highland
Drive/Oakridge Drive area). The review was designed to determine 1) if a fire in the region
would pose a significant threat to the region/inhabitants, 2) if residents/visitors are able to safely
evacuate in the event of a fire, and 3) if the Fire Department has sufficient access to properly
mitigate a fire. To answer these questions, the Fire Department partnered with the City’s
Information Technology (IT) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Division, Parks and
Recreation Ranger Services, Public Works Transportation Planning & Engineering Division, and
City Administration Natural Resources and Special Projects Managers.
Prior to focusing on this specific region, staff discussed and subsequently made several site visits
to other regions of the City to assess if similar risk profiles are present in other regions. Staff
found the area surrounding Bishop Peak to be a unique risk profile in the City based on many
factors. Those factors include: 1) width of streets; 2) street parking configuration; 3) presence or
absence of collateral accessibility; 4) size, type and location of vegetation; proximity of homes to
each other and vegetation; and 5) age of homes and outbuildings, which correlates with the
ability of these structures to resist wildfires.
Staff was fortunate that timing of this study coincided with the part-time temporary employment
of a GIS Technician whose advanced degree thesis focused on fire risk analysis in urban settings
similar to San Luis Obispo. The science available for fire modelling this study was at a level
previously unavailable to the City. In addition to acknowledging established fire hazard severity
zone information, this risk assessment included an area-specific analysis of the tree canopy,
spatial mapping of vegetation by type, topography, and extensive weather data history. Also
Packet Pg. 9
1
included as data in this analysis were the age of all structures (both residential dwelling and out
buildings), parcel density, defensible space (a zonal analysis of the home ignition zone using
remote sensing), and structure density (an analysis of structures within distance ranges to each
other). All these data points were specific to the defined region, which is roughly bound by
Foothill Boulevard to the south, Al-Hil Drive to the east, the north base of Bishop Peak to the
north, and the west base of Bishop Peak to the west. The result of this analysis was the creation
of a highly modelled region, capable of receiving fire scenario data to forecast fire spread over
time.
The Fire Department provided our GIS technician with four scenarios related to potential fire in
this region. Scenarios modelled included fires started on the upper trail of Bishop Peak, in the
lower wooded area above Highland Drive, on Highland Drive simulating a vehicle fire, and in
the backyard of a local residence simulating a cooking fire. Two different times of year were
assessed to analyze if fire risk is significantly influenced by weather and other seasonal patterns.
The scenario involving a cooking fire was modeled using actual weather and fire behavior
characteristics from Thanksgiving Day 2015, thus simulating a turkey deep fryer mishap during
non-peak fire season weather. The other three scenarios were modeled using a date in August
2015, thus simulating fire conditions during the extreme weather conditions of the fire season.
Extreme weather conditions are characterized by high temperatures, low humidity, and strong or
unpredictable winds. The range in fire ignition locations and time of year were intended to
evaluate if fire risk is significantly seasonal in this region.
It is important to note that the fire-spread-over-time models assume no firefighting activities take
place. A fire-spread-over-time model is intended to show the likely path and speed of spread of
a fire in a region given the data modelled as detailed above (such as vegetation by type,
topography, weather, and parcel density). Obviously, if a fire was reported, the City Fire
Department and available automatic aid fire agencies1 would respond to extinguish the fire. The
modelling assumes no firefighting activities for several reasons. First, to illustrate the rapid
spread of the fire, which has a direct impact on fire resources and access needs. Second, there is
no way of predicting what fire response resources would be available at the time of ignition.
While it would be a priority to rededicate City resources to this emergency, the availability of
regional resources is not under local control, including the availability of firefighting aircraft th at
would be critical to a fire in this complex region and related topography.
Fire Threat
The fire modelling analysis illustrates that a fire in the region could pose a significant threat to
the region and the inhabitants. In both the fire season and non-fire season models, unimpeded
fire spread rapidly consumed structures and open space. During extreme weather conditions, the
fire was modelled to spread approximately 1,190 acres in the first 48 hours. The fire would reach
the community in the first hour and burn through much of the neighborhood and over to Bishop
Peak Elementary and Highway 1. The two other peak fire season scenarios produced similar
1 The City and CAL FIRE provide automatic aid through a formal agreement, which prea uthorizes deployment of
emergency response resources between jurisdictions. Automatic aid is different from mutual aid in that the latter
requires approval prior to deployment of resources. Under the current automatic aid agreement with CAL FIRE, an
available CAL FIRE engine company is automatically dispatched to all fires in the City of San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg. 10
1
rates of fire spread. It is important to note that the availability of regional fire resources may be
greatly depleted and/or deployed outside of our region during the fire season. For example,
regionally stationed firefighting hand-crews and firefighting aircraft may be dedicated to other
fires throughout the State at any given moment during the fire season. Firefighting hand-crews
and aircraft are among the most critical resources at a wildland fire.
The non-peak fire season model resulted in a prediction of 688 acres burned in the first 48 hours.
In this model, the fire climbs Bishop Peak in less than ten hours, burns over Highland and
Oakridge Drives, and travels quickly to the west toward Foothill Boulevard and O’Connor Way.
This rapid fire spread is despite the very mild weather conditions (56 F, 20% humidity, and
light winds). It is important to note that some regional fire resources are not available during
non-fire season times of year. For example, firefighting hand-crews and firefighting aircraft may
not be maintained in a deployable state during the off season. Again, firefighting hand-crews and
aircraft are among the most critical resources at a wildland fire.
Emergency Fire Access and Public Egress Capacity
Two streets, Highland Drive and Oakridge Drive, would play an important role in the Fire
Department’s ability to stop the forward spread of fire. Depending on the point of ignition of a
fire and current weather conditions, these two street would be a primary route to deploy
firefighting apparatus and crews due to their good pavement condition and proximity to homes.
Ideally, firefighting crews would be able to drive up both of these street, unimpeded, to
strategically put into operations hand lines (aka fire hose lines extending into the open space) to
stop the forward spread of the fire. There are four fire hydrants on the section of Highland Drive
between its split with Oakridge Drive and Highland Drive’s terminus. There are two fire
hydrants on the section of Oakridge Drive between its split with Highland Drive and Oakridge
Drive’s terminus. These fire hydrants would be critical to supply water for sustained firefighting
operations.
There are alternative access options available to emergency response crews responding to the
Bishop Peak area, including the Felsman Loop, which is a graded dirt access road. Unpaved
access options are important to maintain as fire and medical response routes for consideration;
however, paved streets are preferred due to their condition (which allows for more rapid, safe,
all-weather responses and especially meaningful for engines that are meant to be used in more
urban environments) and their proximity to fire hydrants.
It is highly probable that in the event of a fire in this region, Fire crews and apparatus would be
deployed to strategic points along the paved streets of Highland and Oakridge Drives,
simultaneous to the Fire and Police Departments communicating the need for local residents and
visitors to evacuate. When this is the case, it is assumed that the majority of residents will
evacuate with their vital belongings via their personal vehicles. Therefore, it is vital to the
firefighting effort and the safety of residents that simultaneous fire suppression activities and
citizen evacuation be possible.
Based on the current road dimensions and parking configuration, it is likely that simultaneous
firefighter operations and citizen evacuation would not be possible. If no vehicles were parked
Packet Pg. 11
1
on Highland and Oakridge Drives, simultaneous firefighter operations and citizen evacuation
would be possible. Therefore, prohibiting on-street parking on Highland and Oakridge Drives in
this region is the solution identified by staff to address year-round emergency access and egress
needs.
Potential Impacts of Prohibiting Parking
The most obvious impact is the reduction in parking in this area. The proposed impacted section
of Highland Drive has the capacity to accommodate approximately 45 on-street parked vehicles,
and the proposed impacted section of Oakridge Drive has the capacity to accommodate
approximately 50 on-street parked vehicles. Prohibiting on-street vehicle parking is a disruption
for residents, service personnel (such as landscape crews), and visitors. For those visitors or
service personnel coming to a specific residence, there exists varying off-street/on-property
parking options, but some neighbors have identified this as a significant inconvenience.
For those visitors coming to visit the open space, one of four likely scenarios could supply
parking spaces in lieu of Highland Drive:
1) An open space visitor coming to Bishop Peak by vehicle may drive to the trailhead at the
top of Highland Drive, drop off passengers, and drive to an authorized parking space.
2) An open space visitor coming to Bishop Peak by vehicle may drive directly to an
authorized parking space and walk to an existing trailhead.
3) An open space visitor coming to Bishop Peak may shift to a non-vehicular means of
coming to this region.
4) An open space visitor may elect to go to another open space region with a different
parking configuration.
Four initial potential negative impacts of these scenarios include: 1) increased pedestrian traffic
on Highland Drive, 2) increased vehicle speeds on Highland Drive2, 3) increased parking on
other streets in the region, and 4) increased vehicle-pedestrian activity at the trailhead on Patricia
Street. The Public Works Transportation Planning & Engineering Division has considered these
potential negative impacts and is prepared to mitigate some of the likely impacts through
engineering options. These options include: 1) traffic calming measures, 2) increased signage,
and/or 3) enhanced pedestrian crossing safety treatments. City staff has prepared a Capital
Improvement Project for consideration in the 17-19 Financial Plan to address anticipated traffic
and pedestrian issues should Council want to pursue parking strategies as outlined in this report.
Public Outreach
To better inform this effort, staff has engaged the community in accordance with the Council-
adopted Public Engagement and Notification Manual. Efforts included a presentation to the
Parks and Recreation Commission, dialogue with local area residents, dialogue with the
2 This is due to the absence of parked vehicles on streets that have shown to reduce the average speed of traveling
vehicles.
Packet Pg. 12
1
community at-large, and an online opportunity through Open City Hall.
Attachment A is the notice provided to the Parks and Recreation Commission and available to
the community prior to the Commission’s July 6, 2016 meeting. Attachment B is the presentation
provided to local area residents on September 19, 2016 and to the community-at-large on
September 27, 2016. Attachment C is the feedback provided by the attending neighbors to staff
during the brainstorming session of the September 19, 2016 neighborhood meeting. Attachment
D is the feedback provided by participating community members to staff during the
brainstorming session of the September 27, 2016 community-at-large meeting. Attachment E is
the feedback provided by citizens via this Open City Hall discussion portal. The Open City Hall
site is available at https://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/189/Issue_3949, including the issue
background information and introductory video.
Some of the feedback provided to staff was tangential to the fire emergency access and public
egress focus, but nonetheless it was very important to receive all perspectives and potential
solutions to fully inform this issue. This feedback largely centered on: 1) the use, overuse and or
misuse of this region; 2) enforcement or lack thereof of existing ordinances regarding open space
use; and 3) observations about access and/or parking more broad than the scope of this issue’s
focus. There was also strong interest by the neighborhood group in additional engagement,
education, and information related to increasing resident preparedness, information regarding
open space health and maintenance, and best practices for decreasing the potential for wildland
fire ignition and spread. Staff is working to meet these vital neighborhood needs and requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND GUIDANCE REQUESTED
Staff found that there is a year-round need to maintain sufficient access and egress on Highland
and Oakridge Drives to allow for simultaneous Fire emergency response access and resident
egress. Staff recommends prohibiting on-street parking on both sides of Highland Drive and
Oakridge Drive from the point at which these two streets split to the termination of both cul de
sacs. Prohibiting parking may solve some of the tangential concerns communicated to staff by
local residents related to the use of this region’s open space. Since the Patricia Drive trailhead is
likely to see increased use as a result of prohibiting parking on Highland and Oakridge Drives,
staff is also recommending a raised pedestrian crosswalk in the area of the Patricia Street
trailhead to calm traffic and enhance pedestrian safety.
Staff acknowledges that this a complex issue of great interest to local residents and open space
visitors. Staff is interested in feedback from the community and guidance from the City Council
to help inform our analysis and subsequent actions and/or recommendations to maximize the
value of solutions designed primarily for public safety reasons, but which can provide relief to
non-public safety issues.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and City Administration Departments concur with the
analysis and recommended strategies in this report.
Packet Pg. 13
1
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact in directing staff to pursue strategies in this report. A capital
improvement project (CIP) to implement capital improvements to address the strategies
contained in this report has been developed for consideration as part of the 2017-2019 Financial
Plan. The estimate for these improvements is estimated at $95,000. This draft CIP will be
modified with sufficient capacity to address anticipated access and safety issues should Council
want to pursue any additional strategies that require more capital investments . The proposed
project funding includes monitoring costs to ensure that any measures are adequately addressing
the anticipated impacts and monitoring for any unanticipated impacts. Should unanticipated
impacts be identified, additional strategies and improvements will be brought back to the City
Council for review and approval.
Attachments:
a - Letter to PRC for July 6 2016 meeting
b - Presentation to Neighbors for September 19, 2016
c - Feedback from Neighbors September 19, 2016 meeting
d - Feedback from community at large September 27 2016 meeting
e - Open City Hall feedback
Packet Pg. 14
1
City of San Luis Obispo, Fire Department, 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-5240, 805.781.7380, slocity.org
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
DATE: June 28, 2016
RE: Assessment of emergency response access and citizen egress in the area
around Bishop Peak trail
In response to concerns expressed by residents in the area of the Bishop Peak trail, the Fire
Department and Information Technology (IT) Graphic Information Systems (GIS) staff
conducted a study to assess the risk in the region, the City Fire Depart ment’s ability to
access areas at risk, and the ability of residents and visitors to evacuate if so advised by
emergency response personnel. In the simplest terms, the City sought to answer three
primary questions:
1. Is there heightened risk that a fire in this region would pose a significant threat to
the region and its inhabitants?
2. If there is a heightened risk, is the current access configuration of City streets
sufficient to allow the Fire Department to respond to mitigate fires in this region?
3. If residents of and visitors to this region are requested to evacuate due to fire, is the
current egress configuration of City streets sufficient to allow evacuation during fire
suppression operations?
To assess risk, the Fire Department provided GIS technicians with several scenarios related
to a fire started in this region. Scenarios modeled included fires started on the trail, in the
lower wooded area, by a car fire on Highland Drive, and by a cooking fire in the backyard of
a residence. Different times of year were assessed in determining if risk is significantly
influenced by weather and other seasonal patterns. Using advanced GIS tools with
weather, topography, vegetation canopy, and fire behavior modeling capabilities, GIS
mapped the Bishop Peak region west of Patricia Drive. GIS then modeled the four fire
scenarios. The scenario involving a cooking fire was modeled using actual weather and fire
behavior characteristics from Thanksgiving Day 2015, thus simulating a turkey deep fryer
mishap. The other three scenarios were modeled using a date in August 2015. Again, the
range in fire start locations and dates of fire start were intended to illustrate if fire risk is
significantly seasonal in this region. At the July 6, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting, staff will present these findings to the Commission.
Fire, IT-GIS Division, Public Works-Transportation Planning & Engineering Division, and City
Administration-Natural Resources staff met to assess these scenarios and to discuss
potential risks in other regions of the City. Fire staff drove other areas in question to assess
regions with potentially similar risk profiles. At this time, the area surrounding Bishop Peak
has a unique risk profile based on many factors, including width of streets; street parking
Packet Pg. 15
1
configuration; presence or lack thereof collateral accessibility; size, type and location of
vegetation; proximity of homes to each other and vegetation; and age of homes and
outbuildings. Based on a preliminary assessment of the GIS modeling and the access and
egress needs, the Fire Department has a concept plan to discontinue all on street parking
on both sides of Highland Drive starting at Oakridge Drive as well as on the west side of
Oakridge Drive starting at Highland Drive. This initial concept is open to complete revision if
more creative or different solutions come to light during the process which provide the
minimum necessary access and egress in the event of a fire in this region.
Since Bishop Peak is a popular outdoor recreation location, the Fire Department is
interested in the perspectives of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The July 6 meeting
will be an opportunity for the Commission to provide feedback to staff to ensure any
subsequent actions to enhance safety are well vetted by our community. Future meetings
with local residents and interested citizens will be hosted as well.
Questions for the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider for this region include:
1. What possible solutions to reduce fire risk would the Commissioners encourage City
staff to consider, including such topics as street and parking design and vegetation
management on City controlled property?
2. What possible solutions to enhance Fire emergency response access and operations
would the Commissioners encourage City staff to consider?
3. What possible solutions to ensure sufficient resident and visitor evacuation needs
would the Commissioners encourage City staff to consider?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Packet Pg. 16
1
City Administration - Natural ResourcesFire DepartmentInformation Services, GISParks and Recreation Department1Bishop Peak Fire SafetyNeighborhood MeetingSeptember 19, 2016Packet Pg. 171
Bishop Peak Fire SafetyNeighborhood MeetingSeptember 19, 2016Agenda – 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm1. Introduction/Purpose of Tonight's Meeting2. Presentation of Fire Department Reviewa. Assessment using GIS b. Survey of field conditionsc. Open Space conditions discussion3. Group Discussion/Report Back4. Wrap Up2Packet Pg. 181
GGIS analysis of Fire Hazard1. Fire hazard Severity Zone mapping2. Tree canopy analysis using laser technology (LIDAR)3. Spatial mapping of vegetation type4. Topography: slope, aspect5. Weather: wind direction, wind speed, humidity, and temperature. 3Packet Pg. 191
GGIS analysis of Structural Fire Vulnerability1. Defensible Space- zonal analysis of Home Ignition Zone using remote sensing 2. Age of structure- assessors map data. 3. Parcel density-measured in parcel size4. Structure density- structures present within 5 feet, 30 feet and 100 feet, which account for structure-to-structure spread4Packet Pg. 201
OOverall Risk Level 91% of parcels along Highland Drive and Oakridge Drive where found to have High and Very High Fire Risk. Due to:•High fire hazard in region•Age of existing structures•Proximity to hazardous vegetation•Proximity of vegetation to structuresFire Risk = Hazards - Observed Mitigations5Packet Pg. 211
MModelling Fire PotentialFire behavior analysis allows for the predictive modelling of fire activity under specific scenarios.Fire Behavior simulations under real San Luis Obispo weather conditions using two scenarios: •Simulation 1- Fire in lower wooded area during the summer•Simulation 2- Thanksgiving day structure fire6Packet Pg. 221
SSimulation 1: Fire started in the lower wwooded area during the summer7Packet Pg. 231
Careless Ignition in lower wooded area- Extreme Summer Conditions •Approximately 1,190 Acres in 48 hours. •Reaches community in 1 Hour.•Burns to Highway 1.•Burns through much of the residential community and over the school. 8Packet Pg. 241
SSimulation 2: Structure fire on TThanksgiving day9Packet Pg. 251
Thanksgiving Day Ignition•Approximately 688 Acres in 48 hours (Limited by data extent). •Climbs Bishop Peak in <10 hours. •Burns over Highland drive and Oakridge drive.•Travels quickly towards Foothill and O'Connor wayNovember 26th2015•Temp High - 56 F•Humidity – 20% low•ENE winds (70 degrees)•13 mph average high •Non-extreme weather10Packet Pg. 261
RResultsThe risk analysis found that there is the potential in this area for a wildland fire to spread into the residential area under both normaland extremeweather conditions. The analysis also found that a structural fire, even in non-extreme weather conditions, could have the potential to spread throughout the residential area and the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. 11Packet Pg. 271
CChallenges to response and eevacuation12Packet Pg. 281
OOpen Space conditions13Packet Pg. 291
GGroup DiscussionsDiscussion #1:What possible solutions to reduce fire risk should be considered?For Example: Fire Department preliminary analysis indicates that possible solutions could include modifications to street layout and parking design as well as vegetation management.Timeframe: 15 MinutesReport Back: 3-5 minutes per group14Packet Pg. 301
GGroup DiscussionsDiscussion #2:What possible solutions should be considered to enhance fire truck/fire personnel access to the area at the same time as residents are evacuating from the area? Timeframe: 15 MinutesReport Back: 3-5 minutes per group15Packet Pg. 311
GGroup DiscussionsDiscussion #3:What other solutions or enhancements should be considering as we evaluate the health and safety of this area? Timeframe: 15 MinutesReport Back: 3-5 minutes per group16Packet Pg. 321
•Open City Hall: www.slocity.org/OpenCityHall•Community meeting: September 27th@ 5:30 pm Ludwick Community Center•City Council Study Session: January 2017•Solution(s) as part of the City’s 2017-2019 Financial Planning ProcessNNext Steps17Packet Pg. 331
18Packet Pg. 341
Prompt #1: What possible solutions to reduce fire risk should be considered? Parking x Parking at the pond x Residential parking district x Eliminate all parking at Highland and Patricia x Strategic parking & have a fire staging area x No parking on Highland and Oakridge x Better parking enforcement x Repaint red curbs Access x Relocate BP trailhead to foothill x Open Hwy 1 & Foothill trailheads x Close all residential trailheads x Evaluate all access easements x Have permits for hiking on BP trail x No night hiking (sun up to sun down) x Get a total number for all city and county uses x No large gatherings on BP x Permit hiking- Best practice from Palm Springs x Increased no smoking enforcement x ½ cent tax for visitor’s use x Avoid speedway on Highland x No skateboards allowed on Highland Water & Home x Have H2O tank at the top of Highland and add other tanks x H2O pressure issue address for fire fighters x Check all fire hydrants x Do not have a solution that impacts property value & fire inspections x Home maintenance regulation & inspections Other x Review Ferrinni agreement x Implement BP Emergency Access Alternatives study Prompt #3: What other solutions or enhancements should be considering as we evaluate the health and safety of this area? Education x Multiple no smoking signs x Notes on cars for no night hiking x Rental agency lease education on housing and fire x More fire danger signs x Signs for trail use by horses x Enforcement to stay on trails and not veer off x Citizen and rangers work together more x Take advantage of Mr. Felton’s wisdom Cleanup x PG&E to haul away what they cut down x Highland St vegetation reduction x Neighborhood work/clean-up day x Goats for weed abatement x Know your neighbors for help during and to prevent emergencies Access x Temporary closure of the trails x Temporary red curb of all Highland and Patricia until solution is completed x Close Highland trail but allow case by case access for disabled people x Gate knox box keys kept serviced x Limit number of BP users x Use Hwy 1 for parking Neighborhood Meeting Feedback Bishop Peak Fire Safety - 9.19.16 Prompt #2: What possible solutions should be considered to enhance fire truck/fire personnel access to the area at the same time as residents are evacuating from the area? Access x Fire access from a different route x Alternative route off Patricia/ new road installed x Use Hwy 1 access for fires x All weather access on Hwy 1 x No parking on Patricia from Foothill to Highland x Do not move a problem from one spot to another Other x Police assistance x Good information with evaluation plans x Register phones to receive notifications **Reference to existing City requirements (ordinances, policies, etc.) is in reference to enforcing said requirements rather than establishing new requirements. Packet Pg. 351
Community Meeting Feedback
Bishop Peak Fire Safety - 9.27.16
Parking
Don’t allow parking
on Highland or
Oakridge, both sides
of both streets
The same parking
treatment should be
applied to Oakridge
and Highland (red
strip both sides)
Residents may
consider a parking
district
Residents to consider
feasibility of parking
district for residential
side (east side) of
Patricia near the
Patricia Trailhead
Don’t construct a
parking lot at the
pond
Access and Use
Evaluate traffic
calming on Patricia
Close the Highland
Trailhead
Improve “no access”
signage / info at
Oakridge
Establish a
“reasonable use”
level for hikers on
Bishop (meter the
number of hikers to
prevent “over loving”)
Look at traffic counts
on surrounding roads
Clean Up
Improve trailhead
maintenance and
pick-up
Education
Focus on social and
behavioral education
but leave the
Highland Trailhead
open
Access for
Firefighting
Do not cut a road in
the meadow above
the Patricia Trailhead
Make sure there is a
functional Fire access
on the current road
from the Patricia
Trailhead
Confirm existence of
current easements
and explore more
options for increased
Fire access
Other
Evaluate persons
with special
transportation needs
for evacuation (“shut
ins”)
Prop 64 may make
this worse if some
choose to climb the
peak to get high
Observation: the
design of Highland
was never intended
to service an active
trailhead
**Reference to existing City requirements (ordinances, policies, etc.) is in reference
to enforcing said requirements rather than establishing new requirements.
Packet Pg. 36
1
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of December 6, 2016, 2:56 PM
Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is
voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of
any government agency or elected officials.
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of December 6, 2016, 2:56 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3949
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Fire Safety
What can be done to address fire risk and evacuation in areas adjacent to Bishop Peak?
Packet Pg. 37
1
As of December 6, 2016, 2:56 PM, this forum had:
Attendees: 57
Registered Statements: 7
All Statements: 9
Minutes of Public Comment: 27
This topic started on September 9, 2016, 4:27 PM.
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of December 6, 2016, 2:56 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3949 Page 2 of 5
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Fire Safety
What can be done to address fire risk and evacuation in areas adjacent to Bishop Peak?
Packet Pg. 38
1
Tim Jouet inside Neighborhood 6 November 22, 2016, 8:53 PM
install 24 hour parking meters in the neighborhood to offset any potential costs and to discourage the
overcrowding of the streets! Residents should all have ample off-street parking already available, and crowds of
people driving to these areas should have to pay the city as well (they sure are paying for the vehicles and
gasoline, so why not the city whose property they are accessing?). The insane priority we give to private vehicle
ownership/use is the real root of these types of problems.
Larry Parker inside Neighborhood 7 October 24, 2016, 6:34 PM
Clearly post trail rules at trailheads, with associated fines in large font. Fines should be commensurate with the
risks associated with violations. For example, the fine for smoking should be magnitudes higher than a leash
violation.
Violators should be held accountable. For example if someone causes a wildfire, they should be charged for
damages and costs associated with fighting the fire. Similarly, off-trail climbers who require a rescue should be
charged for the rescue costs.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 September 21, 2016, 2:56 PM
I think we should have no parking on Highland Drive above the Oakridge intersection due to fire hazard.
Robert Duncan inside Neighborhood 1 September 21, 2016, 11:09 AM
I think most of the emergency access problem comes from the saturation of parking during peak use periods of
the trail head. During non-peak use periods, most of the street parking below the top 100 yards or so is
sparsely occupied. My thinking is that the problem would be largely solved if we focus on this saturation
parking, perhaps as follows:
1. During known high usage periods, the Highland trailhead should be closed and hikers diverted to one of the
alternate trailheads - Patricia or Foothill.
2. Build a parking lot near the Highland (and/or Patricia) trailhead. Even a small parking lot accommodating 8
cars would significantly relieve parking on Highland during most (non high use) days.
High usage periods should include Labor day, Memorial day, Independence day, the Cal Poly move-in week,
and the week during the Cal Poly graduation / move-out. On these days/weeks, Highland Drive is lined with
parked cars all the way down to the school, and has an extremely high level of both pedestrian and vehicle
traffic, hampering the use of emergency vehicles at the very time when it is most likely needed. During such
closures, clear attention grabbing signage should be presented at the bottom of the hill, making the switch
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Fire Safety
What can be done to address fire risk and evacuation in areas adjacent to Bishop Peak?
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of December 6, 2016, 2:56 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3949 Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 39
1
convenient for hikers, reducing unnecessary traffic, and increasing compliance.
The Highland trailhead was closed this year during the Cal Poly move-in week. Please pay close attention to
lingering effects this will have on trailhead usage. I suspect that the effects will persist beyond the closure
period, because many first time hikers will continue to use the Patricia trailhead, having become familiar with it,
rather than Highland. This is significant because the Patricia trailhead doesn't have the problems of access and
parking found on Highland.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 September 18, 2016, 8:09 AM
1. Involve the City's Natural Resources Department
2. Make Dispatch plans that include high value natural resources, areas to let burn, areas of full suppression,
areas of no equipment (fragile soils, etc) that are only fought by hand, etc.
3. Bill for search and rescue - do not add any roads or LZs
4. In the high fire neighborhoods, enforce strict roof and siding requirements. Also, defensible space clearing.
Prohibit planting highly flammable plants in yards.
5. Enforce NO SMOKING on Bishop Peak
6. Add City's Natural Resources staff to Dispatch list to area fires as Natural Resources Advisors (all City Open
Spaces)
7. Make sure that the city, county and state all have dispatch information on Bishop Peak area, and that it is
kept up to date
8.Have tow trucks on call to rapidly remove vehicles that are in the way
9. Post signs in area, High Fire Risk Area, Evacuation Route, etc
Gail Karacsony inside Neighborhood 1 September 17, 2016, 3:51 PM
After the recent rescue and evacuation of an injured hiker from Bishop Peak Saturday, September 10th, my
husband and I began to wonder about the associated costs of such operations which appear to be occurring
more and more frequently since we have been living in the Bishop Peak vicinity from 1992 to the present.
Who bears the brunt of these costs; in particular, the helicopter, pilot, deployment of multiple fire trucks,
emergency vehicles, ambulances with accompanying operators/staff, police, medical costs, etc.? We would
appreciate any and all specific details as to who pays for such rescues (presumably in our taxes and portion
thereof), but, more importantly, who should be held accountable/responsible/liable for such costly operations
given the increasing traffic?
Gail & Peter Karacsony
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 September 12, 2016, 3:44 PM
As an owner on Highland Drive, we appreciate the efforts to review this area with regard to fire safety. In terms
of ability to get fire equipment on Highland Drive and Oakridge Drive, a possible solution would be to limit
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Fire Safety
What can be done to address fire risk and evacuation in areas adjacent to Bishop Peak?
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of December 6, 2016, 2:56 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3949 Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 40
1
parking to only one side of these streets. It would be difficult to take land to widen these streets due to the
steep nature of many of these lots and their driveways.
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Fire Safety
What can be done to address fire risk and evacuation in areas adjacent to Bishop Peak?
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of December 6, 2016, 2:56 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3949 Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 41
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 42
1
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Mayor Heidi Harmon and Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire
Prepared by: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
SUBJECT: COUNCIL LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2017
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments for calendar year 2017 as outlined in the 2017
Subcommittee Worksheet (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
Council Policies and Procedures and the Advisory Body Handbook prescribe the method of
Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments:
The Mayor and Vice Mayor shall submit recommendations to the full Council rotating
nominations for Council Member Subcommittees, thereby ensuring an opportunity for
each member to serve as liaison at least once on each advisory body, when possible.
When terms of office do not allow each member to serve once, members with greatest
seniority shall have first right of selection. (CP&P 6.1, ABH III, C, 6)
As in past years, automatic rotation for all technical and regional committees is not being
recommended. The recommended appointments allow for continuity where appropriate as well
as permitting Council Members to develop a higher level of expertise for some of the more
complex committees.
Mayor Harmon and Vice Mayor Rivoire met on December 22nd to review Council Member
preferences for serving on liaison subcommittees and regional committees. The recommended
assignments are set forth in the attached worksheets (Attachments A and B). It should be noted
that there is a new San Luis Obispo Committee – the County Regional Water Management
Group (RWMG). It is recommended that the Council Member and alternate that serves this
committee be the same individual who serves on the County Water Resources Advisory
Committee (WRAC).
As a reminder, in September 2014, the Economic Vitality Corporation amended its bylaws to
remove public sector members from the Board of Directors. Instead, the public sector members
became Public Sector Liaison Representatives, with no voting rights. Pursuant to this change in
status, the Economic Vitality Corporation is listed as a special purpose committee and the
Council’s representative and alternate will serve only in a liaison capacity.
Attachments:
a - 2017 Subcommittee Worksheet
b - 2017 Council Subcommittee Assignments
Packet Pg. 43
3
COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2017City Advisory BodiesInterview/Rec. Appointment/Facilitate Comm.CHAIR MEMBER CHAIR MEMBER CHAIR MEMBER CHAIRMEMBER CHAIRMEMBER CHAIRMEMBER CHAIRMEMBER CHAIRMEMBER CHAIRMEMBERAdministrative Review BoardChristianson Carpenter2222323332Aaron CarlynArchitectural Review CommissionCarpenter Ashbaugh Marx Rivoire Rivoire Ashbaugh1111211223Carlyn AndyBicycle CommitteeCarpenter Smith Rivoire Christianson Rivoire Ashbaugh2222211212Andy AaronConstruction Board of AppealsCarpenter Smith Christianson Carpenter Ashbaugh Christianson2222113332Carlyn AndyCultural Heritage CommitteeAshbaugh Carpenter Rivoire Marx Ashbaugh Carpenter3322323332Aaron AndyHousing Authority (Mayor by state mandate)Mayor Marx Mayor Marx Mayor MarxMayorHarmonMayorHarmonHuman Relations CommissionSmith Ashbaugh Ashbaugh Rivoire Carpenter Rivoire2222322332Heidi DanInvestment Oversight Committee(This is not an advisory committee) Marx Marx Marx33331HeidiJack House CommitteeCarpenter Ashbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Christianson Ashbaugh3333213332Andy DanMass Transportation CommitteeSmith Christianson Rivoire Carpenter Rivoire Christianson3322212312Andy AaronParks & Recreation CommissionAshbaugh Christianson Ashbaugh Rivoire Rivoire Marx2211323332Aaron DanPersonnel BoardCarpenter Christianson Carpenter Christianson Carpenter Rivoire3322333332Heidi AaronPlanning CommissionSmith Marx Ashbaugh Christianson Christianson Rivoire1122211232Carlyn DanPromotional Coordinating CommitteeCarpenter Carpenter Rivoire Carpenter Ashbaugh Rivoire2233322323Carlyn DanRevenue Enhancement Oversight CommissionAshbaugh Christianson2222212332Andy CarlynTourism Business Improvement District BoardSmith Carpenter Christianson Carpenter Carpenter Rivoire2211322322Aaron DanTree CommitteeAshbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Christianson2222222332Carlyn Dan#1 - My Preference to Serve #2 - I am willing to serve #3 - I prefer not to serveRecommendation2016Heidi HarmonCarlyn Christianson2014Aaron Gomez Andy Pease2015Dan RivoirePage 1 of 3Packet Pg. 443
COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2017COUNTY/REGIONALServes as voting representative2014REPALTREPALTREPALT REPALT REPALT REPALT REPALT REPALT REPALTAir Pollution Control District (APCD) Marx Christianson Marx Rivoire Marx Rivoire1122122112Heidi CarlynCity Selection Committee (Mayor / V. Mayor Alternate) Marx Christianson Marx Christianson Marx CarpenterViceMayorRivoireMayorHarmonMayorHarmonViceMayorRivoireCMC Citizens Advisory Committee*2 year term ends 12/04 Smith Carpenter Rivoire Ashbaugh3333223312Heidi AndyCommunity Action Partnership Christianson Ashbaugh Christianson Rivoire Christianson Ashbaugh2222123312Andy HeidiCounty Water Resources Adv. Committee (Board of Supervisors ratifies) Ashbaugh Smith Ashbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Carpenter3322113323Andy AaronCounty Regional Water Management Group (RWMG)3322113323Andy AaronHomeless Services Oversight Committee (HSOC) Ashbaugh Christianson Ashbaugh Rivoire Ashbaugh Marx3322223312Heidi AaronIntegrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) Ashbaugh Smith Ashbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Rivoire2212123332Aaron CarlynLAFCO (Liaison only)Christianson Ashbaugh Christianson Rivoire Christianson Carpenter1122223332Carlyn AaronNacimiento Water ProjectSmithMarxChristianson Christianson Carpenter Christianson Carpenter1122113323Carlyn AndyPerforming Arts Center Commission(Mayor / V. Mayor Alternate) Mayor MarxVice Mayor Smith Mayor MarxVice Mayor Christianson Mayor MarxVice Mayor CarpenterViceMayorRivoireMayorHarmonMayorHarmonViceMayorRivoirePerforming Arts Center Commission(City Manager / Assist. City Manager Alternate)LichtigCodron LichtigCodron LichtigJohnsonLichtigJohnsonPAC Facilities Standing Committee (Quarterly) CarpenterPrincipalAnalyst Ashbaugh Principal Analyst AshbaughPrincipalAnalyst32232AaronPrincipalAnalystSan Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Same Council Rep. as SLORTA Marx Christianson Marx Christianson Marx Christianson2222221221Dan CarlynSan Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) Same Council Rep. as SLOCOG Marx Christianson Marx Christianson Marx Christianson2222221221Dan CarlynWhale Rock Commission (Mayor / V. Mayor Alternate) Mayor MarxVice Mayor Smith Mayor MarxVice Mayor Christianson Marx CarpenterViceMayorRivoireMayorHarmonMayorHarmonViceMayorRivoireZone 9 Advisory CommitteeAshbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Christianson Ashbaugh Christianson3322123332Andy AaronVisitSLOCountyAdv.Com.(Mayor/V.MayorAlt.)Marx CarpenterViceMayorRivoireMayorHarmonMayorHarmonViceMayorRivoireVisitSLOCountyAdv.Com.(CM/Asst.CM)Lichtig JohnsonLichtig Johnson2016#1 - My Preference to Serve #2 - I am willing to serve #3 - I prefer not to serveRecommendationAaron GomezCarlyn Christianson2015Heidi HarmonAndy Pease Dan RivoirePage 2 of 3Packet Pg. 453
COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2017SPECIAL PURPOSE SUBCOMMITTEESServes as liaison representativeMEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALTCal Poly Campus Planning Committee(Quarterly) Ashbaugh Johnson Ashbaugh N/A Marx N/A22112DanCity/University(Quarterly, Mayor / Rotation)Mayor Marx Rotation Mayor Marx Rotation Mayor Marx RotationMayorHarmonMayorHarmon RotationDowntown Association Board(Monthly) Christianson Smtih Christianson Rivoire Carpenter Rivoire2211222112Aaron HeidiEconomic Vitality Corporation (EVC)Carpenter Ashbaugh Ashbaugh Carpenter Carpenter Ashbaugh3311112112Andy AaronStudent Community Liaison Committee(Monthly, Mayor / Rotation) Mayor Marx Rotation Mayor Marx Rotation Marx RotationMayorHarmonMayorHarmon RotationAD HOC SUBCOMMITTEESAppointed by Council for a limited purposeMEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBERAirport Land Use Council SubcommitteeMarx Christianson Marx Christianson Marx Christianson1122332123Carlyn DanCommunity Choice Aggregation Exploration Advisory CommitteeAshbaugh Christianson RivoireChristianson(Alternate) Rivoire Christianson3311112112Heidi Andy* Indicates that Rep and Alt serve on both CommitteesMy Preference to ServeI am Willing to ServeI Prefer not to serve20162016#1 - My Preference to Serve #2 - I am willing to serve #3 - I prefer not to serveDan RivoireRecommendationRecommendationCarlyn ChristiansonHeidi HarmonAaron Gomez Andy PeaseAaron Gomez Andy Pease Heidi HarmonDan Rivoire2014 20152014 2015Carlyn ChristiansonPage 3 of 3Packet Pg. 463
RepresentativeAlternateRepresentativeAlternateRepresentativeAlternateRepresentativeAlternateRepresentativeAlternateHACAPSLOCOGHRCARCARBARBBCBCARCHRCDABSLORTAJHCCBOAREOCCHCMTCJHCCBOAIOCCPC PCPRCPCAPCDPRCPBMTCCHCPBPCPCCIWMATBIDCWRACREOCCMC CACAPCDPCCTCSLOCOGIWMACRWMGCAPNWPCSCTBIDLAFCOSLORTALAFCOHSOCCWRACCCAEACCMC CACTCNWPPAC FSCZone 9CRWMGHSOCCSCALUCSDABEVCZone 9PACCPACCEVCWRCWRCVSLO CACVSLO CACC/UALUCSSCLCCCA EACAdministrative Review Board (ARB)Air Pollution Control District (APCD)Cal Poly Campus Planning Committee (CPCPC)Airport Land Use Council Subcommittee (ALUCS)Architectural Review Commission (ARC)City Selection Committee (CSC)City/University (C/U)Community Choice Aggregation Exploration Advisory Committee (CCA EAC)Bicycle Committee (BC)CMC Citizens Advisory Committee (CMC CAC)Downtown Association Board (DBA)Construction Board of Appeals(CBOA)Community Action Partnership (CAP)Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC)County Water Resources Advisory Committee (CWRAC)Mayor's Advisory body Quarterly MeetingCultural Heritage Committee (CHC)County Regional Water ManagementGroup (RWMG)Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC)Housing Authority (HA)Homeless Services Oversight Committee (HSOC)Human Relations Commission (HRC)Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)Investment Oversight Committee (IOC)Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)Jack House Committee (JHC)Nacimeiento Water Project (NWP)Mass Transportation Committee(MTC)Performing Arts Center Commission (PACC)Parks & Recreation Committee (PRC)Performing Arts Center Facilities Standing Committee (PACFSC)Personnel Board (PB)San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)Planning Commission (PC)San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA)Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC)Visit SLO County Advisory Committee (VSLOCAC)Tourism Business Improvement District Board (TBID)Whale Rock Commission (WRAC)Tree Committee (TC)Zone 9 Advisory Committee (Zone 9 AC)2017 Council Sucommittee AssignmentsMayor HarmonVice Mayor RivoireCouncil Member ChristiansonCouncil Member GomezCouncil Member PeasePacket Pg. 473
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 48
3
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities
Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS – WATER AND WASTEWATER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications to provide Water and Wastewater Engineering
Services, Specification No. 91537 and authorize staff to advertise the Request for
Qualifications; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend Purchase Orders for individual
consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized project budget.
DISCUSSION
The City has used an on-call service approach for many years to assist with implementing
priorities for operating, maintaining and improving its water and wastewater infrastructure.
Consultants on the current on-call list have also been used to conduct specialized studies and
investigations such as water tank inspections, water modelling, feasibility studies, energy
analyses, and specialized engineering work. Identifying a list of prequalified on -call service
consultants that provide engineering services specializing in water and wastewater issues and
infrastructure will enable the Utilities Department to complete project delivery expectations. The
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) generally draws local consulting firms. Consultants remain
under contract for two years, and may be extended by mutual consent for an additional year.
The RFQ model is used to identify the skill set of the consultants submitting qualifications and
determine whether those skills align with the type of specialized water and wastewater work
anticipated by the Utilities Department. This is in contrast to a Request for Proposals (RFP)
model, which is project specific. After evaluating the RFQ submittal packages, top consultants in
each specialized area will be selected to enter into an agreement with the City. Consultant
selection will be based on the consultant’s demonstrated ability to provide engineering services
specializing in water and wastewater, in a timely manner, with qualified staff. Once the selected
consultants enter into an agreement with the City, their services on an individual project are
implemented rapidly, without the need for an individual RFP.
The consultants will operate under the conditions of the agreement included in the RFQ.
Individual projects will be scoped by the Utilities Department. The project manager will work
with the consultant to determine the final cost for engineering services. The specific project work
will then be authorized via a Purchase Order through the Finance Department, referencing the
signed agreement for the terms and conditions.
Packet Pg. 49
5
FISCAL IMPACT
The use of a competitive RFQ process to create an on-call services list streamlines the
procurement process, saving staff and Council time and saving potential consultants the time and
money it takes to propose on multiple individual projects. The RFQ process results in a list of
pre-qualified consultants that can be called upon to perform specialized work on an as needed
basis. Purchase orders authorize consultant project work under specific scopes of work within
City Council-authorized project budgets. RFPs would continue to be issued on a case-by-case
basis when specialized skills are needed that are not available through on-call contracts.
ALTERNATIVE
Individual Project RFPs. Council may desire to discontinue the use of on-call services for water
and wastewater projects. Should Council choose this alternative, individual project Requests for
Proposals would be issued for each project. Individual RFPs would come to City Council for
approval. This approach would lengthen project timelines and cost.
Attachments:
a - 2017 Water Wastewater Engineering RFQ
Packet Pg. 50
5
Notice Requesting Qualifications for
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services
Specification No. 91537
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting qualification proposals from interested consultants to
provide for Water and Wastewater Engineering Services pursuant to Specification No. 91537.
The City proposes to select several qualified consultants to perform these services on an as-
needed basis for specific individual projects for a contract term of approximately two years, and
may be extended by mutual consent for an additional year.
Description of Services
In general, needed services consist of various engineering activities related to the City’s rate and
fee studies, fund analyses, cost allocation, operation, maintenance and capital improvement
programs for its water and wastewater infrastructure. Selected Consultants will prepare high-
quality reports, technical studies, construction plans and specifications, schedules, and other
engineering services in accordance with City requirements and standards.
Qualification Proposal Deadline
All qualification proposal must be received by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department at
955 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 by 2:00 P.M. on February 9, 2017. Submittals
received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each
qualification proposal shall be submitted to the Utilities Department in a sealed envelope plainly
marked with the following:
RFQ title
Specification number
Consultant name
Time and date of the opening
Qualification proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Doing Business / Bids & Proposals page.
Pick up a copy of the RFQ at the above address
A list of companies that have requested a copy of the RFQ is maintained on the web page.
Questions
Contact Jennifer Metz at (805) 781-7239 or jmetz@slocity.org with any questions regarding this
Request for Qualifications.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in
the performance of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
Packet Pg. 51
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 2 of 25
Specification No. 91537
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ....................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 5
SECTION C
QUALIFICATION CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS .............................................................. 7
QUALIFICATION CONTENT ................................................................................................... 7
QUALIFICATION EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION ....................................... 7
SECTION D
FORM OF AGREEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 9
SECTION E
SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................... 19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 19
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................. 19
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................... 20
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 20
SECTION F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ...................................................................... 23
SECTION G
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 25
APPENDIX 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms .................................................................. 25
Packet Pg. 52
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 3 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Utilities Department is looking for consultants interested in providing
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services necessary to operate, maintain and improve its
water and wastewater infrastructure.
Background
The City is requesting qualifications from qualified consultants to provide Water and Wastewater
Engineering Services. The City is interested in generating a list of qualified consultants
specializing in this type of work to draw from as needed to supplement existing staff expertise.
While the exact list of the City’s future Water and Wastewater Engineering Services is unknown
at this time, consultants should expect these services will be required to help facilitate the City’s
water, wastewater, and Whale Rock enterprise funds operations, maintenance and capital
improvement plan work. The City’s existing Capital Improvement Plan may be found on the City’s
website:
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7563
Staff anticipates that the City’s water, wastewater, and Whale Rock 2017-19 Capital Improvement
Plan will be similar in variety and scope to the 2015-17 Plan. The successful consultants will be
expected to perform the types of services outlined in this request.
Work Scope – Water and Wastewater Engineering Services
The consultant(s) selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to deliver a high
quality projects or work items consistent with current policies and procedures. Necessary work
may include studies, investigations, design, plan review, surveying, schedules, modeling, or other
engineering analysis, construction management services, or reports to support development of
project plans, specifications or work programs. The City encourages engineering firms that
specialize in specific services such as water, wastewater, energy or separate, but applicable,
technical fields, to submit qualifications as specialty engineering services. The City may, at its
sole discretion, add specialty service categories to the Engineering Services on call list.
The outline below is meant to clarify the consultant’s role, but not be an all-inclusive list of every
task needed to achieve the work product. A City staff person will be assigned as your contact for
each individual project.
1. Attend scoping meeting with project proponent.
2. Submit a detailed work scope including:
a. list of key work items
b. schedule which includes required turn-around times for City staff input and
products
c. list of any sub-consultants needed for the work
d. cost proposal which is subject to negotiation
Packet Pg. 53
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 4 of 25
Specification No. 91537
3. Obtain information by:
a. completing research of City archives of record drawings,
b. contacting affected utility companies,
c. performing facility investigation,
d. researching code requirements
e. any other record searches required to complete the work.
4. Complete preliminary reports or studies, if required in the project scope.
5. Engage in public review process as required in the work scope.
6. Prepare and submit initial 50%, 90%, and 100% documents (such as plans, specifications,
schedules, and construction estimates), or at other defined intervals, for City review and
comment. Address comments.
7. If applicable, submit plans to the Building Division for building permits, addressing
comments and resubmitting as needed.
8. Prepare and submit completed approved bid package including plans, specifications,
schedule and construction estimates signed and stamped by the professional of record.
9. Receive red line plans after construction work is complete and prepare record plans and
submit to City.
10. Review, analyze and provide comments on draft documents (such as but not limited to:
studies, investigations, surveying, modeling, plans, specifications, schedules, construction
estimates, Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposal (RFP), and change orders)
for City review and comment.
11. Plans must be completed using AutoCAD software and compliant with City Engineering
Standards Appendix F, including:
a. borders
b. layer name
c. layer color
d. layer line weight
City Staff will typically complete, or manage through others, the following items:
1. Obtain the environmental document.
2. Pay all permit fees.
3. Obtain permits for creek-related work from regulatory agencies.
4. Complete staff reports for approval.
5. Advertise and award construction contracts.
6. Provide construction management.
This work may be assigned to the consultant depending upon consultant’s capabilities, available
City staffing and available funding.
Packet Pg. 54
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 5 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting qualifications
(Consultant) shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
specifications package. By virtue of its submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement
with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFQ specifications.
2. Qualification Proposals. Each qualification proposal must be made on the form(s) provided
in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental
materials. Qualification proposals shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and
addressed to the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department, 955 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, CA, 93401. Each qualification proposal shall include one electronic copy of the
material in Adobe Acrobat format on Universal Serial Bus (USB) Flash Drive. In order to guard
against premature opening, the qualification proposal should be clearly labeled with the title,
specification number, name of Consultant, and date and time of opening. No FAX submittals
will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each qualification 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 Consultant’s
insurance coverage during submittal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 13 below,
endorsements are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are
detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and
references on the form provided in Section E of these specifications.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding
any past government disqualifications on the form provided in Section E of these
specifications.
6. Qualification Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its
qualification proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the opening, by
submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal, in which event the submittal
will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No submittal received after the time specified or
at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Qualifications" will be considered.
All submittals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are
invited to be present at the opening of the qualification proposals.
7. 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.
Packet Pg. 55
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 6 of 25
Specification No. 91537
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
8. Qualification Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all
qualification proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also
reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in any qualification proposal, to reject
any or all qualification proposals, to reject or delete one part of a qualification proposal and
accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See
the "Special Terms and Conditions" in of these specifications for evaluation and contract
award criteria.
9. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to
determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants.
Consultants will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to
make such a decision.
10. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) 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 qualification proposal. The contract shall be
made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
11. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form,
coverages and amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar
days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
12. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo
business license and tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information
regarding the City's business license and tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-
7134.
13. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is
made (Consultant) 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 Consultant's bond or
security is required; and an award may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with
whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were
the party to whom the first award was made.
Packet Pg. 56
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 7 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Section C
QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing Water and Wastewater Engineering Services for
government clients and facilities, any other qualifications or specialties which you make
your firm well-suited in assisting the City in engineering work other similar activities.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing Water and Wastewater
Engineering Services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work.
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a
project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff.
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of
completing the assigned Water and Wastewater Engineering Services on schedule.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City.
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Qualification Proposal Length and Copies
a. Qualification proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information.
Charts and other short form approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. Six copies of the qualification proposal must be submitted.
c. One PDF format electronic copy must be submitted on a USB Flash Drive.
QUALIFICATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Qualification proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as
follows:
Packet Pg. 57
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 8 of 25
Specification No. 91537
5. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the qualification proposals will be based on the following:
1. Understanding of the desired Water and Wastewater Engineering Services.
2. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff.
3. Recent experience in successfully performing similar Water and Wastewater
Engineering Services.
4. Ability to respond quickly to work requests.
Qualification proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance
with the above criteria. Where one or more qualification proposals are rated consistently
higher than others, the consultants may be selected as the top ranked consultants for
purposes of contract negotiation.
Alternatively, a group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) may be
selected for follow-up interviews and presentations, or requests for additional clarifying
information, before the final top ranked consultants for contract negotiation are determined.
6. Qualification Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for qualification proposal review and
contract award:
Issue RFQ ........................................... January 4, 2017
Receive qualification proposals .......... February 9, 2017
Complete evaluation ......................... February 24, 2017
Award contract ..................................... March 13, 2017
Packet Pg. 58
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 9 of 25
Specification No. 91537
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 [CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to
as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2017, the City requested qualification proposals for Water and
Wastewater Engineering Services per Specification No. 91537.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted
by City for said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,
as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The Water and Wastewater Engineering
Services identified in this specification will be used by the City between March 2017 and March
2019.
3. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the
contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended
period, labor rates may be increased to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each
one-year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified of the increases in advance. Rates
may be increased to reflect actual cost increases up to a percentage equal to the percentage
increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the
previous year to March in the year of adjustment upon request of Contractor.
4. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes,
fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the
time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be
agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant
such extensions prior to the 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.
5. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant
Packet Pg. 59
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 10 of 25
Specification No. 91537
in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days
specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may
terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Consultant to said effect.
Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights
under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Consultant's surety shall
remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived
by the termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice
of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from
such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last
milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as may be set forth
in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods
performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall work scope.
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 Consultant be entitled
to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract for convenience, providing a 30
(thirty) calendar day notice, at any time upon a determination by the Director that termination
of the contract is in the best interest of the City. In this case the Consultant will be paid
compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
6. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to
carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal,
state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
7. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be
subcontracted without written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly
identified in the Consultant’s qualification proposal. Any substitution of sub-consultants must
be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in excess of $25,000, the
subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
8. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise
dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to
any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
9. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not
relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
Packet Pg. 60
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 11 of 25
Specification No. 91537
10. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws
and regulations as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants
shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence
pertaining to the performance of the contract, including but not limited to the cost of
administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their respective offices at all
reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment
under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting
and/or auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include
authorized representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if
requested.
11. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other
relationship with the City that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project. The Consultant shall also list current clients who may have
a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project
which will follow. The Consultant staff shall provide a Conflict of Interest Statement where
determined necessary by the City.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—
direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance
of the work hereunder. The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work,
no sub-consultant or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Consultant
certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an
officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the
work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant and
not an agent or employee of the City.
12. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this
contract was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful
consideration, either promised or paid to any City employee. For breach or violation of the
warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to terminate the contract without liability;
to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from the contract price; or
otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
13. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract
that no person or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this
contract upon an agreement or understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or
contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling
agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing business. For breach or
violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability; pay only
for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract
price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee.
14. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City
of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the
work. This includes compliance with prevailing wage rates and their payment in accordance
with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph, “construction” includes work
performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including but not
limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
Packet Pg. 61
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 12 of 25
Specification No. 91537
15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Consultant is required to pay.
16. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses,
pay all charges and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the
Consultant’s work. The City will pay all application fees for permits required for the completion
of the project including building and regulatory permit application fees. Consultant will provide
a 10-day notice for the City to issue a check.
17. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to
safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
18. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City,
furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other
devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or
damage or injury to the public and employees.
19. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged resulting from the Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as
when the Consultant began work.
20. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws
shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
21. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work,
the Consultant agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-consultants as it may
employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by
State or Federal law.
22. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be
accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact.
Consultants are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the
specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results
contained in the specifications package. In preparing its qualification proposal, the Consultant
and all sub-consultants named shall bear sole responsibility for preparation errors resulting
from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been
ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession.
Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law,
any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to submittal
of the qualification proposal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to
be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is
of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its
part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore,
failure of the Consultant or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or
Packet Pg. 62
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 13 of 25
Specification No. 91537
ambiguities prior to submittal of the qualification proposal shall waive any right to assert said
defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the qualification proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not
be liable for costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or
standard beyond the amounts provided therefor in the qualification 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 specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant
shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall
continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material,
minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional
compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written
notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to
the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or
ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
Packet Pg. 63
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 14 of 25
Specification No. 91537
23. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the
Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all
of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and
all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost
which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful
misconduct of the Consultant.
24. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this
RFQ from other consultants during the contract term.
25. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall
be used.
26. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and
signed by the Consultant where required.
27. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide
documents addressing all elements of the work scope. Plans shall be prepared using City’s
standardized title blocks and coversheets. Draft plans may be submitted for review using
either the full D (24 x 36) format or a reduced 11 x 17 format. Consultant shall ensure that
drawings and notes are clearly legible if using the reduced format. Specifications and bid
documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. The City’s current
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where
necessary, the Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed
appropriate. Submittals shall include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the
Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes shall be made as requested or a notation
made as to why the change is not appropriate.
2 copies of the draft preliminary reports, technical studies and 50% plans and estimate
1 copy of the final preliminary reports, technical studies plus markups
2 copies of the 90% plans, specifications and estimate plus 50% markups
1 copy of the 100% plans, specifications and estimate plus 90% markups
1 copy of the final plans, specifications and estimates plus 100% markups
1 copy of the final record drawings after construction
Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies or electronic files as
determined by the City’s Project Manager.
Final documents shall be submitted as camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on
only one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for
reproduction AND one electronic copy submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all original
stamps and signatures.
In the event the City will be compiling the final specifications, incorporating the Consultant’s
work, the final specifications will also be required to be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
In the event the City will be completing the Record Drawings, the final plans will also be
required to be submitted in AutoCAD
Packet Pg. 64
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 15 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Electronic files shall be submitted on a USB Flash Drive and all files must be compatible with
the Microsoft operating system.
28. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title
to all reports, documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract
will automatically be vested in the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer
ownership to the City. The Consultant shall furnish the City all necessary copies of data
needed to complete the review and approval process.
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard
copy or machine readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project
for which this contract has been entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
the modification, or misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided
by the Consultant under this agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims,
liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with any use by City of the project
documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing by the
Consultant.
29. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given
to, prepared by or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these
specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual
or organization by the Consultant without the prior written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature,
whatsoever, regarding work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior
review of the contents thereof by the City and receipt of the City’s written permission.
30. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports,
drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required
to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the
Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate
the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense.
31. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the work scope and included in the
contract price is attendance by the Consultant at up to one public meeting to present and
discuss its findings and recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working"
meetings with staff as necessary in performing work scope tasks.
32. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or
contractor RFI’s within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City.
33. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon completion of the project scoping meeting, the Consultant
shall submit a proposed work scope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The
cost proposal shall include all costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
34. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by
project work phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a
breakdown of hours billed and miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices,
similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
Packet Pg. 65
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 16 of 25
Specification No. 91537
35. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant
shall receive therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the individual agreed upon
project fee. Should the Consultant’s designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or
deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required to correct them at no increase in cost to the City.
For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as
agreed to on a project by project basis.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this
agreement. Hourly rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In
addition, the Consultant shall be reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost
that have been identified and are attached to this agreement. The Consultant’s personnel
shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that currently authorized
for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
36. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the
City of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or
services provided by the Consultant (Net 30).
37. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising
under this contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee
consisting of the City’s Project Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may
consider written or verbal information submitted by the Consultant. Not later than thirty days
after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans, specifications and
estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the
Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not
disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than
30 days after issuance of the final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the
City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review must be
submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant
from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
38. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Use for Federally Funded Projects. This
agreement is subject to Title 49, Part 26 Code of Federal Regulations entitled “Participation
by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance
Programs” when project work is for a federally funded project. In order to ensure the State
Department of Transportation achieves its federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal,
the City encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 CFR 26 in the performance of
this agreement. The City will make a determination on a project by project basis for reasonably
expected DBE participation to compete for the sub-consulting opportunities in this agreement.
The Consultant is responsible to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part
26
The Consultant shall notify the City of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation on
federally funded projects, maintain records of DBE usage and complete and submit to the City
Packet Pg. 66
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 17 of 25
Specification No. 91537
the final report of DBE utilization prior to receiving final payment. Records shall show the name
and business address of each DBE and the total dollar amount actually paid to each.
The Consultant shall pay all sub-consultants within 10 calendar days from receipt of each
payment made to the Consultant by the City.
The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49 CFR 26 in the award and
administration of US DOT assisted agreements. Failure by the Consultant to carry out these
requirements is a material breach of this agreement, which may result in the termination of
this agreement or such other remedy as the City deems appropriate.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid
by registered or certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Qualifications Specification No. 91537 and
Consultant's qualification proposal dated _________, are hereby incorporated in and made a
part of this Agreement.
41. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Engineer.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do
work by persons other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the
work is outside of the scope of the original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project
Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and Consultant both agree that the work is
outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful completion of the project, then
a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates or a lump
sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at
Consultant's own expense.
43. 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. For and in consideration
of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City,
Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said specification
and incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual
executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
execute Agreements for such party.
Packet Pg. 67
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 18 of 25
Specification No. 91537
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
__________________________________
_
Name of Company
By:
__________________________________
_
Katie Lichtig, City Manager Name of CAO/President
Its: CAO/President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
_
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 68
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 19 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Section E
SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 91537
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this qualification proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
Packet Pg. 69
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 20 of 25
Specification No. 91537
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary
interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or
completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety
regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays,
or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________at
_______________________________________under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State
of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications
under the present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to
provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if
required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional
information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Packet Pg. 70
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 21 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Project Outcome
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Packet Pg. 71
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 22 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Project Outcome
Packet Pg. 72
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 23 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against
claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees
or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10
Prior to 1993 or CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined
by the City).
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. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or
eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers; or the Consultant 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
Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the
Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, em ployees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is
made or 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
Packet Pg. 73
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 24 of 25
Specification No. 91537
after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been
given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify the City in the event that the policy is
suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30 days prior written notice
by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's
rating of no less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability
and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The
endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences.
Packet Pg. 74
5
Water and Wastewater Engineering Services Page 25 of 25
Specification No. 91537
Section G
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual requires the Consultant and the City to complete
reporting forms for Federally Funded Contracts on a project-by-project basis.
At the time of federal project initiation, the Consultant will be required to furnish information to the
City in order for the City to complete the require Local Agency Forms. The Consultant must
complete and furnish to the City the forms required to be completed by the Consultant prior to the
issuance of the project Purchase Order.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual forms may be obtained from the Caltrans website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm .
Required forms include:
1. Exhibit 10-A: A&E Consultant Audit Request Letter and Checklist
2. Exhibit 10-B: Suggested Consultant Evaluation Sheet
3. Exhibit 10-C: Consultant Contract Reviewers Checklist
4. Exhibit 10-H: Sample Cost Proposal
5. Exhibit 10-I: Notice to Proposers DBE Information
6. Exhibit 10-K: Consultant Certification of Costs and Financial Management System
7. Exhibit 10-O1: Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment
8. Exhibit 10-O2: Consultant Contract DBE Information (Word version)
9. Exhibit 10-Q: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
10. Exhibit 10-R: A&E Sample Contract Language
11. Exhibit 10-S: Consultant Performance Evaluation
12. Exhibit 10-T: Panel Member Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Statement
13. Exhibit 10-U: Consultant in Management Position Conflict of Interest Statement
14. Exhibit 17-F: Final Utilization Report (to be completed at Project Completion)
Packet Pg. 75
5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 76
5
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Xenia Bradford, Interim Director of Finance
Prepared By: Rico Pardo, Accounting Manager/Controller
SUBJECT: FY 2015-16 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the 2015-16 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees; and
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the report and making findings related to
impact fee balances and in-lieu fees.
DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared this report in compliance with the requirements of AB 1600 and the required
disclosures in the attached report. This report as required by AB 1600 identifies the amount of
each fee collected, the disbursements made from each fee type and the amount of interest
apportioned to each fee balance during the 2015-16 fiscal year. Also, a report has been prepared
that reflects, for each fee type, the aging of the balance held by the City. This report has been
available for public inspection prior to tonight’s meeting in the Finance Department. Notice was
posted on the City Clerk’s bulletin board in front of City Hall on December 13, 2016.
The schedules referred to above provide a breakdown of the individual fee balances on hand as
of June 30, 2016 based on unaudited information. The statutes specify that this report shall
include the following information:
1. The amount of each fee.
2. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended.
3. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended.
4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended.
5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable.
6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account.
7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project
cost paid out of developer fees.
8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have
been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the
public improvement remains incomplete.
9. The amount and purpose of all interfund transfers during the last year.
10. The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects
funded in the current year.
Transportation Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes
Packet Pg. 77
6
within the City. There were six active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal
year.
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange – The largest of the six projects partially funded by
impact fees was the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Project. $3,422,400 was
expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project. Major construction on the project is now
complete however expenditures on the project will continue into FY 2017 as additional items
remain to complete – such as landscaping improvements.
Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper – $12,786 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for
the project.
Prado Road Bridge Widening – $166,552 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the
project.
Bike Bridge/Phillips - $127,264 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project.
Transportation Monitoring - $52,562 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the
project.
As of June 30, 2016, $5,141,253 in funds were available for projects and $19,661 were held
longer than five years.
Margarita Area Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the
Margarita area. As of June 30, 2016, $43,215 was collected in Margarita Area Specific Plan
(MASP) transportation fees.
Airport Area Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the
airport area. The only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was the Airport Area
Specific Plan (AASP) design services.
As of June 30, 2016, $1,079,956 in funds were available for projects and $342,139 in Airport
Area Impact Fees have been held longer than five years and the collected funds are not sufficient
to initiate and complete projects identified in the AASP fee program and therefore need to be
retained until adequate funding is available to fund needed improvements. Specifically, there are
not funds available to commence projects identified in the AASP program, such as the financing
of full improvements on Tank Farm Road. The City has commenced advance development work
on upgrading and replacing the Santa Fe Bridge located south of Tank Farm Road and will b e
programming much of this available funding for environmental and design of that project
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road. The
only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was for design services of the Los
Osos Valley Road and Highway 101 Interchange Improvements. In addition, the City recorded a
Packet Pg. 78
6
liability for the reimbursement owed to a developer for an amount equal to the impact fees
collected for the year. The City has an existing reimbursement agreement with Costco for
improvements already constructed at the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchange.
As of June 30, 2016, $163,970 in funds were available to reimburse Costco for this prior work.
Staff has determined that $75,000 of this amount needs to be retained for specific work at the
interchange and the remaining $88,970 can be reimbursed to Costco at this time.
Water Impact Fees
This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply,
water treatment and water distribution The fees are used for debt service for the following
projects:
1. Nacimiento Pipeline
2. Water Reuse Project Loan
3. 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service
4. 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service
Fees collected and retained were used for debt service to pay for new development’s fair share
for upgrades to the water treatment plant, the recycled water system, as well as the pipeline
serving the City from Nacimiento Lake. In fiscal year 2015-16, $1,542,268 was collected in
impact fees, while $2,572,741 was expended.
As of June 30, 2016, the fund shows a negative balance of ($874,873) after taking into account
last year’s balance, fees collected and expenses and the negative balance will be addressed as
new development pays impact fees during subsequent years. No funds were held longer than
five years as payments are for debt service which are expensed upon receipt.
Sewer Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for sewer
collection and sewer treatment.
The fees were used for the following projects:
1. Calle Joaquin Lift Station
2. Margarita Lift Station
3. Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Upgrade
4. Tank Farm Lift Station
As of June 30, 2016, available funds are ($2,489,438). As future development occurs and, in
turn, future impact fees are collected, more funds will become available to fund future projects
and offset the negative balance. This reflects the fact that improvements were needed for the
orderly development of the City and the negative balance will adjust with future impact fee
payments.
Packet Pg. 79
6
Affordable Housing Inclusionary Fees
This impact fee was established for funding affordable housing inclusionary programs in the City
and is also not an impact fee as defined by AB 1600. There were four expenditures for the fiscal
year in this account. The first was a contribution to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust
Fund which was authorized by the City Council for an amount of $30,000. The second
expenditure was an operating transfer to the City’s General Fund for staff salaries related to
administration and oversight of all housing programs. Third was a $95,814 award to the
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo for rehabilitation of a single family transitional dwelling
unit, and last was the re-use of $159,135 towards down payment assistance loans for income
eligible first time homebuyers purchasing homes. As of June 30, 2016, $2,562,826 in funds were
available for affordable housing projects and no funds were held longer than five years.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Utilities Departments concur with the recommendations contained within
this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
This report recommends making the findings called for in the resolution in order to allow the
impact be retained by the City to fund identified projects. The in-lieu fees which have balances
are not subject to the same finding requirement to allow their retention, but staff has included a
finding in the resolution affirming the need for retention of these monies.
ALTERNATIVE
Council could choose not to make the findings called for in this report. This report is required by
State law.
Attachments:
a - DIF Resolution
c - Development Fee Schedule (eff thru 6-30-2016)
b - DIF Annual Report
Packet Pg. 80
6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE 2015-16 ANNUAL REPORT
ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, REAFFIRMING THE NECESSITY
OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND MAKE FINDINGS RELATED
TO IMPACT FEE BALANCES AND IN-LIEU FEES
WHEREAS, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the City of San Luis
Obispo (“City”) is required to make certain information regarding the City’s development impact
fees publicly available. That information is set forth in Government Code § 66006(b)(1)(A)–(H)
WHEREAS, the City is further required to make certain findings every five years with
respect to the unexpended fund balance of certain development impact fee funds pursuant to
California Government Code section 66001; and
WHEREAS, the information required to be made publicly available pursuant to
Government Code § 66006(b)(1)(A)–(H), including, but not limited to, documents describing
reflecting the balance in each development impact fee fund or account, accrued interest in said
fund or account and the amount of expenditure by public facility for the fiscal year, have been
made available for public review as required by Government Code § 66006(b)(2)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Acceptance. The 2015-16 Annual Report on Development Impact Fees is
hereby accepted.
SECTION 3. Findings. The following findings are made as required under Government
Code section 66001:
1. The purpose to which each Development Impact Fee is to be put has been identified.
2. There is a continued need for the improvements and that there is a reasonable relationship
between the fee and the impacts for development for which the fees are collected.
3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of capital
projects have been identified and will be deposited into the appropriate account upon
receipt or during the normal capital improvement program budget cycle.
4. A copy of the approved resolution shall be forwarded to the Interim Director of Finance
for use in overseeing these monies.
Packet Pg. 81
6
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
SECTION 4. These findings are based, in part, on information provided in the
City of San Luis Obispo’s 2015-17 Capital Improvement Plan.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 82
6
City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016Transportation Impact Fee (Fund 405)Project Number Project NameProject Amount ExpendedPercent Funded by Impact FeesImpact Fee ExpendituresNon Impact Fee ExpendituresDeveloper Impact Fees CollectedImpact Fee Interest Income Other Income91111 RR SFTY TRL Taft/Pepr12,786$ 100%12,786$ ‐$ 91252 FY Porado Rd Bridge Widen166,552$ 100% 166,552$ ‐$ 91375 Bike Bridge/Phillips127,264$ 100% 127,264$ ‐$ 91420 Transportation Monitoring52,562$ 100%52,562$ ‐$ 99615 Bicycle Projects22,371$ 100%22,371$ ‐$ 99821 Los Osos Valley Road/US101 Interchange 3,422,400$ 100% 3,422,400$ ‐$ Totals 3,803,935$ 3,803,935$ ‐$ 1,356,158$ 107,807$ ‐$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 4,378,822$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 5,141,253$ Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 5,121,592$ Funds held longer than 5 years 19,661Packet Pg. 836
City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2016Transportation Impact FeeFund 405Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees InterestNon AB 1600 InterestRevenue Other AgenciesOther Revenue Transfers InAB 1600 ExpensesOther ExpensesAB 1600 Transfers OutTotal Ending Balance 2008‐09 4,041,419$ 498,385 197,387 668,853 1,829,260 ‐ 3,576,784$ 2009‐10 3,576,784$ 51,942 107,553 399,911 87,221 74,000 864,670 28,700 3,404,041$ 2010‐11 3,404,041$ 889,128 72,051 647,363 671,057 114,698 4,226,828$ 2011‐12 4,226,828$ 414,282 66,373 212,085 780,961 621,064 3,517,543$ 2012‐13 3,517,543$ 221,213 13,190 1,059,704 1,059,188 818,897 2,933,565$ 2013‐14 2,933,565$ 1,002,592 28,352 287,949 421,651 236,955 3,593,852$ 2014‐15 3,593,852$ 898,574 51,872 350,172 63,791 49,388 628,826 ‐ 4,378,822$ 2015‐16 4,378,822$ 1,356,158 107,807 ‐ 381,535 ‐ 320,000 5,141,253$ Aging of Funds HeldCurrent Yr Funds FY 2015‐161 yr old Funds FY 2014‐152 yr old Funds FY 2013‐143 yr old Funds FY 2012‐134 yr old Funds FY 2011‐125 yr old Funds FY 2010‐11Funds attributed to recent 6 yearsIf Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refundTotal Ending Balance1,463,965 950,446 1,030,944 234,403 480,655 961,179 5,121,592 19,661$ 5,141,253$Packet Pg. 846
City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016Airport Area Impact Fee (Fund 450)Project Number Project NameProject Amount ExpendedPercent Funded by Impact FeesImpact Fee ExpendituresNon Impact Fee ExpendituresDeveloper Impact Fees CollectedImpact Fee Interest Income0 100% 0 0Totals 0 0 0 134,210$ 8,248$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 937,498$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 1,079,956$ Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 595,359$ Funds Held Longer than 5 Years 342,139$ Packet Pg. 856
City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2016Airport Area Impact FeeFund 450Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees InterestNon AB 1600 InterestRevenue Other AgenciesOther Revenue Transfers InAB 1600 ExpensesDeveloper ReimbAB 1600 Transfers OutTotal Ending Balance 2008‐09 966,198$ ‐ 48,509 20,991 993,716$ 2009‐10 993,716$ 3,599 31,393 ‐ 1,028,708$ 2010‐11 1,028,708$ ‐ 19,147 19,383 1,028,472$ 2011‐12 1,028,472$ 11,280 16,993 35,173 1,021,572$ 2012‐13 1,021,572$ 134,210 8,248 317,712 846,318$ 2013‐14 846,318$ 255,011 3,668 9,845 1,095,152$ 2014‐15 1,095,152$ ‐ 4,344 23,487 937,498$ 2015‐16 937,498$ 134,210 8,248 ‐ 1,079,956$ Calculated fund balance per 6/30/16 T/B >1,079,956$ Aging of Funds HeldCurrent Yr Funds FY 2015‐161 yr old Funds FY 2014‐152 yr old Funds FY 2013‐143 yr old Funds FY 2012‐134 yr old Funds FY 2011‐125 yr old Funds FY 2010‐11Funds attributed to recent 6 yearsIf Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refundTotal Ending Balance142,458 4,344 258,679 142,458 28,273 19,147 595,359 342,139$ 1,079,956$Packet Pg. 866
City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee (Fund 460)Project Number Project NameProject Amount ExpendedPercent Funded by Impact FeesImpact Fee ExpendituresDeveloper ReimbursementsDeveloper Impact Fees CollectedImpact Fee Interest IncomeOther IncomeNo Funds Expended this Year ‐$ Totals 14,661$ 2,585$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 146,724$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 163,970$ Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 1,865,173$ Funds Held Longer than 5 Years0Packet Pg. 876
City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2016Los Osos Valley Road Impact FeeFund 460Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees InterestNon AB 1600 InterestRevenue Other AgenciesOther Revenue Transfers InAB 1600 ExpensesDeveloper ReimbAB 1600 Transfers OutTotal Ending Balance 2008‐09 282,240$ ‐ 48,311 229,058 8,875 92,618$ 2009‐1092,618$ 79,719 15,084 ‐ 4,043 183,378$ 2010‐11 183,378$ 11,166 8,599 ‐ 18,963 184,180$ 2011‐12 184,180$ 1,797,650 18,233 ‐ 1,622,651 1,576 375,836$ 2012‐13 375,836$ ‐ 1,166 49,577 179,809 147,616$ 2013‐14 147,616$ 3,097 7,573 9,979 3,097 145,210$ 2014‐15 145,210$ ‐ 1,514 ‐ 146,724$ 2015‐16 146,724$ 14,661 2,585 ‐ 163,970$ Calculated fund balance per 6‐30‐16 Trial Balance >163,970$ Aging of Funds HeldCurrent Yr Funds FY 2015‐161 yr old Funds FY 2014‐152 yr old Funds FY 2013‐143 yr old Funds FY 2012‐134 yr old Funds FY 2011‐125 yr old Funds FY 2010‐11Funds attributed to recent 5 yearsIf Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refundTotal Ending Balance16,175 1,514 10,670 1,166 1,815,883 19,765 1,865,173 (1,701,203)$ 163,970$ Packet Pg. 886
City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact Fee (Fund 470)Project Number Project NameProject Amount ExpendedPercent Funded by Impact FeesImpact Fee ExpendituresNon Impact Fee ExpendituresDeveloper Fees CollectedImpact Fee Interest Income Other Income90496 SLO County Housing Trust Fund 30,000$ 100% 30,000$ ‐$ 90812 1st Time Homebuyer Program 159,135$ 100% 159,135$ ‐$ 91459 1379 Sydney 95,814$ 100% 95,814$ 91460 860 On the WYE 352,029$ 100% 352,029$ Transfers Out General Fund 62,000$ 100% 62,000$ Totals 698,978$ 698,978$ ‐$ 625,506$ 34,414$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 2,366,072$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 2,562,826$ Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 3,088,405$ Fees Held Longer Than 5 Years 0Packet Pg. 896
City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2016Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact FeeFund 470Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees InterestNon AB 1600 InterestRevenue Other AgenciesOther Revenue Transfers InAB 1600 ExpensesDeveloper ReimbAB 1600 Transfers OutTotal Ending Balance 2007‐08 3,811,662$ 682,418 155,631 630,0004,019,711$ 2008‐09 4,019,711$ 465,726 199,625 1,450 892,462 3,794,050$ 2009‐10 3,794,050$ 0 32,584 270,000 9,000 3,416,692 21,286 667,656$ 2010‐11 667,656$ 332,841 15,988 30,000 3,929 39,8541,010,560$ 2011‐12 1,010,560$ 848,788 21,915 112,696 1,768,567$ 2012‐13 1,768,567$ 182,685 7,417 30,000 1,928,669$ 2013‐14 1,928,669$ 793,655 52,712 30,000 17,000 2,728,036$ 2014‐15 2,728,036$ 159,602 12,882 179,552$ 697,000 17,000 2,366,072$ 2015‐16 2,366,072$ 625,506 34,414 698,978 2,562,826$ Calculated fund balance per 6‐30‐16 trial balance >2,562,826$ Aging of Funds HeldCurrent Yr Funds FY 2015‐161 yr old Funds FY 2014‐152 yr old Funds FY 2013‐143 yr old Funds FY 2012‐134 yr old Funds FY 2011‐125 yr old Funds FY 2010‐11Funds attributed to recent 5 yearsIf Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refundTotal Ending Balance659,920 172,484 846,367 190,102 870,703 348,829 3,088,405 (525,579)$ 2,562,826$Packet Pg. 906
City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016
Water Impact Fee (Fund 500)
Project Number Project Name
Project Amount Expended
Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Reimbursements Developer Fees Collected
Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income
55110 Nacimiento 4,698,580$ 39%1,832,446$ 89350 Water Reuse Project Loan Debt Service 525,457$ 59% 310,020$ 89350 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service 1,032,748$ 29% 299,497$ 89350 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service 568,600$ 23% 130,778$
Totals 6,825,384$ 2,572,741$ 1,542,268$ -$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 155,600$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 (874,873)$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 8,048,670$
Funds Held Longer than 5 Years 0
Packet Pg. 91
6
City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2016Water Impact Fee
Fund 500
Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non AB 1600 Interest
Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Total Ending Balance 2008-09 4,426,570$ 777,892 256,300 895,190 122,259 4,687,831$ 2009-10 4,687,831$ 462,231 210,300 970,096 14,918 4,405,184$ 2010-11 4,405,184$ 699,399 104,800 803,305 59,772 4,465,850$ 2011-12 4,465,850$ 643,160 109,029 703,006 - 4,515,033$ 2012-13 4,515,033$ 1,625,113 26,300 3,906,320 41,330 2,301,456$ 2013-14 2,301,456$ 819,477 5,650 2,865,321 - 261,262$ 2014-15 261,262$ 2,471,502 1,972 280,830 - 2,453,906$ 2015-16 155,600$ 1,542,268 - 2,572,741 - (874,873)$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Year FY 2015-16
1 yr old Funds FY 2014-15
2 yr old Funds FY 2013-14
3 yr old Funds FY 2012-13
4 yr old Funds FY 2011-12
5 yr old Funds FY 2010-11
Funds attributed to recent 5 years
If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund
Total Ending Balance
1,542,268 2,473,474 825,127 1,651,413 752,189 804,199 8,048,670 (8,923,543)$ (874,873)$
Packet Pg. 92
6
City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016
Sewer Impact Fee (Fund 520)
Project Number Project Name
Project Amount Expended
Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Reimb Developer Fees Collected
Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income
91118 Calle Joaquin Lift Station 76,309$ 28.0%21,367$
91214 Margarita Lift Station 71,981$ 51.0%36,710$
91219 WRRF Upgrade 2,296,138$ 20.5% 470,708$
89351 Tank Farm Lift Station Debt Service 1,391,944$ 58.0% 807,327$
Totals 3,836,372$ 1,336,113$ 674,831$ 658
Available Funds as of June 30, 2015 (2,464,295)$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 (2,489,438)$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 2,768,933$
Funds held longer than 5 years 0
Packet Pg. 93
6
City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2016Sewer Impact Fee
Fund 520
Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non AB 1600 Interest
Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb AB 1600 Transfers Out
Total Ending Balance 2008-09 1,229,684$ 205,929 35,700 528,164 49,055 992,204$ 2009-10 992,204$ 102,301 8,600 854,235 3,733 252,603$ 2010-11 252,603$ 166,937 - 849,584 14,956 (415,088)$ 2011-12 (415,088)$ 141,234 - 655,355 - (929,209)$ 2012-13 (929,209)$ 355,395 - 1,308,687 9,430 (1,891,931)$ 2013-14 (1,891,931)$ 268,132 - 608,432 - (2,232,231)$ 2014-15 (2,232,231)$ 1,160,654 1,092 1,393,810 - (2,464,295)$ 2015-16 (2,464,295)$ 674,831 658 700,632 - (2,489,438)$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr Funds FY 2015-16
1 yr old Funds FY 2014-15
2 yr old Funds FY 2013-14
3 yr old Funds FY 2012-13
4 yr old Funds FY 2011-12
5 yr old Funds FY 2010-11
Funds attributed to recent 6 years
If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance
675,489 1,161,746 268,132 355,395 141,234 166,937 2,768,933 (5,258,371)$ (2,489,438)$
Packet Pg. 94
6
Packet Pg. 956
Packet Pg. 966
Packet Pg. 976
Packet Pg. 986
Packet Pg. 996
Packet Pg. 1006
Packet Pg. 1016
Packet Pg. 1026
Packet Pg. 1036
Packet Pg. 1046
Packet Pg. 1056
Packet Pg. 1066
Packet Pg. 1076
City of San Luis Obispo This report as required by AB 1600 identifies the amount of each fee collected, the disbursements made from each fee type and the amount of interest apportioned to each fee balance during the 2015-16 fiscal year. Also, a report has been prepared that reflects, for each fee type, the aging of the balance held by the City. This report has been available for public inspection prior to tonight’s meeting in the Finance Department. Notice was posted on the City Clerk’s bulletin board in front of City Hall on December 13, 2016. The schedules referred to above provide a breakdown of the individual fee balances on hand as of June 30, 2016 based on unaudited information. The statutes specify that this report shall include the following information: 1. The amount of each fee. 2. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended. 3. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended. 4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended. 5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable. 6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account. 7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project cost paid out of developer fees. 8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete. 9. The amount and purpose of all interfund transfers during the last year. 10. The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects funded in the current year. Transportation Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes within the City. There were six active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal year. Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange – The largest of the six projects partially funded by impact fees was the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Project. $3,422,400 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project. Major construction on the project is now complete however expenditures on the project will continue into FY 2017 as additional items remain to complete – such as landscaping improvements. Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper – $12,786 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project. Prado Road Bridge Widening – $166,552 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project. Bike Bridge/Phillips - $127,264 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project. Transportation Monitoring - $52,562 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project.
Packet Pg. 108
6
As of June 30, 2016, $5,141,253 in funds were available for projects and $19,661 were held longer than five years. Margarita Area Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the Margarita area. As of June 30, 2016, $43,215 was collected in Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) transportation fees. Airport Area Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the airport area. The only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) design services. As of June 30, 2016, $1,079,956 in funds were available for projects and $342,139 in Airport Area Impact Fees have been held longer than five years and the collected funds are not sufficient to initiate and complete projects identified in the AASP fee program and therefore need to be retained until adequate funding is available to fund needed improvements. Specifically, there are not funds available to commence projects identified in the AASP program, such as the financing of full improvements on Tank Farm Road. The City has commenced advance development work on upgrading and replacing the Santa Fe Bridge located south of Tank Farm Road and will be programming much of this available funding for environmental and design of that project Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road. The only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was for design services of the Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 101 Interchange Improvements. In addition, the City recorded a liability for the reimbursement owed to a developer for an amount equal to the impact fees collected for the year. The City has an existing reimbursement agreement with Costco for improvements already constructed at the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchange. As of June 30, 2016, $163,970 in funds were available to reimburse Costco for this prior work. Staff has determined that $75,000 of this amount needs to be retained for specific work at the interchange and the remaining $88,970 can be reimbursed to Costco at this time. Water Impact Fees This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply, water treatment and water distribution The fees are used for debt service for the following projects: 1. Nacimiento Pipeline 2. Water Reuse Project Loan 3. 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service 4. 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service Fees collected and retained were used for debt service to pay for new development’s fair share for upgrades to the water treatment plant, the recycled water system, as well as the pipeline serving the City from Nacimiento Lake. In fiscal year 2015-16, $1,542,268 was collected in impact fees, while $2,572,741 was expended.
Packet Pg. 109
6
As of June 30, 2016, the fund shows a negative balance of ($874,873) after taking into account last year’s balance, fees collected and expenses and the negative balance will be addressed as new development pays impact fees during subsequent years. No funds were held longer than five years as payments are for debt service which is expensed upon receipt. Sewer Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for sewer collection and sewer treatment. The fees were used for the following projects: 1. Calle Joaquin Lift Station 2. Margarita Lift Station 3. Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Upgrade 4. Tank Farm Lift Station As of June 30, 2016, available funds are ($2,489,438). As future development occurs and, in turn, future impact fees are collected, more funds will become available to fund future projects and offset the negative balance. This reflects the fact that improvements were needed for the orderly development of the City and the negative balance will adjust with future impact fee payments. Affordable Housing Inclusionary Fees This impact fee was established for funding affordable housing inclusionary programs in the City and is also not an impact fee as defined by AB 1600. There were four expenditures for the fiscal year in this account. The first was a contribution to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund which was authorized by the City Council for an amount of $30,000. The second expenditure was an operating transfer to the City’s General Fund for staff salaries related to administration and oversight of all housing programs. Third was a $95,814 award to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo for rehabilitation of a single family transitional dwelling unit, and last was the re-use of $159,135 towards down payment assistance loans for income eligible first time homebuyers purchasing homes. As of June 30, 2016, $2,562,826 in funds were available for affordable housing projects and no funds were held longer than five years. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Utilities Departments concur with the recommendations contained within this report. FISCAL IMPACT This report recommends making the findings called for in the resolution in order to allow the impact be retained by the City to fund identified projects. The in-lieu fees which have balances are not subject to the same finding requirement to allow their retention, but staff has included a finding in the resolution affirming the need for retention of these monies.
Packet Pg. 110
6
ALTERNATIVE Council could choose not to make the findings called for in this report. This report is required by State law.
Packet Pg. 111
6
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 112
6
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING
RESERVATION LETTER TO TRANSITIONS-MENTAL HEALTH
ASSOCIATION.
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), authorize the Community
Development Director to execute the attached Reservation Letter authorizing the City to reserve
$200,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to Transitions-Mental Health
Association for property acquisition of Bishop Street Studios.
DISCUSSION
Community Development Block Grant Background
The City’s annual CDBG review process provides Council and the public with an opportunity to
provide early input in the grant award process and assist the City Council with direct input to
prioritize community needs. One of the main purposes of the process is to maintain an open,
inclusive and fair grant application process. The HRC advises the Council on community needs
and funding recommendations, which the Council adopted on October 18th.
On December 7, 2016, the HRC held a public hearing to review the 2017 CDBG draft funding
recommendations with respect to the Council’s adopted funding priorities. With a preliminary
allocation of $442,462.00, the HRC recommends funding three projects in addition to the
necessary administrative costs. With this year’s allocation, all HRC recommendations are within
94% or greater of the amount of CDBG funds requested by each project. Those
recommendations were forwarded to the County to be included in the 2017 Draft Urban County
Action Plan where a 30-day public review process is required. After the public review process,
those recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council and a public hearing has been
scheduled for March 7, 2017.
Transitions-Mental Health Association’s 2017 CDBG Application
Of the three projects recommended by the HRC, one recommendation is for Transitions -Mental
Health Association (TMHA) for property acquisition for the Bishop Street Studios affordable
housing project (“Project”) (Attachment B). The HRC recommends funding the full request of
$200,000 to TMHA for renovation of the existing Sunny Acres building and construction of 34
new affordable housing units to low income residents served by TMHA’s mental health
programs. TMHA’s project meets the second funding priority adopted by Council, to develop
and enhance affordable housing for low and very low income persons.
Bishop Street Studios Property Acquisition Costs
TMHA’s Bishop Street Studios project is a partnership with the Housing Authority of San Luis
Packet Pg. 113
7
Obispo (HASLO). While the project is in early stages of gathering and finalizing funding; a wide
range of funding sources will be needed such as: Low Income Housing Tax Credits, a traditional
construction loan, funding from local jurisdictions, CDBG, and HOME funding. An initial
project budget is outlined within TMHA’s CDBG application, set forth in Attachment B.
The first stage of the project, property acquisition, is being funded through CDBG funds.
HASLO is the current owner of the property and is working to complete all offsite improvements
to the property, which is estimated to cost $650,000. Once complete, TMHA will purchase the
land from HASLO for $650,000, of which $200,000 (30% of property acquisition cost) has been
requested in CDBG funds from the City of San Luis Obispo, and $450,000 (70% of total
property acquisition cost) has been requested in CDBG funds from the County of San Luis
Obispo. Using CDBG funds for property acquisition does not trigger prevailing wage and helps
TMHA keep construction costs down. Property acquisition makes up just 5% of this $12 million
project.
Need for Reservation Letter
In order for the Project to be successful, TMHA must apply for highly competitive Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, in addition to obtaining the wide range of public funding sources
mentioned above. A successful allocation of tax credits results in millions of dollars committed
by an outside investor for development of the project. All funding sources must be established
and committed at time of application submittal.
Since Low Income Housing Tax Credit applications are due on March 1, 2017, one week before
Council’s final review, the City is following a new expedited timeline set by the County to
ensure any tax credit eligible projects granted CDBG funds are able to secure those commitments
prior to the March 1st deadline. This process requires the Council to show reserved support and
earmark those CDBG funds for this project through a Reservation Letter, Attachment A.
Next Steps
Once the Council has authorized the Reservation Letter to TMHA, TMHA will be able to
competitively apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits on March 1st. On March 7th, the
Council will hold a public hearing to review all 2017 CDBG funding recommendations.
Once the final 2017 CDBG funding recommendations are adopted by the City Council in March,
those recommendations will be forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors for inclusion in
the 2017 Urban County Action Plan in April, which includes funding allocations for all of the
participating jurisdictions. Although the CDBG fiscal year begins on July 1, 2017, funds for
projects awarded by the City Council are not expected to be available until October.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The authorization to submit a Reservation Letter to TMHA for 2017 CDBG funds is exempt
from environmental review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. The
project is an action to award funding. Bishop Street Studios previously underwent environmental
review during its entitlement process and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the
Council on November 15, 2016.
Packet Pg. 114
7
FISCAL IMPACT
Decisions made regarding CDBG funding determine how the limited pool of funds the City
receives through the Urban County allocation process is spent. To the extent that projects are
funded through CDBG, the burden on the City’s General Fund or Affordable Housing Fund to
pay for those projects is reduced. While the Applicant has not yet officially submitted a letter for
an Affordable Housing Fund award, the City anticipates a request for approximately $20,000 per
unit, for a total of up to $700,000, to be submitted to Council for approval; the City’s Affordable
Housing Fund has over $1.6 million currently available for new projects. As a result, projects
that receive CDBG funding have a positive fiscal impact on the City if they otherwise would
have been paid for out of other City funds.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may deny the Reservation Letter and wait until March 7 th to approve any
CDBG funds for TMHA’s Bishop Street Studios Project. Staff does not recommend this
alternative since without a CDBG reserved commitment, TMHA’s Low Income Housing
Tax Credit application will be less competitive.
2. The Council may continue consideration of authorizing the Reservation Letter. Staff does
not recommend this action because the delay in time would not allow TMHA to include
the City’s CDBG allocation in their Low Income Housing Tax Credit Application.
Attachments:
a - 2017 CDBG Reservation Letter to Transitions-Mental Health Association
b - 2017 CDBG Application for Bishop Street Studios
Packet Pg. 115
7
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
January 3, 2017
Ms. Jill Bolster-White
Transitions-Mental Health Association
784 High Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Reservation of City of San Luis Obispo CDBG Funds to Bishop Street Studios
Dear Ms. Bolster-White,
On December 7, 2016, the City’s Human Relations Commission approved a reservation of
City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, in the amount of $200,000, to the
Bishop Street Studios project (“Project”). The funds will be set aside until December 7, 2017
for the purpose of completing the financing for the Project.
A firm commitment of CDBG funds by the City must be approved by the City Coun cil,
tentatively scheduled for March 7, 2017. Once officially approved by the Council,
recommendations will be forwarded to the County of San Luis Obispo’s 2017 Urban County
Action Plan, to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The following conditions will be
required prior to release of funds:
1. Success obtaining a tax credit award;
2. All financing sources must be confirmed;
3. All planning and zoning approvals;
4. All building permits have been issued.
Please contact Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager, at (805) 781-7010 or
jwiseman@slocity.org should you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Michael Codron
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg. 116
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF P LANNING AND BUILDING
976 O SOS STREET R OOM 200 S AN L UIS O BISPO CALIFORNIA 93408 (805) 781-5600
Promoting the Wise Use of Land Helping to Build Great Communities
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 1 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING DURING 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
The County of San Luis Obispo is pleased to announce the availability of funds for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The CDBG program is a flexible program that provides
communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs.
Applicants seeking CDBG funds MUST address one of the three national objectives, as provided by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (see question 10 for detailed information on the
objectives). Applications that do not address one of the objectives will NOT be considered for CDBG
funding. Furthermore, completed applications should provide the necessary exhibits, budgets, or
requested information on targeted populations.
Applications must be received by the County of San Luis Obispo. Please email grant applications to
ActionPlan@co.slo.ca.us by the application deadline of 5:00 P.M., Friday, October 21, 2016.
Please label your email subject by adding the grant program name and the agency name (Example:
CDBG – CAPSLO).
CONTACT INFORMATION
1. Qualifying Information
Organization Name: _________________________________DUNS number: _________________
Contact person/title/________________________________________________________________
Phone:____________________ Fax:____________________Email:________________________
Address (mailing and physical address requested if different):________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Is your agency currently participating in Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)?
For more information see note #2 at the end of the application.
Yes No If not currently participating, does your agency have the capacity to participate
in HMIS? If yes, how so?
Total amount of CDBG funds requested: $____________________________________
Note:Please attach additional sheets for more detailed information of your proposed project or program for any of
the questions below.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2. Title/name/address of proposed project or program:
Transitions-Mental Health Association (TMHA)932777550
Jill Bolster-White, TMHA Executive Director
(805) 540-6505 (805) 540-6501 jbw@t-mha.org
P.O. Box 15408 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 physical: 784 High Street SLO, CA 93401
650,000
Bishop Street Studios
1600 Bishop Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg. 117
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 2 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
3. Please describe the proposed project or program.Include a brief project/program description. For
projects, describe the location of the project (be as specific as possible, e.g. street address). For programs,
state the location from which the program will be operated, and describe the geographic area served by the
program.
4. Please attach a timeline of the project/program milestones.
5. Who are the clients of your organization and who will benefit from the CDBG funding?
(Example: low- to moderate-income persons, elderly persons, severely disabled persons, migrant
farm workers, battered spouses, etc.) Please explain how they will directly benefit from the
project or program.
6.Which of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan goal(s) does your project plan to address?Check
all that apply.
____ Create housing opportunities for residents
____ Preserve and maintain existing affordable housing
____ Reduce and end homelessness
____ Create suitable living environment through public services
____ Stabilize and revitalize diverse neighborhoods (Public facility improvements)
____ Improve educational and job readiness
7. Will the services offered by your organization increase or expand as a result of the CDBG
assistance? If yes, please answer the following questions:
a. What new programs or services will be provided?
b. Describe how existing programs or services will be expanded and what percentage of an
increase is expected?
Please see QUESTION 3: PROJECT within the attached document.
Clients of Transitions-Mental Health Services (TMHA) who will benefit from CDBG funding are
low- to very low-income adults and transition age youth living with a mental illness. The lack of
affordable housing for men and women with mental illness is one of the most powerful barriers
to their recovery. When this basic need cannot be met, people with mental illness cycle in and
out of homelessness, jails, shelters and hospitals. One of TMHA's goals is to reduce the
impact our clients have on county jails, shelters and hospitals and Bishop Street Studios will
help us achieve that goal.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Supportive housing services for adults with mental illness will expand by 34
additional units.
The amount of supportive housing TMHA provides to adults with mental illness in
the City of San Luis Obispo will increase by nearly 30%, and nearly 20% for the
entire County of San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg. 118
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 3 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
8. Check any of the following eligible activity categories that apply to the proposed project or
program:(Refer to CDBG regulations and the Guide to Eligible CDBG Activities).
____ Acquisition of real property*
____ Disposition of real property
____ Public facilities and improvements (may include acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
rehabilitation or installation)* and/or **
____ Privately owned utilities
____ Public services
____ Relocation of individuals, families, businesses, non-profit organizations, and/or farms
____ Removal of architectural barriers
____ Housing rehabilitation**
____ Homeownership assistance
____ Technical assistance to businesses/micro-enterprise development
____ Administrative technical assistance and planning studies (specified)
9. Describe the need and the degree of urgency for the proposed project or program.
What would the consequences be if the proposed project or program is not funded in the
next year?
8. Please describe your organization’s capacity to implement the proposed project/program.
Who will be involved in the project/program? (In-house employees, contractors, other agency
partners, etc.)
9. Does the project require the issuance of a permit (from local, state or federal agencies)?
Yes No
a. If yes, please identify the permits necessary to complete the project.
b. Have the necessary permits been issued? Please provide proof of permit issuance.
* Relocation
** Lead-Based Paint
(See note 7 and 8 on page 10)
✔
✔
✔
If Bishop Street Studios is not funded within the current grant cycle, the limited, time-sensitive
opportunity to acquire and rehabilitate the old Sunny Acres building will be jeopardized and the
potential to add 34 units of supportive housing for adults with mental illness within the City of
San Luis Obispo may be lost.
Please see QUESTION 8: CAPACITY & PARTNERS within the attached document.
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) review and Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
approval from the City of San Luis Obispo, and a ministerial building permit from the City
of San Luis Obispo.
CHC and ARC approved the project unanimously on September 19, 2016. An appeal
was filed and will considered by the San Luis Obispo City Council on November 15th.
We anticipated unanimous City Council support for this project.
Packet Pg. 119
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 4 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
c. If permits are required but not yet obtained, when will the permits be issued?
NATIONAL OBJECTIVES CRITERIA
10. Please identify the appropriate CDBG objective that applies to the proposed project/program
by choosing A, B, or C. Provide a corresponding explanation of how the proposed activity
meets the national objective.
A.Objective One – Low/Moderate Income (check one):
Note: To meet this national objective, the proposed activity must benefit a specific clientele or residents
in a particular area of the County or participating city, of which at least 51 percent of who are low- and
moderate-income persons.
Select one:
Area Benefit – The project serves only a limited geographic area which is proven by 2010
Census data or survey to be a predominately (51% or more)low/moderate-income area.
Applicants choosing this category must be able to prove their project/activity primarily benefits
low/moderate-income households.
Clientele – The project benefits a specific group of people,at least 51% of whom are
low/moderate-income persons. Note: Income verification for clients must be provided for this
category. The following groups are presumed to be low/moderate-income: abused children; elderly
persons; battered spouses; homeless persons; illiterate adults; adults meeting census definition of
severely disabled; persons living with AIDS; and migrant farm workers.
Housing – The project adds or improves permanent residential structures that will be/are
occupied by low/moderate-income households upon completion.
Jobs – The project creates or retains permanents jobs, at least 51% of which are taken by
low/moderate-income persons or considered to be available to low/moderate-income persons.
Explain:
B.Objective Two – Slums or Blight
Assists in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. Note:To meet this national objective, the
proposed activity must be within a designated slum or blighted area and must be designed to address
one or more conditions that contributed to the deterioration of the area.
Select one:
Addressing Slums or Blight on an Area Basis
Addressing Slums or Blight on a Spot Basis - This project will prevent or eliminate
specific conditions of blight or physical decay. Activities are limited to clearance, historic
We expect City Council to deny the appeal of the Development Plan Approval on
November 15th. The building permit will be issued late 2017, within 180 days of 9%
Tax Credits being awarded in June 2017.
✔
HASLO will certify all residents as being at or below 60% of the Area Median Income
pursuant to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Additionally all residents will
be referred by SLO Department of Behavioral Health. Entry requirements include a
✔
Packet Pg. 120
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 5 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
preservation, rehabilitation of buildings, but only to the extent necessary to eliminate
conditions detrimental to public health and safety.
Explain:
C.Objective Three – Urgent Need
Meets community development needs having a particular urgency where existing conditions
pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and no other
funding sources are available, i.e., a major catastrophe such as a flood or earthquake.Note: To
meet this national objective, the proposed activity must deal with major catastrophes or emergencies
such as floods or earthquakes.
Explain:
11. If the project or program is designed specifically to provide benefit to low- and moderate-
income persons, please estimate the number of unduplicated persons (or households)to
benefit from the project, and break that estimate down by income group. Note:Unduplicated
means the number who are served, i.e., the grant will allow 25 children to participate in preschool – not 25
children x 5 days x 52 weeks = 6,500.
a.Total number of persons or households who will benefit from the project or program
(regardless of income group):
Persons/households (circle the applicable unit)
b.Of the total number of persons or households entered above, how many will be
low-income (earning 51% - 80% or less of the County median-income)?
Persons/households (circle the applicable unit)
c.Of the total number of persons or households entered above, how many will be
very low-income (earning 50% or less of the County median-income)?
Persons/households (circle the applicable unit)
#
#
#
The old Sunny Acres building has been abandoned for over 40 years. It is in a state of
extreme disrepair while remaining an attractive nuisance for vandals and graffiti artists.
34
1
33
Packet Pg. 121
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 6 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
12. If your project serves homeless households, please describe how your program coordinates
with other Continuum of Care projects and entities, and how it aligns with the San Luis
Obispo Countywide 10-Year Plan to Homelessness.
BENEFICIARY DATA
Note:Organizations will be asked to provide detailed data regarding race, ethnicity, gender, income,
etc. If they cannot provide data, they may not be eligible for funding.
13. How do you collect demographic data on the beneficiaries of the proposed project or
program? (Example: racial/ethnic characteristics)Please provide a sample of your intake process
as an attachment if possible.
14. How do you document and maintain income status of each client in compliance with HUD
regulations? (Example: very low ($0, , low ( $0,) and moderate-income $0, )
Area Median Income (AMI)Please provide a sample of your intake process as an attachment if
possible.
15. Provide the following information for the persons in your organization responsible for the
preparation and submittal of the quarterly reports and for collecting and reporting the
beneficiary data to the Urban County.
Contact Person/Title:__________________________________________________________
Phone/email:________________________________________________________________
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
For CDBG applications to the County of San Luis Obispo involving acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation projects, the County will require additional information on financial source and
use of funds and other budget details prior to the draft Action Plan funding recommendations.
16. Attach a timeline of total expenditures.
7LPHOLQH$WWDFKHG
Bishop Street Studios will house numerous individuals who are at-risk of homelessness. TMHA
is a full participant in the County Continuum of Care and 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness
and the majority of our housing programs serve homeless households. We anticipate that a
number of our clients will transition from these programs into Bishop Street Studios.
Please see attached Housing Intake Form.
See Attached.The project will be subject to a 55 year TCAC Regulatory Agreement. The
affordability requirements utilized by TCAC mirror HUD requirements.
Jill Bolster-White, TMHA Executive Director
(805) 540-6505 jbw@t-mha.org
Packet Pg. 122
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 7 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
17. Please identify the jurisdictions to which you are applying. If you are applying to one or
more jurisdictions, please provide a copy of the application to the County by the application
deadline. If you are requesting CDBG funds from more than one city, please break down the
amount shown above by the city listed below.The minimum requested CDBG amount is
$8,000 for public services per jurisdiction.
City of Arroyo Grande: $_______________ City of Paso Robles: $______________
City of Pismo Beach: $_______________ City of San Luis Obispo: $______________
City of Atascadero: $_______________ County of San Luis Obispo: $______________
City of Morro Bay: $_______________
Total amount of CDBG funds requested: $____________________________________
18. Please describe the budget for the proposed project or program. Itemize all sources of
funding expected to be available and used for this project (please include commitment
letters if available):
a. Revenues: Please identify funding sources for each category, if applicable.
1. CDBG Funds requested $ _________________
2. Other Federal fund(s): ___________________ $ _________________
3. State source(s): _______________________ $ _________________
4. Local source(s): _______________________ $ _________________
5. Applicant’s matching fund(s) $ __________________
6. Other funds: __________________________ $ _________________
_____________________________________ $ _________________
Total Revenues $ _________________
b. Expenditures under CDBG: List below by item or cost category.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
TOTAL: $ ____________
N&RXQW\N&LW\
200,000
450,000
650,000
650,000
County Home $300,000 300,000
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits 7,101,184
City Fee Deferrals, City Aff Hsg Funds 1,440,624
1,100,000
HASLO Section 8 Loan
Conventional Bank Mortgage
521,000
368,512
11,481,320
Site Acquistion & Offsite Improvements for New Affordble Housing 650,000
650,000
Packet Pg. 123
7
Packet Pg. 124
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 9 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
Notes to applicant:
The County and cities require all of the grant recipients to maintain general liability, automobile and
workman’s compensation insurance with limits of not less than $1 million. If you are successful in
obtaining an award, you will be asked to provide documentation regarding ability to provide the required
coverage.
Prior to HUD’s release of grant funds for the CDBG-funded project, a review of the project’s potential
impact on the environment must be conducted and approved by the County of San Luis Obispo prior
to obligating or incurring project costs. The County must certify to HUD that it has complied with all
applicable environmental regulations and requirements. If project costs are obligated or incurred prior
to the completion of the necessary environmental review, the project shall not benefit from the grant
funds. The level of environmental review required depends on the nature of the project. Tilte 24 CFR
Part 58 is available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/codetalk/onap/docs/24cfr58.pdf.
1.Please review the CDBG regulations and guidelines and the Request for Proposals before
completing your proposal. The CDBG regulations, under 24 CFR 570, are available at
www.sloplanning.org under “Federal HUD Grants.”
2.HMIS Reporting for 2015 homeless services, housing and shelter - All homeless service providers
applying for ESG funds to assist, house or shelter the homeless must identify and demonstrate its
capacity to participate in the County of San Luis Obispo Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS) to provide: personnel for data entry, user licensing, and hardware and software
necessary for compatibility with HMIS. HMIS is an electronic data collection system that stores
client level information about persons who access the homeless services system in a Continuum of
Care, and reports aggregate data for the County as per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) Data Standards. HUD updated its data standards in 2014, and the new
standards are in effect starting October 1, 2014. More information can be found at
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/HMIS-Data-Standards-Manual.pdf and
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/HMIS-Data-Dictionary.pdf.
3.Affirmative Marketing: Quarterly and annual reports shall be submitted by the project/program
manager to the County for only CDBG-funded public services and housing projects. Each report
shall report the total number of project/program applicants and clients served with respect to race,
ethnicity, gender, and disability status. Affirmative marketing efforts shall be taken to increase the
participation of any underserved groups.
4.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1979: The County does not discriminate on the basis of
disability in admission to, access to, or operation of its federally assisted programs and activities.
The Section 504 Coordinator maintains a Grievance Procedure that receives and responds to
Section 504 grievances / complaints. However, it applies only to County programs and activities
that are funded by HUD. You can reach the ActionPlan@co.slo.ca.us, at the beginning of this
application, if you would like more information or wish to contact the Section 504 Coordinator.
5.The Project Proposal submitted to the County of San Luis Obispo shall be examined in relation to
the County’s community development goals and funding priorities as presented in the Urban County
of San Luis Obispo 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The Housing and Economic Development team
will make draft funding recommendations using the rating criteria stated in the updated Request for
Proposals as well as other information including but not limited to: the County Board of Supervisors,
recommendations from the Homeless Services Oversight Council, online “needs” survey, other
participating jurisdictions of the Urban County of San Luis Obispo, identified needs that could be
addressed by the grant funds, consistency with goals and priorities in the 2015-2019 Consolidated
Plan and the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, results of the Needs Workshops, working
knowledge of the project and organization, and availability of limited funds.
Packet Pg. 125
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PAGE 10 OF 10
APPLICATION FOR THE 2017 PROGRAM YEAR AUGUST 26, 2016
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING WWW.SLOPLANNING.ORG
6.Those awarded grants are required to provide beneficiary data at the end of each quarter and year
end data of the fiscal year.
7.* Relocation: Any project that involves the acquisition of property and/or rehabilitation and is funded
in whole or in part with federal funds, even if the federal funds are not used for the acquisition itself,
is subject to federal requirements related to acquisition and relocation. A project cannot be broken
into separate “projects” in order to avoid the federal requirements concerning property acquisition
and relocation. Any questions regarding the relocation regulations for a specific property
acquisition project should be directed to the County Housing and Economic Development staff
before any action is taken on the project.
If HUD funded project will cause a household or a business to move, evenly temporarily, the relocation
regulations will apply. Please submit the following:
x Estimate of relocation cost (moving costs, subsidy amount for suitable replacement dwelling).
x Letter to owner of voluntary acquisition and proof of delivery to owner.
x General Information letter to tenants (both business and residential tenants) and proof of
delivery to all.
x List of tenants (both business and residential tenants) at the time of application submittal.
x Refer to http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning/Housing_and_Economic_Development/ura.htm
for sample relocation letters under the downloadable manuals.
8.** Lead-Based Paint (LBP): LBP regulations apply if HUD funded project involves acquisition or
rehabilitation of a residential units that was built in 1978 or earlier. Please submit the following:
x Estimate of costs for LBP work prepared by certified LBP consultant. Or a statement letter by
LBP consultant explaining that the project is exempt.
x Include any temporary housing costs.
8.** Lead-Based Paint (LBP): LBP regulations apply if HUD funded project involves acquisition or ()gppy pj q
rehabilitation of a residential units that was built in 1978 or earlier.Please submit the following:
x
g
Estimate of costs for LBP work prepared by certified LBP consultant. Or a statement letter by pp y
LBP consultant explaining that the project is exempt.
x
pg p
Include any temporary housing costs.
Packet Pg. 126
7
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Julie Cox, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: SAN LUIS OBISPO OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE GRANT APPLICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize Fire Department staff to submit grant application to San Luis Obispo County Off
Highway Vehicle grant program in the amount of $32,628.00 to purchase one Off Highway
Vehicle, configured with a mobile radio and headset system; and
2. Authorize City Manager to execute documents necessary to appropriate the grant funds upon
notification that the grant has been awarded; and
3. Delegate the Purchase Authority to the Finance Director to review quotes and award
contracts or purchase orders.
DISCUSSION
Background
Annually, the State of California distributes Off-Highway Vehicle In-Lieu Fee funding to the
County of San Luis Obispo and other counties that have off-highway vehicle recreation facilities.
These funds are derived from a four dollar In-Lieu Fee included in the registration fee that are
paid by the owners of off highway vehicles.
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has approved a competitive process for the
distribution of sixty percent (60%) of the County’s annual receipts of Off -Highway Vehicle In-
Lieu Fees to other governmental agencies and non-profit organizations.
Grant Request
The City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department is requesting authorization to submit a grant to San
Luis Obispo County Off Highway Vehicle grant program for $32,628 to purchase one Off
Highway Vehicle, mobile radio and headset system.
For many years the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department has been providing search and
rescue, and Paramedic care to the citizens of San Luis Obispo, and its guests who enjoy our open
space. The city’s open space includes; recreational motor use, mountain biking, and hiking in
legal authorized city trails, and some unauthorized trails used by motorcyclist. The Fire
Department has struggled to gain access to certain areas of open space, due to our inability to
gain motorized vehicle access with our personnel and medical rescue equipment. The
Department is requesting County Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Grant funds to build a specialized
rescue vehicle which can access these OHV and open space locations to render aid to people who
become injured, trapped, or lost. The Utility Task Vehicle (UTV) will have the the capability to
go off road, and tactically insert personal and rescue equipment to parts of our open space
response area that we have never before been able to access with a normal 4x4 vehicle. UTV’s
Packet Pg. 127
8
provide quicker access, specialized 4x4 capability, to reach victims who are trapped, lost or
injured. With this specialized piece of equipment, we will be able to better serve our citizens who
daily enjoy our cities OHV, and open space trails.
The City of San Luis Obispo is home to the busiest open space areas in the County. On a daily
basis, hundreds of people enjoy our mountain bike trails, hiking trails, and off highway areas.
People who utilize these open space areas routinely become, injured, trapped, lost, and require
prompt life saving measures, specialized rope rescue, and need to be extricated from these
limited access areas and transported to nearby hospitals for continuation of medical care.
Firefighter-Paramedics need prompt access to remote and challenging areas in order to provide
life saving measures to these victims. In a life safety rescue scenario every minute is critical.
From the time of the 911 call, to the time of victim access, every second counts to provide the
highest level of medical care to a victim. This UTV will give the Firefighter-Paramedics of San
Luis Obispo access to victims in areas where our response times are delayed, and only accessible
by helicopter or are greatly delayed by accessing on foot. This UTV will allow us to extricate
victims from open space areas. These critical rescue functions take place monthly in our City,
and we provide life safety rescue functions to nearby jurisdictions on a weekly basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Purchase of a vehicle is not a project as defined of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
CONCURRENCE
Public Works – Fleet concurs with the request.
FISCAL IMPACT
Grant requested will provide funds for the purchase of the vehicle, mobile radio and headset
system. Funds requested total $32,628. There is no match required for the grant. A Fire
Department mechanic estimates the ongoing maintenance for the vehicle is provided within the
Fire Department budget, estimated at $400.00 annually.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could decide not to pursue the grant monies. This is not recommended as the fire
service grant opportunities are limited and the grant funds would only serve to enhance the
effectiveness of the Fire Department.
Packet Pg. 128
8
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Lindsey Stephenson, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASES FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
AND MAINTENANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize Finance Director to execute purchase orders in the total amount of $190,000 to acquire
four pieces of heavy duty equipment to accomplish the adopted Major City Goal of Open Space
Preservation using funding from the approved $285,000 2015-17 Capital Improvement Project
for Open Space Preservation: Maintenance.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City owns approximately 3,500 acres of open space lands comprised of 12 major properties
held in open space, natural reserve, ecological reserve, or agricultural reserve status. City staff
oversee an additional 3,500 plus acres of land protected under open space or conservation
easement. Most of these open space properties feature an established trail network of over 55
miles where passive recreation uses are enjoyed by the public. The City’s open space lands are
managed by its “Open Space Team” comprised of the City Administration Natural Resources
program staff and Parks and Recreation Department Ranger staff. The Open Space Team
undertakes open space maintenance, patrol, site stewardship, and environmental programs.
Major City Goal: Open Space Preservation: Protect and Maintain Open Space
One of Council’s Major City Goals for the 2015-17 Financial Plan is Open Space Preservation:
Protect and Maintain Open Space. Four categories of action tasks were identified to implement
this goal including: real property acquisition and conservation planning; open space
improvements, maintenance, user safety, and patrol; land restoration, stewardship, monitoring,
and education; and wildland-interface fuel reduction. To accomplish these tasks funding in the
amount of $285,000 per fiscal year was encumbered to complete equipment and materials
acquisitions as well as contract services associated with the capital improvement projects for this
goal.
Goal Progress
To date significant progress has been made on this Major City Goal. Staff have reported to
Council on these accomplishments on a biannual basis. Most recent highlights have included the
potential purchase of the Waddell Property adding 154 acres to the City’s Open Space
management and further increasing the Irish Hills Open Space area. Continued progress has
been made on two other property negotiations which would add significant open space within the
area of the headwaters of San Luis Obispo Creek adjacent to Cuesta Grade. Additionally, the
City anticipates receiving a 71-acre parcel that will be added to the South Hills Natural Reserve
as a condition of approval with Tract 2428 in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, as well as an
Packet Pg. 129
9
approximately 60-acre parcel that includes Righetti Hill within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan as a
condition of approval with Tract 3063. The Righetti Hill property dedication represents an
entirely new open space area that does not have any constructed trails at present nor feature any
of the standard open space amenities identified in the Open Space Maintenance Plan. Significant
progress on maintenance has occurred and includes progress on all trail head amenity
installations as the highlight of the past six-month period and the dramatic reduction in fire fuel
at Bishop Peak. This effort occurred over a two-week period and involved 100’s of hours of
staff and other agency work resulting in the most extensive fuel reduction project ever in this
high risk area.
Goal Tasks Focused on Maintenance
Three of the action tasks for the Open Space Preservation Major City Goal focus on the physical
improvements and maintenance required to protect and preserve the City’s open space. To
achieve these tasks, in December 2015, Council adopted the Cit y’s (and one of the nation’s) first
Open Space Maintenance Plan. The Plan details the “nuts & bolts” maintenance practices and
protocols to be undertaken by staff in the City’s Open Space. It also identifies planned
enhancements consistent with existing City policy, regulations, and adopted conservation and
open space plans. Foundationally, the maintenance of all City Open Space is premised on the
protection of natural resources, including plants, animals, geologic and historic features and the
natural areas themselves. Many of these enhancements are being worked on and completed
during this financial plan time frame and will result in increased user safety and resource
protection; however, many other maintenance and enhancements tasks identified in the Open
Space Maintenance Plan and property-specific conservation plans are ongoing on a seasonal or
annual basis.
Need for Specialized Equipment to Continue to Preserve and Protect Open Space
At the time the Open Space Goal was adopted by Council neither the maintenance plan nor
additional staff resources were in place. Now that both are, staff have been able to identify the
specific equipment needed to implement the plan. To accomplish the goals and tasks associated
with open space protection staff have identified four pieces of specialized equipment and one
additional shared pool vehicle needed to complete these tasks associated with the goal at present
and into the future.
Currently, City Rangers (one Supervising Ranger, two Ranger Maintenance workers, and four
Limited Benefit Temporary Rangers) use predominately hand tools and occasional equipment
rentals (which generally are not appropriately sized nor configured for open space, and if
available locally are not readily available during peak work seasons). Staff have identified that
four additional pieces of specialized mechanized equipment would be more efficient and
appropriate for the completion of a number current and ongoing tasks outlined in the adopted
Open Space Maintenance Plan. This equipment would be used for the ongoing preservation and
protection of City Open Space.
In addition to being used to implement the tasks associated with the Major City Goal and Open
Space Maintenance Plan, this equipment is also needed because staff is anticipat ing a decline in
the availability of contract labor which has been utilized in the past to supplement City Rangers.
Members of the California Conservation Corps (CCC) and/or Cuesta Camp Inmate crews have
Packet Pg. 130
9
been used for winterization, weed abatement, and fire fuel reduction activities on a routine basis.
However, this resource has always been subject to availability (given their primary roles in
statewide fire-fighting activities that is varied). With the recent passage of Proposition 57 (early
release of non-violent offenders), staff has been informed that the reliability and availability of
these crews will be significantly reduced as many of the same individuals that are eligible for
work crew programs will be potentially eligible for early release. The four pieces of equipment
would allow City staff to accomplish numerous projects that if done by hand would require
significant added work crews thereby allowing the work to be done with a much smaller
workforce.
What Will this Equipment Be Used for and What Equipment is Needed?
Mechanized equipment is needed by the Rangers to perform maintenance in the City’s open
space. Unfortunately, locally, the equipment most appropriate to successfully perform
maintenance tasks in the open space is either inappropriately sized (too big, too impactful) or
oversubscribed locally during peak weed abatement season and not available for rent or rented at
an above market price. The specific equipment discussed below would increase productivity by
Rangers with respect to trail construction, the decommissioning of unwanted trails, general
maintenance of City Open Space, City Watershed stewardship, and environmental mitigation
projects.
The following equipment is being proposed to be acquired as part of the Major City Goal CIP for
Open Space Protection. Ranger staff have done extensive research and develop a prioritized list
of equipment needed to complete their job tasks today and in the future. Not all of the
equipment needed has been identified for purchase. What is presented is the top priority
equipment which would receive the greatest amount of use and would enhance the efficiency and
productivity of this work group. Other equipment, as is a best practice in the City, would be
rented on an as needed basis.
1. Tractor. A John Deere 4066M Tractor is similar to Public Work’s Parks Maintenance’s
equipment used for multiple parks maintenance purposes. It would be frequently used by
Ranger Service for major new projects as well as ongoing maintenance. It would allow
staff to perform tasks that would otherwise have to be contracted out. Some basic tasks
would include constructing parking area for open space trail heads, repairing and
maintaining the same parking lots, mending the dirt access roads that exist in the open
space for emergency and/or maintenance purposes, seasonally mowing the City’s open
spaces with a flail mower, lifting and transporting natural barriers (BFR’s), digging
footings for future fences and kiosks, and the list goes on.
2. Mini Excavator. A CAT 301.7D CR is a mini excavator. This tool can operate as
narrow as 3 feet 3 inches, or as wide as 4 feet 3 inches and can work in very narrow and
rugged areas. It’s a specialized excavator that is used primarily for dirt and rock
movement in non-sensitive areas. Ranger Service would be able to utilize this piece of
equipment primarily in trail work projects. It can build new, repair old, and would be
very versatile. This excavator weighs 3,500 pounds and would be easily transported by
Rangers to and from job sites with existing equipment trucks and trailers. It would also be
used in tandem with the Mini Dozer to construct new parking areas at Johnson Ranch and
Packet Pg. 131
9
Reservoir Canyon increasing safety and access.
3. Trail Dozer a.k.a. “Mini Dozer”. A Sutter 500 Trail Dozer is a compact dozer that is
specifically designed specifically to build and maintain trails. It weighs around 9,000
pounds, so it is compact and yet stout enough to be operated safely in sloped areas. It
would dramatically increase work production and would give the City even more tools
for fire fuel reduction. The focus of this equipment would be on improving older trails
that lack appropriate erosion management and building new while also addressing fuel
reduction in multiple locations to further reduce fire risks. It would also be used in
tandem with the Mini Excavator to construct new parking areas at Johnson Ranch and
Reservoir Canyon increasing safety and access.
4. Gator. The John Deere Gator is a diesel powered side by side unit with 4-wheel drive.
This small, 2 seater, open utility vehicle has a small dump bed. The Gator would be a trail
specific machine that would not only allow for Ranger patrol but would aid in the
transportation of Rangers and equipment to remote locations. The Gator has a ¾ Ton
pulling capacity, making it a desirable workhorse. This nimble, yet powerful vehicle
would be able to travel where Ranger Service trucks cannot travel. It features a 22 HP
diesel engine, weighs 1600 pounds, and is just over 5 feet wide (62 inches) and therefore
would not negatively impact our existing multi-use trails. Given the limited distance
vehicles can operate in the Open Space this would be a daily use piece of equipment
which would enhance and increase safety in the open space via patrol and rescue as well
as increase the efficiency and effectiveness of maintenance in remote regions of the
City’s open space which with each new acquisition and trail becomes larger and more
dispersed.
Continued open space preservation today necessaril y entails appropriate levels of maintenance,
including infrastructure enhancement to ensure user safety and neighborhood compatibility,
restoration of degraded or hazardous areas, and focused educational opportunities. At present,
Ranger Service staff does not have the proper equipment to achieve the goals set forth by the
Council. The purchase of the proposed specialty equipment for Ranger Service has an anticipated
lifespan of 15-20 years. Similar equipment is owned by the California State Parks and has been
utilized at State Parks within San Luis Obispo County, including the Pismo Preserve. The
efficiency of ownership lends to increased capabilities of maintaining and preserving the City’s
Open Space. This mechanized equipment allows staff to successfully preform and complete the
tasks set forth by Major City Goal and Maintenance Plan in a timely manner.
The proposed specialized equipment allows the Ranger Service to keep everything in-house.
Equipment is not always readily available for the Ranger Service to rent. For example, during
Spring, a tractor with a mower is not an easy rent because the entire central coast is doing weed
abatement. With tractors in high demand during this time of year, Rental Depot charges $450 per
8 hours of use. Approximately 60 hours of mowing divided by 8-hour days’ x $450 per 8 hours
gives us $3,375 in rental charges annually. Over a 15-year span, this total jumps up to $50,625
just for weed abatement. Specialty equipment would increase productivity in trail construction
and aid in the decommission of unwanted trails.
Packet Pg. 132
9
Currently, the Ranger Service builds everything by hand and relies on the support of volunteers
to make an impact on trail maintenance, preservation and construction. The new equipment
would allow staff to be less reliant on contractors (who are frequently unavailable and expected
to be less so in the future). This would allow staff to keep pace with new acquisitions and build
new trails providing to new open space properties such as Waddell which cannot be done at this
time given the workload created by hand work. By increasing efficiencies this would allow
Rangers time for other duties including education which the public continues to express
increased needs for.
CONCURRENCES
Both City Administration and Public Works, have reviewed and concur with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable. As an equipment purchase, this activity is exempt from CEQA review. All
maintenance activities are undertaken consistent with the adopted Open Space Maintenance Plan
and all other applicable Conservation Plans, city policies and ordinances. A Negative
Declaration was adopted counterpart to the Open Space Maintenance Plan, while adopted
property-specific Conservation Plans also have counterpart environmental documents.
FISCAL IMPACT
With the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council approved $285,000 in 2015-16 and the
same in 2016-17 to fund deferred and ongoing maintenance needs of the City’s Open Space
using as a guide the Council approved Open Space Maintenance Plan. Generally, the projects
and costs are expected to include: trail head enhancement, Conservation Plan priority projects,
ongoing maintenance, and multi-model access improvements. Sufficient funds exist in the
approved CIP for Open Space Maintenance (10160100,91397953,91397101,91397953) to
acquire the equipment described in the table below.
Equipment Detail Estimated Cost Estimated
Annual
Maintenance/Fuel
Costs
John Deere 4066M Tractor w/Bucket,
Forks, Flail Mower, Hydraulic Gannon
Box
$60,000 $3,500
CAT 301.7D CR Excavator w/ Thumb $40,000 $2,500
Sutter 500 Trail Dozer w/ Blade and
Rippers
$75,000 $4,000
John Deere Gator w/ Roof $15,000 $1,000
TOTAL $190,000 $11,000
Packet Pg. 133
9
The annual maintenance costs will be covered by a combination of avoided rental costs by the
Ranger Service Division and the Fleet Maintenance Division. All listed equipment will be used
in conjunction in all City Open Spaces with anticipated lifespan of 20+ years.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny Funding and Purchase. The Council could choose to deny the equipment purchases
described above, or only approve partial funding. Staff does not recommend this option as the
CIP was approved as part of the 2015-17 Capital Improvement Financial Plan. Denying or
deferring purchase will result in loss of Ranger staff productivity.
Attachments:
a - Council Reading File: Open Space Maintenance Plan
Packet Pg. 134
9
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Lindsey Stephenson, Administrative Analyst ,
Sahvanna Ettestad, Administrative & Communications Specialist
SUBJECT: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN PROGRESS REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the Parks and Recreation Department’s Open Space Maintenance Plan 2016
Progress Report (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
Background
On December 15, 2015 the City Council adopted the City’s first Open Space Maintenance Plan
(“Plan”). Adoption of the Plan identified future progress reports to the Council, this Council
Agenda Report transmits the First Annual Report.
The adopted Open Space Maintenance Plan is the City’s first – and it is one of the first in open
space programs across the nation. The Plan is premised on the protection of the City’s natural
resources including plants, animals, geologic, and historic features as well as the natural areas
themselves. The Plan was written in a manner that affirms existing maintenance practices
undertaken by staff, contractors, and volunteers. Those practices are all undertaken in a manner
that is consistent with existing City policies, ordinances, and plans regarding open space. The
proposed Open Space Maintenance Plan specifically references and integrates as its foundational
policy guidance the following existing City policy documents: Conservation and Open Space
Element, Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo, and the
Adopted Conservation Plans for each of the City’s open space lands.
In addition to implementing the Conservation Plans for specific open space and reserve
properties the Plan addresses existing maintenance needs in the City’s open space lands. It
articulates the enhancement and maintenance of existing trailheads and trails in a sustainable
manner for passive recreation purposes only. It also articulates removal of illicit materials and
trails, improvements to user and natural resource safety, land restoration and stewardship
projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosion control and stabilization, education of
users via patrol and outreach and management of the wildland-urban interface areas.
Plan Focus
The Plan is divided is divided in three sections:
1. Maintenance Activities. Maintenance Activities have been ongoing in the City’s open
space for years. They are undertaken by staff, as well as contractors and volunteers on a
daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis. Maintenance Activities fall into six main
Packet Pg. 135
10
categories of maintenance: 1) vegetation, 2) structure, 3) signage, 4) trail/road, 5)
drainage, and 6) trail construction. Under each category are specific tasks. Within each
of these categories are focused activities that can occur seasonally or year-round.
2. Trailhead Amenities. For the purpose of standardization, the City has three different
sized trailheads (small, medium, and large) with differing degrees of enhancement at
each. Currently, the City has 24 trailheads throughout its open space system. The plan
identifies for each trailhead amenity its purpose, design specification, location, standard
costs, materials, installation, maintenance, and lifespan.
3. Open Space Locations. City Ranger staff (7 full-time and 1 part-time) presently
maintain approximately 3,700 acres of open space lands comprised of 15 properties held
in open space, natural reserve, ecological reserve, or agricultural reserve status. The
Conservation Plan implementation items are numerous and property specific. They
include activities such as: trailhead, parking, and emergency access improvements;
directional and educational trail signs and kiosks; trail installation, closures, re -routes,
and erosion control; invasive species control, fire protection and native habitat
restoration; and bridge, fence, and open space infrastructure replacement.
Open Space Maintenance Plan Progress Report Highlights
The Open Space Maintenance Plan Progress Report covers results predominately from calendar
year 2016. It provides a visual and numerical summary for Council and the commu nity about
the work efforts undertaken to address the adopted Plan as well as the 2015 -17 Major City Goal:
Open Space Preservation. Implementation efforts addressed new and deferred maintenance
projects. How those efforts were accomplished is also highlighted in the report. Of particular
focus for Ranger staff this past year were enhanced trail head amenities. The pictures in the
progress report provide a visual summary of all of the work accomplished. Other highlights
address the education of staff and the public and the use of volunteers and contractors. The
results have been significant and have “caught” up many open space areas such that they are
safer and more welcoming for the public to use and enjoy.
2017 will see a maintenance focus on the installation of informational panels at every trailhead
kiosk as well as signage. Maps, historical, biological and other information will be readily
available to the public. Staff anticipates parking and fencing improvements to be other activities
of focus as well as the continued construction and maintenance of trails. The M trail loop will be
completed in 2017 and the newly acquired Waddell Property will be studied and planned for
future public access. Other anticipated activities include bridge and gate repairs as well as
trimming, fire fuel reduction, and the like.
CONCURRENCE
Administration’s Natural Resources Program Manager, Bob Hill, concurs with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
When adopted on December 15, 2015, a Negative Declaration was approved for the Maintenance
Packet Pg. 136
10
Plan. In addition to being compliant with the Plan, all activities undertaken in protecting the
City’s Open Space by the Rangers, are done in a manner consistent with all adopted City
policies, ordinances, and open space and/or natural preserve conservation plans.
FISCAL IMPACT
This report on maintenance activities does not have a new fiscal impact. The activities are
funded through the adopted 2015-17 Financial Plan and include resources from the operational
budget for the Ranger Service Program in the Parks and Recreation Department as well as from
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) associated with the 2015-17 Major City Goal to Protect
Natural Resources.
Attachments:
a - Open Space Maintenance Plan Annual Report
Packet Pg. 137
10
Annual Open Space
Maintenance Report
2016 PROGRESS REPORT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN
Packet Pg. 138
10
1
2
1
1
6
Bell Box
Bike Rack (4)
Mutt Mitt
Large Kiosk
Panels
1
2
1
1
Bell Box
Medium Kiosk
Small Kiosk
Panel
1
1
Mutt Mitt
Medium Kiosk
Stenner SpringsJohnson Ranch
After
After
During
Laguna Lake
After
After
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 1
NEW
2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES
Packet Pg. 139
10
Islay Hill
2
1
Mutt Mitt
Small Kiosk
AfterBefore;Huckleberry During
After; SpanishAfter; Sweetbay
1 Mutt Mitt
Reservoir Canyon
1
1
1
1
3
Bike Rack (4)
Mutt Mitt
Medium Kiosk
Small Kiosk
Panels
South Hills
After
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 2
NEW
2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES
Packet Pg. 140
10
3
2
1
1
1
Bike Racks (4)
Mutt Mitt
Large Kiosk
Medium Kiosk
Panel
1
2
1
1
1
Bell Box
Bike Racks
Mutt Mitt
Large Kiosk
Small Kiosk
Bell Boxes
Bike Racks
Mutt Mitt
Kiosk Medium
Kiosk Small
Panels
2
2
1
2
1
6
During
After
Cerro San Luis
Irish Hills
Bishop Peak
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 3
NEW
2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES
After
After
Packet Pg. 141
10
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 4
Terrace Hill
1
1
Mutt Mitt
Small Kiosk
After; New fence
Before
After;
New fence, gate & kiosk
NEW
2016TRAILHEAD AMENITIES
Packet Pg. 142
10
VOLUNTEER HOURSJAN 1, 2016 to NOV 16, 2016418
75.5
volunteers’ value
Total Hours Worked
total volunteer hours spent at
The M trail
Wednesday Work Days
total volunteer hours spent at
Saturday Work Days
total volunteer hours spent at
807
total hours
39 days X 3 hrs
132by Dean arrighi
Volunteer hours worked
447
total hours
15 days X 3 hrs
Reservoir Canyon
total volunteer hours spent at
Volunteer patrol hours
by grace demsey
$33,716.81
507
total hours
29 days X 3 hrs
300
total hours
10 days X 3 hrs
Number of volunteers
1461.5
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 5
Packet Pg. 143
10
supervising & working on the project per day
1-3
1,000
hours of labor
2-4
105
crews supervised by ranger staff 7
on the project
12
work days
FIRE FUEL REDUCTION
Cal Fire Captains
supervising & working on the project per day
Rangers
Hours
Total Days
CDCR crew
CDCR crew
2016
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 6
Packet Pg. 144
10
$2,700
of crews
Cost
15
of wood removed
Truck bed loads
of wood removed
Trailer loads
1,300+
21
25
of a chipper running reducing wood debris
Hours
were made with the public during wow week
Contacts
$1,200
for equiptment
Rental fees
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 7
FIRE FUEL REDUCTION
2016
Packet Pg. 145
10
NEW TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 8
JAN 2016 to PRESENT
Reservoir Canyon
M Trail
2.4 miles
0.4 miles
!(
800
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1
6
0
0
15
0
0
1400
1300
1700
500
400
600
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
20
0
8
0
0
1300
14001500
1600
6001000110090012001300140015000.
1
Bowden Ranch
Reservoir Canyon
1712 ft#
1548 ft#
To HWY 101
$Trail
Easement
Only
$$mimi
mi
2 mi
0.
3
mi
0.9
3.2
00.20.40.1
Miles
Reservoir Canyon
& Bowden Ranch
I
!(!(!(!(!(![80
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
Trail
Trail
Easement
Only
$$0
.
2
Lemon Grove Loop
CarriageRoadTrail
LemonGroveLoop
o p
LemonGrove Loop
"M"Lem onGroveLoop0.1
0.3
0.40.3
0.5
0.6
00.10.20.05
Miles
Cerro San Luis gNm
IN PROGRESS
Packet Pg. 146
10
STAFF TRAINING HOURSAnnual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 9JULY 1, 2016 to NOV 16, 2016PC 832
80 hours
64 hours
160hours
24 hours
16 hours
8 hours
6 hours
72 hours
24 hours
8 hours
8 hours
20 hours
24 hours
514
IMBA
Wilderness first aid
Chainsaw refresher
Environmental education
Steele head summit
Wilderness &
waterways
clets & radio
2015 cpr first aid aed
pepper spray
(oc spray)
Loading bed box
& chipper operation
informal trail
building techniques
osha
TOTAL
staff
training
hours
Packet Pg. 147
10
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 10
Junior Ranger
Activity Camp
(JRAC)
WOW Week
Trail Head
information
Ranger
Lead Hikes
Laguna Lake
Camp Out
After School Ranger
Talks
TOTAL 1296 hrs
of public education
18 students X 6 hours per day X 5 days540 hrs
12 students X 6 hours per day X 5 days360 hrs
1350 students X 5 min informed about
rules & open space112 hrs
One hike per month, 2 people each hike
X 2 hrs X 11 months44 hrs
12 talks, 1 hour each, with 18 students
216 hrs
4 groups X 12 people X 30 mins24 hrs
August
June
PUBLIC
EDUCATION
These numbers only represent the formal education
provided by ranger staff.
Rangers engage with hundreds of visitors a week and are constantly
educating the public about rules, wildlife plants, trail and more.JUNE 1, 2016 to PRESENT
September
Annual
September &August
After School
JRAC
Laguna Campout
RLH
WOW
Packet Pg. 148
10
#PixOnPeaksLearn more on Instagram @PixOnPeaks
and www.slocity.org/parksandrecreation
Bus Poster
Book mark
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 11
Using Instagram to promote
laws & trails less traveled
Hike Reservoir Canyon, Ocean View, Morro View,
South Hills, Eucs Kiosk, Islay Hill, and The M Trail
Take a photo at each & tag @pixonpeaks
Then come into our office to show us all
the photos you receive a FREE t-shirt!
Hand-out
Sticker / logo
500
LEASHES
GIVEN AWAY
AT TRAIL
ENTRANCES
PUBLIC
OUTREACH Two education campaignsAUG 2015 to PRESENT
Leash is the Law and
@pixonpeaks
Packet Pg. 149
10
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 12
ENFORCEMENT
Began OCTOBER 1, 2015
Dog Off Leash 71
Open Space Closed Per Director 20
Smoking 27
Camping Overnight/Riparian Corridor 13
Disposing/Collecting Trash at Riparian 5
Alcohol 20
Littering 2
Night Hiking 21
Parking Citation 8
Possessing Alcohol by a City Riparian 4
Traveling Off Trail 9
Disturbing Natural Rescources in a Riparian 3BISHOP PEAKBOB JONESCERRO SAN LUISCREEKSIRISH HILLSJOHNSON RANCHLAGUNA LAKESOUTH HILLSTERRACE HILLSBIANCHI OPEN SPACE50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Types of Tickets
TICKETS PER OPEN SPACE
11
41
27 26
7
21
26
5 4 3
Dog Off Leash
26%
Open Space Closed Per
Director
7%
Smoking
29%
Camping
Overnight/Riparian
Corridor
5%
Disposing/Collecting
Trash at Riparian
2%
Alcohol
13%
Littering
1%
Night Hiking
8%
Parking Citation
3%
Possessing Alcohol
by a City Riparian
1%
Traveling Off Trail
3%
Disturbing Natural
Rescources by a Riparian
1%
Packet Pg. 150
10
CREEK
STEWARDSHIP
Annual Open Space Maintenance Report Page 13
Rangers Total
January 1- November 18
17,393 lbs
TOTAL COMBINED
43,753 lbs
or 21.87 Tons
Contract Total
26,360 lbs+illegal
camps
posted Jan 1- Nov 15, 2016
Contract Cleanups
Illegal camps create
trash that rangers remove daily.
On-going Creek
Maintenance
2016
180
Dec 7, 2015 March 30, 2016 April 26, 2016 Aug 4, 2016 Sept 1, 2016
6,900 lbs 3420 lbs 5740 lbs 8600 lbs 1700 lbs
Packet Pg. 151
10
Ranger Service Team 2016
2016 PROGRESS REPORT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN
Packet Pg. 152
10
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY DAVID BRODIE) OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A
NEW FOUR STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING INCLUDING GROUND
FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 17 EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
ROOMS AND A REQUEST FOR A MIXED USE/SHARED PARKING
REDUCTION OF 25%, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission’s approval of a new four story mixed-use building including ground floor
commercial/retail space, 17 extended stay hotel rooms, and a mixed use/shared parking reduction
of 25%, with a categorical exemption from environmental review.
SITE DATA
Applicant Garcia Family Trust
Representative George Garcia, Garcia
Architecture and Design
Zoning Tourist Commercial (C-T)
General Plan Tourist Commercial
Site Area 0.515 acres (22,454 s.f.)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The applicant submitted an application for architectural review of a proposed four-story building
with 3,512 square-feet of commercial space on the ground floor, and 17 extended-stay hotel
rooms on the upper floors (Attachment H, Project Plans). This project is located on Olive Street
in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone. The project also includes a request for a 25% parking
reduction for shared and mixed-use parking (Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 (B) & (C)).
New commercial projects within the City require review by the Architectural Review
Packet Pg. 153
11
Commission (ARC) as stated in the City’s Municipal Code1 and the Community Design
Guidelines (Section 1.2). The proposed project was reviewed and approved in a vote of 3:2 by
the ARC on October 3, 2016 (Attachment D, ARC Resolution & Attachment E, ARC Minutes).
On October 13, 2016, the ARC approval was appealed by David Brodie on the grounds that the
ARC did not follow or properly apply the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and other
applicable regulations (Attachment F, ARC Appeal and Supplemental Letter). Appeals of the
Architectural Review Commission may be filed within 10 days of the ARC’s decision. Appeals
of the ARC are referred to the City Council for action. The review of the project by the City
Council will constitute a new hearing (de novo). In other words, the City Council is not limited
in its review to the items brought up in the appeal letter, or discussed by the ARC at the hearing,
but may cover all aspects of the project that are subject to the City’s discretionary review through
the design review process. This includes project compliance with Zoning Regulations
requirements as well as compliance with applicable guidelines from the Community Design
Guidelines.
The scope of this report is to evaluate the appeal and provide the City Council with an
assessment of the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
other applicable City policies and standards. The Council is being asked to review the proposed
project, the concerns raised by the appeal, and provide a final determination on the project,
upholding or denying the Architectural Review Commission’s approval.
One new issue raised by the appeal and discussed in this report is the potential for long-term
occupancy of hotel units within the project. As an extended stay hotel, it is expected and
anticipated that some of the rooms may be occupied for longer than thirty days. When this
occurs, hotel operators may file a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) exemption form with the City
along with their normal remittance of Transient Occupancy Tax, as provided for by the City’s
Municipal Code (SLOMC 3.04). However, the number of units that may be operated in this
fashion is limited by the residential density standards of the Tourist Commercial zoning district.
As a result, a new condition of approval is recommended that will limit the number of units to 6
of the 17 total rooms in the project that can be occupied at any one time for a period of longer
than 30 days.
The staff recommendation is to deny the appeal and uphold the ARC’s approval of the project,
based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. If the Council approves the project, the
project will have all necessary entitlements needed to move forward for building permits. The
following report provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project an d the
appeal.
1 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code chapter 2.48.050 Projects subject to architectural review A.
Architectural review shall be required for all structures and physical improvements except individual -built single-
family dwellings and small residential development projects.
Packet Pg. 154
11
BACKGROUND
Site Information/Setting:
Site Size 22,454 square feet (0.515 acres)
Present Use & Development Vacant Lot
Topography Elevation: Min. 221.7 feet; Max. 224.1 ft.
Slope: 4%
Access From Olive Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-T (Motel & Residential)
East: C-T (Restaurant)
South: C-T (Restaurant & Hotel)
West: C-T (Motel)
The project site is an existing 22,454 square foot vacant lot located on Olive Street. The site is
located on the north side of Olive Street, west of Santa Rosa Street. The parcel is in the Tourist
Commercial (C-T) zone, and all adjacent properties are also zoned C-T. The site is relatively flat,
with access from Olive street, and has been vacant for over 20 years.
Project Description
A summary of the project is included below (Attachment G, Project Description & Attachment
H, Project Plans):
1. Development: New 45-foot tall, four story mixed-use building (23,967 square feet) that
includes:
17 extended-stay hotel rooms;
Three commercial/retail tenant spaces totaling 3,512 square feet;
115 square feet (s.f.) fourth-floor common area terrace;
35 parking spaces (9 covered and 26 uncovered spaces); and
2. Design: Modern/Contemporary style that includes the following materials:
Cement plaster;
Metal panels;
Stained wood siding;
CMU block; and
Aluminum storefront system.
Packet Pg. 155
11
Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setbacks
Street Yard 53 feet (main structure) 10 feet
Other Yards 0 feet Same as adjacent (0 feet)
Max. Height of Structure(s) 45 feet 45 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 36% 75%
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 1.02 2.5
Parking Spaces 35 30
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans as approved by ARC
2. Zoning Regulations chapter 17.16: Property Development Standards
Parking Space Requirements
The applicant’s proposal provides 35 parking spaces. This is five more than the minimum
standard requirement based on a parking ratio of one space per 300 square feet of commercial
floor area for a general retail use. The applicant has also requested a parking reduction of 25% to
accommodate future commercial tenants that may have higher parking requirements, such as
restaurants, salons, etc. Providing extra parking spaces and securing a parking reduction during
the initial entitlement of the project provides flexibility to allow the mix of businesses within the
project to change without unnecessary delay or additional physical improvements.
DISCUSSION
Background
On October 3, 2016 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) held a meeting to review the
proposed project at 1042 Olive Street. The applicant proposed to develop a 45-foot tall, four-
story mixed-use project that includes commercial, hotel and a 25% mixed-use/shared parking
reduction (described above). The ARC approved the project on a 3:2 vote with findings of
Figure 1: Perspective view of the proposed project from Olive Street
Packet Pg. 156
11
consistency with the Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. The minutes
from this meeting are included as Attachment E.
Appeal
On October 13, 2016, David Brodie filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project.
The appellant provided 21 bulleted comments expressing concerns regarding the project and its
consistency with the applicable regulations and guidelines. (Attachment F, Appeal and
Supplemental Letter). Staff has addressed the appellant’s comments by grouping the concerns
into themes in the Project Analysis section below.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Staff evaluated the appellant’s concerns in the context of the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code,
and Community Design Guidelines. Based on the evaluation provided below, staff is
recommending the City Council uphold the ARC’s decision and approve the project.
Mixed-Use
The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
with the City's Zoning Regulations as an allowed use within the CT zone. The project complies
with the development standards and parking requirements for the project at this site.
The appeal makes the assertion that “the project is not a hotel but designed to be a residential
project for long term rental…”. The City’s Zoning Regulations define a Hotel (or Motel) as “a
facility with guest rooms or suites, with or without kitchen facilities, rented to the general public
for transient lodging. Hotels typically include a variety of services in addition to lodging; for
example, restaurants, meeting facilities, personal services, etc. Also includes accessory guest
facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, indoor athletic facilities, accessory retail uses,
etc.”.
While the Zoning Regulations’ definition refers to additional services that may be provided in a
hotel, these are not a requirement and the Design Guidelines do not provide language regarding
design or amenities required of a hotel. This project has been reviewed by City departments as a
hotel, including applicable building and fire code requirements.
The City’s Zoning Regulations do not differentiate between short-term and extended stay hotels,
which may have different designs and amenities to meet their patrons needs. However, in
practice many hotels within the City offer long term stays (e.g. longer than 30 days).
The City’s Municipal Code also provides a definition for “Hotel” in relation to the uniform
transient occupancy tax ordinance (SLOMC Chapter 3.04). This definition states that hotels are
structures designed for occupancy by transients 2, and “Transients” are defined as any person who
2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code chapter 3.04.020 Definitions. A. “Hotel” means any structure, or any portion of
any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or
sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel,
lodginghouse, roominghouse, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a
fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof.
Packet Pg. 157
11
is entitled to occupancy for a period of 30 consecutive days or less 3. This would imply that at the
time a guests stays in a hotel for longer than 30 days, they are no longer considered a transient,
and therefore would be considered a resident living in a unit that is subject to the use regulations
and density limitations of the Zoning Regulations. In addition, when a hotel room is occupied for
more than 30 days, the ordinance provides for an exemption form for the otherwise applicable
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).
In keeping with residential density standards for the C-T zone, the number of rooms used for
guests who stay longer than 30 days must be consistent with the residential density provisions for
the C-T zone. Residential density requirements would also apply to any possible conversion of
the spaces into permanent residences, as well as use of hotel rooms for long term stays (e.g.
longer than 30 days). A condition of approval has been added to the Resolution denying the
appeal (Attachment A, Resolution to Deny the Appeal, Condition No. 6) to clarify residential
density requirements, as follows.
The building shall comply with residential density standards for any room, or
groups of rooms, that are occupied by the same person, or persons, for a period
lasting more than 30 consecutive days.
Based on the size of the property and the residential density regulations of the C-T zone, the total
number of hotel rooms in the project that can be occupied for longer than 30 days at any one
time is six.
Further details regarding land use policies, development standards and parking analysis are
found in the attached ARC staff report (Attachment C).
Design Objectives for Commercial Projects
The project proposes a structure that is four stories with a flat roof (45 feet in height) in an area
with two and three-story structures with varying roof pitches and overall heights. This includes a
single-story structure to the south with a flat roof (approx. 15’), a single-story structure to the
east with high walls and medium pitched roof (approx. 25’), two two-story structures to the west
and southwest with a low pitched roof (approx. 30’), and a two-story structure to the north with a
steep roof pitch (approx. 35’), as seen in Figure 2 below. While the proposed structure is taller
than existing development, the Architectural Review Commission found the project consistent
with the Community Design Guidelines, including Chapter 3.1 (A.1.)4, because the variations in
scale of the surrounding neighborhood creates a context in which this height would be
appropriate. Additionally, the proposed structure is set back from the street frontage and located
3 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code chapter 3.04.020 Definitions. G. “Transient” means any person who exercises
occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for
a period of thirty consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such person
so occupying space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thirty days has expired unless
there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy.
In determining whether a person is a transient, uninterrupted periods of time extending both prior and subsequent to
the effective date of this chapter may be considered.
4 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 A. Overall design objectives for commercial projects. 1. Consider
San Luis Obispo’s small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the design context of the surrounding area.
Packet Pg. 158
11
in proximity to the tallest existing building, which is adjacent to the north property line.
The project proposes a structure that has a modern architectural style that includes the use of
rectilinear forms and offset wall planes. The Design Guidelines state that new development
should “avoid “boxy” structures with large, flat wall planes by articulating building forms and
elevations to create interesting rooflines, building shapes, and patterns of shade and shadow.”5
The proposed structure is consistent with the Design Guidelines because it includes wall offsets
and setbacks that break up the rectilinear building form and provide varied shade and shadowing
patterns along the building’s facades.
The project site is located in a neighborhood that has been the home of several motels, inns and
restaurants for many years, but the area is not designated as a historic neighborhood. The closest
historic structure to the site is the Heritage Inn located at 978 Olive Street, 200 feet southwest
from the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed structure, while different in architecture than
those in the immediate area, does not negatively impact any historic significant structures or
neighborhood6.
5 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 A. Overall design objectives for commercial projects.
6 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 A. Overall design objectives for commercial projects. 3. Preserve
Figure 2: Images of structures within the surrounding neighborhood
Packet Pg. 159
11
Architectural Style and Neighborhood Compatibility
The surrounding neighborhood includes structures with an array of building heights
(approximately 15-35 feet), materials, rooflines and design details. The Design Guidelines state
that no particular architectural style or design theme is required in the City, and a wide range of
architectural characteristics adds to the City’s overall image7. The proposed contemporary
architecture of the project includes subtle design elements and characteristics that are found in
surrounding buildings, such as flat roofs and the use of metal design elements, while also
contributes a unique design that adds to the diversity of architecture found in the neighborhood.
This is consistent with the Design Guidelines, which specifically state that certain “canned” or
“trademark” building designs used by franchise businesses are discouraged4, and that each site
should both maintain its own identity and be complimentary8. The only clearly cohesive building
design among buildings in the immediate area is that of the Ramada and Budget Inn, which
display a typical motel look in the design and layout of these buildings. To incorporate elements
of these specific structures would detract from the neighborhood’s identity and architectural
variety.
Form and Mass
The proposed structure meets the Design Guidelines’ language for form and mass9 through the
use of articulation and design elements as discussed above in the Design Objectives for
Commercial Projects Section. The articulated form is carried around all four sides of the
structure through various wall offsets, different materials that vary in thickness and color.
Human scale is provided through the use of elements that overhang the ground level store fronts,
which give the effect of recessed entries, and larger retractable glass windows (Figure 3).
the design integrity of architecturally or historically significant structures and neighborhoods adjacent to the
commercial area.
7 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 B. General architectural design guidelines. 1. Architectural style. No
particular architectural style or design theme is required in the City nor can San Luis Obispo be defined by any
particular architectural style. A wide range of architectural characteristics adds to the City’s overall image. While
variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new projects with the existing built environment
should be a priority. The goal is to preserve not only the historic flavor of the community but, equally important, its
scale and ambience. “Canned” or “trademark” building d esigns used by franchised businesses in other cities may not
be acceptable in San Luis Obispo, as they can collectively have the effect of making the commercial areas of the
City look like anywhere in California.
8 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 B. General architectural design guidelines. 2. Neighborhood
compatibility. In designing a building, it is important to analyze the areas surrounding the building site to find
elements of compatibility that can be used in a new design. Simply duplicating the character of surrounding
buildings, however, should not be a design goal. It is important for each site to both maintain its own identity and be
complementary to its surroundings. Thus, a new building can be unique and interesting and still show respect f or
and compatibility with the architectural styles and scale of other buildings in its vicinity.
9 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 B. General architectural design guidelines. 4. Form and mass. A
building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion. Horizontal and vertical wall articulation
should be expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with
overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades.
Packet Pg. 160
11
Building Materials and Colors
The project proposes to use dark grey concrete blocks, white smooth finish plaster, charcoal
colored metal panels, with other grey shades and matte black on similar materials. The rear of the
building also features a green wall (vertical plantings) to grow on galvanized metal sections. The
Design Guidelines state that “building materials shall be carefully chosen to enhance the
consistency of the architectural theme and design.”10 The Design Guidelines call for materials
that enhance the consistency of the architectural theme and design. The Design Guidelines do not
state that materials need to be consistent with nearby development, just that they be consistent
with the theme and design that the structure presents. These colors and materials are used to give
interest and articulation to the structure, and are compatible with the colors and materials in the
area. The colors of the proposed building were discussed by the ARC at their October 3, 2016
hearing, and a condition was modified that recommends “the applicant modify the proposed
color palate to include additional and/or more muted colors” (Attachment D, ARC Resolution,
Condition No. 7).
Site Planning
The Design Guidelines call for new development to demonstrate consideration for the existing
conditions on and off site.11 The existing conditions are such that the surrounding developed
properties, and their orientation to the project site, do not provide opportunities to create physical
or visual links and do not create substantial concerns for privacy. The northerly and westerly
properties are not oriented toward the subject property, as the walls near the property lines do not
10 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 B. General architectural design guidelines.
11 Community Design Guidelines chapter 3.1 C. Site planning. 1. Consider neighboring development. Each
development proposal should demonstrate consideration for the existing conditions on and off the sit e
Figure 3: Ground level commercial storefronts
Packet Pg. 161
11
have primary windows or pedestrian spaces that are exposed to the property. Additionally, the
property to the east has parking adjacent to the project, which is also physically separated by a
block wall along the property line. These properties are oriented away from the subject property,
which reduces privacy impacts and opportunities for linkages to surrounding development.
Landscaping
As part of the overall landscaping guidelines, the Design Guidelines state that landscaping
should be integrated with the building design, enhance appearance and enjoyment of the project,
and soften the visual impacts of buildings and paving.12 Planting of trees along streets in
compliance with the City’s Tree Regulations is also required. The landscape design provides
areas of planting along much of three of the four property lines, which provides screening for
parking as well as a shading, and also softens the visual impact of the building as called for by
the Design Guidelines. The building design also incorporates elements of vegetation into the
structure itself. The ARC discussed the appropriateness of the proposed landscaping and added
specific language about where more landscaping should be included as a condition of approval
(Attachment D, ARC Resolution, Condition No. 14).
Parking
The Design Guidelines call for the visual impact of parking lots to be minimized b y locating
parking towards a portion of the site that is least visible from the street and by providing
adequate screening13. While the area closest to the street frontage is used for parking spaces, the
project is consistent with this guideline because more than two thirds of the provided parking (24
of 35) is located to the rear of the lot. While parking areas are separated to meet this guideline, a
condition is included (Attachment A, Resolution to Deny the Appeal, Condition No. 5) to ensure
that this parking separation does not result in parking designated exclusively for the hotel or
commercial tenants, and that all spaces are available to all tenants and uses on the site. The
project also provides landscaping as screening for the parking located at the front of the lot. The
ARC discussed the appropriateness of the proposed landscaping and added a specific condition
regarding the addition of a landscape island in the front parking area to break up the line of
parking (Attachment D, ARC Resolution, Condition No. 14).
CONCURRENCES
The project has been reviewed by Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their
comments have been incorporated into the resolution as conditions, where appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332
of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land
use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations . The
project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban
uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and can be
12 Community Design Guidelines chapter 6.2 A. Goals for landscaping.
13 Community Design Guidelines chapter 6.3 B. Siting and screening. Parking lots should not dominate street
views of projects. Wherever possible, parking lots should be placed behind buildings.
Packet Pg. 162
11
adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal
impact associated with the approval of this project.
ALTERNATIVE
Approve the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project by upholding
the appeal, based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, and other
applicable City regulations and policies (See Attachment B, Resolution to Uphold the Appeal).
Attachments:
a - Resolution to Deny the Appeal
b - Resolution to Uphold the Appeal
c - ARC Staff Report
d - ARC Resolution
e - ARC Minutes (10-3-16)
f - Appeal and Supplemental Letter
g - Project Description
h - Project Plans
Packet Pg. 163
11
R _______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY DAVID
BRODIE AND THEREBY APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEW FOUR STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING GROUND
FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 17 EXTENDED-STAY HOTEL
ROOMS, AND A 25% MIXED-USE AND SHARED PARKING
REDUCTION, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY
3, 2017 (1042 OLIVE STREET, APPL-4010-2016)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on October 3, 2016, with a three-two vote approved the project, subject to the
findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1026-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under ARCH-2946-2016, Garcia Family Trust, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2016, David Brodie, the appellant, filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission’s action on October 3, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January
3, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4010-2016, David Brodie, appellant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-4010-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission
decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-2946-2016):
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity because the project complies with development standards
for the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone, including, but not limited to, standards for height,
setbacks and lot coverage and is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood
comprised of restaurants, motels, and residential uses.
Packet Pg. 164
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
2. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for this location because the project
proposes to construct a building that includes commercial and hotel uses that are allowed
within the Tourist-Commercial zone.
3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element policies 3.6.2 & 3.6.2 (Tourist
Commercial Uses) and 3.8.5 (Mixed Uses), because the project provides a mix of uses within
a commercial district that is appropriate and compatible with the existing neighborhood in
close proximity to major transportation corridors, such as Highway one and 101, and transit
opportunities along Santa Rosa Street.
4. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by
providing architectural interest through the use of articulation and a variety of building
materials, and an attractive style that includes, but is not limited to, flat roofs and metal design
elements, which complements the character and scale of the existing neighborhood.
5. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively impact the neighboring
properties because the project respects the privacy of neighboring buildings and protects solar
access through site planning and street-yard setback.
6. As conditioned, the 25% shared/mixed-use parking reduction for the project to reduce the
required parking from 30 parking spaces to 23 parking spaces will not result in poor on-site
circulation or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, because the hotel and
commercial uses will have peak parking demand that will not coincide.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class
32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is
consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the
applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered,
and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project, hereby granting final approval of
the application ARCH-2946-2016 for a new four story Mixed-Use project including ground floor
commercial/retail space, 17 Extended-stay hotel rooms, and a 25% shared/mixed-use parking
reduction, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
Planning
1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
Packet Pg. 165
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
2. Architectural approval of this project will expire after three years if construction has not
started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-year
extension.
3. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all
conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference
shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of
approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed
appropriate.
4. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking
calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal of Planning and
Building permits for tenant changes or improvements to ensure the site does not become
under-parked, and to ensure compliance with the requirement that peak hours will not coincide
between uses.
5. All onsite parking areas shall be open to the parking needs of both the hotel and commercial
uses. No section of parking shall be exclusively designated/reserved for any specified tenants.
6. The building shall comply with residential density standards for any room, or groups of rooms,
that are occupied by the same person, or persons, for a period lasting more than 30 consecutive
days.
7. The applicant shall submit building plans that include a trash enclosure design that is finished
with high quality materials to match the architecture of the project buildings which shall be
fully screened from upper stories with a trellis or other horizontal cover; the design of the
enclosure is subject to the Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Materials shall be consistent with the color and
material board submitted with Architectural Review application. The ARC recommends that
the applicant modify the proposed color palate to include additional and/or more muted
colors.
9. The ARC recommends that the applicant explore the possibility of incorporating a public art
installation to the proposed development.
10. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
Packet Pg. 166
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surround recesses and other related
window features.
11. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all
walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards
described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges).
12. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be
clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall -
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets
on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light
is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation
standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
13. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal
of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly
show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any
condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a
building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate
screening. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will
be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building
modifications and improvements.
14. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
15. The final landscaping plan shall incorporate additional landscaping, including tree types that
provide full canopies near the street frontage parking spaces and a landscaped island in the
front parking area to break up the line of parking.
16. Planters shall be placed after each six parking spaces in any row, and at the end of each row
of parking spaces, in compliance with Parking and Driveway Standards Section 1.1 to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
17. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
Packet Pg. 167
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
18. Any proposed signs are subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department and subject to a sign permit. The Community Development Director shall refer
signage to the ARC if signs need an exception or appear to be excessive in size or out of
character with the project.
19. The subject property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of
excessive leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible
for the clean-up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
Engineering Division – Public Works/ Community Development
20. Projects involving the construction of a new structure requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC
12.16.050
21. A separate encroachment permit shall be required from Cal Trans for any construction or
construction staging within or affecting the Cal Trans right-of-way.
22. The building plan submittal shall show and label the property line dimensions and bearings.
The building footprint and required setbacks in accordance with the California Building Code
shall honor the record property line dimensions and bearings unless an alternate measured
dimension can be supported.
23. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be upgraded to comply
with current standards. The current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk
extension behind the ramp. All other driveways are to be removed and replaced with curb,
gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards.
24. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
25. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking
per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project specific
conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details
and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or racks.
The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and
Packet Pg. 168
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
clearances to obstructions per city standard.
26. The building plan submittal shall include complete details of the secured bicycle storage area.
Include any specialized rack designs and clearance in accordance with City Engineering
Standards and Community Design Guidelines or as approved by the City.
27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. The
existing terminal joint pole shall be removed and services to the new structure shall be
underground from the existing joint pole across Olive Street. All work in the public right-of-
way shall be shown or noted.
28. The City shall review and approve the preliminary PG&E handout package prior to building
permit issuance. The City shall review and approve the final PG&E handout package prior to
building permit final.
29. The building plan submittal shall show the two existing monitoring wells to be abandoned
per City Engineering Standards.
30. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality. The building plan submittal shall show the trash enclosure to be
designed in accordance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B.
31. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading
and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property
lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite
drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the
improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water
runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to
the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within
recorded easements or existing waterways.
32. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for newly
developed sites. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as
available on the City’s Website.
33. The soils engineer shall review and provide specific recommendation regarding the proposed
stormwater and drainage strategy. The soils report shall include infiltration testing to justify
the proposed design. Otherwise provide additional storage volume in compliance with the
post construction stormwater requirements.
Packet Pg. 169
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
34. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater
improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and
shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final ins pection
approvals.
35. This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan. The building plan
submittal shall include a complete drainage report along with grading, drainage, and erosion
control plans in accordance with the Waterways Management Plan Volume III, Drainage
Design Manual. The drainage report shall include a summary response to all items in Section
2.3.1 of the manual.
36. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter
of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root
systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which
trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and
species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. The City
supports the proposed palm tree removal with the proposed compensatory tree plantings.
37. The building plan submittal shall show new street trees in accordance with City Engineering
Standards. One 15-gallon street tree is required for each 35 linear feet of frontage. New street
tree plantings shall be located in the sidewalk area in tree wells in accordance with city
engineering standard #8130 which includes a decorative metal tree grate.
Utilities Department
38. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
pipeline video inspection (visual inspection of the interior of the pipeline), including repair
or replacement, as part of the project. The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted during
the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior
to issuance of a Building Permit. Additional information is provided below related to this
requirement:
The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color.
The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe.
Material submitted shall include the project address and a scaled plan of the
building and the lateral location to the connection at the City sewer main.
The inspection shall include tracking of the pipeline length (in feet) from the start
of the inspection to the connection at the City sewer main.
It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of
inspection, and pipeline condition observations.
Code Requirements
1. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust
Packet Pg. 170
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s
Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
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 or ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 171
11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FILED BY DAVID
BRODIE THEREBY DENYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FOUR
STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 17 EXTENDED-STAY HOTEL ROOMS,
AND A 25% MIXED-USE AND SHARED PARKING REDUCTION, WITH
A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW,
AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 3, 2017 (1042 OLIVE STREET,
APPL-4010-2016)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on October 3, 2016, with a three-two vote approved the project, subject to the
finding and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1026-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under ARCH-2946-2016, Garcia Family Trust, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2016, David Brodie, the appellant, filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission’s action on October 3, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January
3, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4010-2016, David Brodie, appellant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-4010-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission
decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-2946-2016), based on the
following findings:
1. The project design is inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the
architectural style, character, and scale are incompatible with the neighborhood and adjacent
development.
2. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines
Packet Pg. 172
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
because the project’s height and scale does not provide a smooth transition between the
immediate neighborhood of predominantly one and two story buildings and the proposed
development would create an abrupt discrepancy in height and massing and overwhelm the
neighboring properties.
3. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will negatively impact the neighboring
properties because the project does not respect the privacy of neighboring buildings and
protect solar access.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).
SECTION 3. Action. Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support
thereof, the City Council does hereby deny application ARCH-2946-2016.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
________________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
Packet Pg. 173
11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series)
R ______
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 or ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 174
11
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Architectural review of a new four story mixed-use building including ground floor
commercial/retail space, and 17 extended stay hotel rooms. Include a request for a mixed use/shared
parking reduction of 25%, with a categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1042 Olive Street BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
Phone Number: (805) 781-7091
e-mail: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2946-2016 VIA: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Garcia Family Trust
Complete Date August 11, 2016
Zoning C-T
General Plan Tourist Commercial
Site Area 0.515 acres (22,454 s.f.)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
The applicant, Garcia Family Trust, is proposing to construct a new four story building with
commercial/retail at the ground level (3,512 sq. ft.) and 17 extended stay hotel rooms with parking
located in front and behind the building in the C-T (Tourist Commercial) zone. The project has been
designed to be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The proposal includes a
request for a shared/mixed-use parking reduction of 25%, which reduces the required parking from
30 spaces to 23 parking spaces.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards.
Meeting Date: October 3, 2016
Item Number: 3
Packet Pg. 175
11
ARCH-2964-2016
1042 Olive Street
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size 22,454 sq. ft. (0.515 acres)
Present Use & Development Vacant Lot
Land Use Designation Tourist Commercial (C-T)
Topography Elevation: Min. 221.7 feet; Max. 224.1 ft.
Slope: 4%
Access From Olive Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-T (Motel & Residential)
East: C-T (Restaurant)
South: C-T (Restaurant & Hotel)
West: C-T (Hotel)
2.2 Project Description
A summary of the significant project features is included below (Attachment 3, Project
Description):
1. Development: New four story mixed use building (23,967 sq. ft.), with surface parking
consisting of 9 covered and 26 uncovered spaces.
17 extended-stay hotel rooms
Three commercial/retail tenant spaces totaling 3,512 square feet
45-foot maximum height (53 feet for architectural features)
Fourth-floor common area
25% shared/mixed-use parking reduction, creating 12 extra spaces to
accommodate future tenants with varying parking requirements
2. Design: Modern/Contemporary style that includes the following materials;
Cement plaster, Metal panels & Stained wood siding
CMU Block
Aluminum storefront system
2.3 Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setbacks
Street Yard 53 feet (main structure) 10 feet
Other Yards 0 feet Same as adjacent (0 feet)
Max. Height of Structure(s) 45 feet 45 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 36% 75%
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 1.02 2.5
Parking Spaces 35 30
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 7/21/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and applicable design standards of the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Staff has
evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and has found it to be in substantial
compliance, as discussed in this analysis.
Packet Pg. 176
11
ARCH-2964-2016
1042 Olive Street
Page 3
3.1 Consistency with Community Design Guidelines
The CDG state that site planning for commercial projects should consider neighboring
development, the location of buildings and parking, landscaping, and appropriate screening, as
well as the location of refuse, storage and equipment area (CDG, Chapter 3.1C).
Neighboring development: The project site is
bordered by two story structures that are built
directly adjacent to the north and west property
lines, with the property to the east consisting of
a small single-story building setback from the
property line. The massing of these structures do
not contribute to a cohesive pattern for the area.
This is particularly evident when looking at the
north property line where the massing of the
apartment building and the existing motel are
clearly inconstant, giving the apartment building
the appearance of a three-story structure. This
non-cohesive massing of neighboring
development would not preclude the
introduction of a four story structure to the area.
The proposed project will not impede on privacy or solar access for the neighboring properties
because the existing buildings adjacent to the property line do not contain primary windows,
balconies or usable yard area that would be directly blocked by the orientation of the project on
the subject property.
Site Plan: The CDG calls for the visual impact of parking lots to be minimized by locating parking
towards a portion of the site that is least visible from the street and providing adequate screening.
While the area closest to the street frontage is used for parking spaces, more than two thirds of
the provided parking (24 of 35) is located to the rear of the lot. This site plan layout provides for
easily discernable parking availability for the commercial spaces and screens the remainder of the
parking, which will primarily serve the hotel patrons.
Trash/recycling enclosures: The CDG calls for refuse containers to be located so that their use
does not interfere with circulation or parking areas, and for their locations to be out of view. The
site plan calls out the location of the trash enclosure to the left of the vehicular entrance to the
site, 10-feet from the property line. While the location of the enclosure meets the minimum
setback requirements, the proposed location is not consistent with the intent of the CDG.
Conditions No. 5 has been included in the Draft Resolution which requires a 25-foot setback for
the trash enclosure and requires the enclosure be covered as to avoid direct visibility of refuse
containers from upper floors of the proposed structure.
Building Design: The CDG state that variety in design is encourage within the City, with
compatibility to the existing built environment as a priority. It is important for each commercial
site to create its own identity and be complimentary to its surroundings. Building materials should
be consistent in quality and detailing throughout all elevations that enhance the architectural
Figure 1: Buildings at north property line
Packet Pg. 177
11
ARCH-2964-2016
1042 Olive Street
Page 4
theme and design (CDG, Chapter 3.1B).
The project architecture is a modern/contemporary style with strong use of vertical and horizontal
rectilinear forms. The project makes use of significant articulation and projections with building
forms and architectural details. This includes a variety of building materials, such as smooth
plaster and metal panels on the upper floor elevations, and primarily dark grey colored concrete
masonry units (CMU) for the lower floor. The structure demonstrates a consistent use of colors,
materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building that are visually interesting and
receive interesting architectural treatments.
Parking: The applicant is requesting a 25% shared/mixed-use parking reduction. To achieve the
requested 25% parking reduction, the project must meet findings that all uses will share parking
areas and that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not coincide.
The project meets the requirement for a shared and mixed-use parking reduction because the
project includes commercial and hotel uses and it is anticipated that the times of peak parking
demand would not coincide. A 25% parking reduction would reduce the number of required
spaces to 23 spaces. However, the total number of parking spaces provided is 35. These additional
spaces will allow for flexibility in accommodating future tenants of the commercial spaces, as
some allowed uses would require that more parking be provided.
Staff has provided findings for approval of the requested parking reduction and recommends the
following conditions of approval. These conditions include a requirement that the property owner
must submit a running total of the site’s parking requirements with the submittal of any building
permit for tenant improvements, and/or each business license (Condition #3). In addition, the
parking that is located to the rear of the property will need to be available to the commercial units.
A condition prohibiting the exclusive use of this parking for the hotel portion has been included
(Condition #4).
3.2 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Regulations
The project is zoned Tourist-Commercial (C-T). The project must be consistent with applicable
property development standards of the C-T zone and must also be consistent with General Plan
Policies. The project is consistent with applicable property development standards of the C-T zone
in terms of height, setbacks, and lot dimensions, and staff has found the project consistent with
the following Land Use Element Policies:
LU 3.6.2: Basis for Tourism: The City shall promote San Luis Obispo as an attractive place
for short-term stays, as well as an attractive destination for long-term visitors featuring its
community character, natural qualities, historic resources, and its educational and cultural
facilities. The City should emphasize conference and visitor-serving facilities which have a
low impact upon the environment and upon existing land forms and landscapes, and which
provide low-impact visitor activities and low-impact means of transportation.
LU 3.6.2. Locations: The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other
types of uses, including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the
train station… Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already
concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway
Packet Pg. 178
11
ARCH-2964-2016
1042 Olive Street
Page 5
interchanges; and in the Downtown.
Land Use Element Policy, LU 3.8.5. Mixed Uses. The City encourages compatible mixed uses
in commercial districts.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of
the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site
occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no
value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened s pecies as the site is located in an area with existing
developed properties.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as conditions
of approval and code requirements, where appropriate.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, or other applicable City policies and standards.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Description
3. Reduced Project Plans
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
Packet Pg. 179
11
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1026-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW
FOUR STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 17 EXTENDED-STAY HOTEL ROOMS,
A 25% MIXED-USE AND SHARED PARKING REDUCTION WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
OCTOBER 3, 2016, 1042 OLIVE STREET (ARCH-2946-2016)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on October 3, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-2946-
2016, Garcia Family Trust, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARCH-2946-2016), based on the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site
constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for this location since the project
proposes to construct a building that includes commercial and hotel uses that can be utilized
for such uses within the Tourist-Commercial zone.
3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element policies 3.6.2 & 3.6.2 (Tourist
Commercial Uses) and 3.8.5 (Mixed Uses), because the project provides a mix of uses within
a commercial district that is appropriate and compatible with the existing neighborhood in
close proximity to major transportation corridors and transit opportunities.
4. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by
providing architectural interest and an attractive style which complements the character and
scale of the existing neighborhood.
Packet Pg. 180
11
Resolution No. ARC-1026-16
ARCH-2946-2016 (1042 Olive Street)
Page 2
5. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively alter the overall
character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance because the project involves the
development of a vacant lot, which will not result in a negative impact on the neighboring
properties in terms of privacy or solar exposure.
6. As conditioned, the 25% shared/mixed-use parking reduction for the project to reduce the
required parking from 30 parking spaces to 23 parking spaces will not result in poor on-site
circulation or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, because the hotel and
commercial uses will have peak parking demand that will not coincide.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class
32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is
consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the
applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered,
rare or threatened species as the site is located in an area with existing developed properties.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final
design approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Conditions
Planning
1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
2. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all
conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference
shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of
approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed
appropriate.
3. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking
calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal of Planning and
Building permits for tenant changes or improvements to ensure the site does not become
Packet Pg. 181
11
Resolution No. ARC-1026-16
ARCH-2946-2016 (1042 Olive Street)
Page 3
under-parked, and to ensure compliance with the requirement that peak hours will not coincide
between uses.
4. All onsite parking areas shall be open to the parking needs of both the hotel and commercial
uses. No section of parking shall be exclusively designated/reserved for any specified tenants.
5. The applicant shall submit building plans that include a trash enclosure that shall be designed
and finished with high quality materials to match the architecture of the project buildings
which shall be fully screened from upper stories with a trellis or other horizontal cover; the
design of the enclosure is subject to the Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Materials shall be consistent with the color and
material board submitted with Architectural Review application. The ARC recommends that
the applicant modify the proposed color palate to include additional and/or more muted
colors.
7. The ARC recommends that the applicant explore the possibility of incorporating a public art
installation to the proposed development.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surround recesses and other related
window features.
9. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all
walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards
described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges).
10. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be
clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets
on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light
is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation
standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
11. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal
of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly
show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any
condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a
building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate
Packet Pg. 182
11
Resolution No. ARC-1026-16
ARCH-2946-2016 (1042 Olive Street)
Page 4
screening. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will
be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building
modifications and improvements.
12. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
13. The final landscaping plan shall incorporate additional landscaping, including tree types that
provide full canopies near the street frontage parking spaces and a landscaped island in the
front parking area to break up the line of parking.
14. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
15. Any proposed signs are subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department and subject to a sign permit. The Community Development Director shall refer
signage to the ARC if signs need an exception or appear to be excessive in size or out of
character with the project.
16. The subject property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of
excessive leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible
for the clean-up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
Engineering Division – Public Works/ Community Development
17. Projects involving the construction of a new structure requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC
12.16.050
18. A separate encroachment permit shall be required from Cal Trans for any construction or
construction staging within or affecting the Cal Trans right-of-way.
19. The building plan submittal shall show and label the property line dimensions and bearings.
The building footprint and required setbacks in accordance with the California Building Code
shall honor the record property line dimensions and bearings unless an alternate measured
Packet Pg. 183
11
Resolution No. ARC-1026-16
ARCH-2946-2016 (1042 Olive Street)
Page 5
dimension can be supported.
20. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be upgraded to comply
with current standards. The current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk
extension behind the ramp. All other driveways are to be removed and replaced with curb,
gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards.
21. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
22. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking
per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project specific
conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details
and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or racks.
The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and
clearances to obstructions per city standard.
23. The building plan submittal shall include complete details of the secured bicycle storage area.
Include any specialized rack designs and clearance in accordance with City Engineering
Standards and Community Design Guidelines or as approved by the City.
24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. The
existing terminal joint pole shall be removed and services to the new structure shall be
underground from the existing joint pole across Olive Street. All work in the public right-of-
way shall be shown or noted.
25. The City shall review and approve the preliminary PG&E handout package prior to building
permit issuance. The City shall review and approve the final PG&E handout package prior to
building permit final.
26. The building plan submittal shall show the two existing monitoring wells to be abandoned
per City Engineering Standards.
27. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality. The building plan submittal shall show the trash enclosure to be
designed in accordance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B.
Packet Pg. 184
11
Resolution No. ARC-1026-16
ARCH-2946-2016 (1042 Olive Street)
Page 6
28. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading
and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property
lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite
drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the
improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water
runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to
the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within
recorded easements or existing waterways.
29. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped
sites. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available
on the City’s Website.
30. The soils engineer shall review and provide specific recommendation regarding the proposed
stormwater and drainage strategy. The soils report shall include infiltration testing to justify
the proposed design. Otherwise provide additional storage volume in compliance with the
post construction stormwater requirements.
31. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater
improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and
shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals.
32. This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan. The building plan
submittal shall include a complete drainage report along with grading, drainage, and erosion
control plans in accordance with the Waterways Management Plan Volume III, Drainage
Design Manual. The drainage report shall include a summary response to all items in Section
2.3.1 of the manual.
33. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter
of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root
systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which
trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and
species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. The City
supports the proposed palm tree removal with the proposed compensatory tree plantings.
34. The building plan submittal shall show new street trees in accordance with City Engineering
Standards. One 15 gallon street tree is required for each 35 linear feet of frontage. New street
tree plantings shall be located in the sidewalk area in tree wells in accordance with city
engineering standard #8130 which includes a decorative metal tree grate.
Packet Pg. 185
11
Resolution No. ARC-1026-16
ARCH-2946-2016 (1042 Olive Street)
Page 7
Utilities Department
35. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
pipeline video inspection (visual inspection of the interior of the pipeline), including repair
or replacement, as part of the project. The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted during
the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior
to issuance of a Building Permit. Additional information is provided below related to this
requirement:
The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color.
The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe.
Material submitted shall include the project address and a scaled plan of the
building and the lateral location to the connection at the City sewer main.
The inspection shall include tracking of the pipeline length (in feet) from the start
of the inspection to the connection at the City sewer main.
It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of
inspection, and pipeline condition observations.
Code Requirements
1. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust
control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s
Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program. Information on the program is available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5909
On motion by Commissioner Root, seconded by Chair Wynn, and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Root, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn
NOES: Commissioners Nemcik and Soll
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of October, 2016.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Packet Pg. 186
11
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, October 3, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
October 3rd, 2016 at 5:02 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Greg Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and
Chair Greg Wynn
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rebecca
Gershow, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen, and Recording
Secretary Brad T. Opstad
Chair Wynn noted the two remaining Commission seat vacancies and informed that a
recommendation had been forwarded to City Council for deliberation on at least one of the
replacements.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, discussed degradation of a tourist-destination starting with a
lack of sensitivity by developers to the City’s historic value.
PRESENTATIONS
P1. Leadership SLO Water Wise Demonstration Garden
Presentation of a drought-tolerant demonstration garden designed and installed on Morro Street
by volunteers from Leadership SLO Class 24.
City Associate Planner Gershow represented Leadership SLO Class #24 from 2015 in presenting
the Demonstration Garden legacy project across from the Utilities Department on Morro Street.
Chair Wynn provided suggestions for informational signage for the project.
Packet Pg. 187
11
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 3, 2016 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 870 Industrial Way. ARCH-3144-2016: Review of a new two story industrial building that
includes 30,275 square-feet of industrial/warehousing space and a 10% parking reduction to
accommodate the expansion of the existing business, with a categorical exemption from
environmental review; M-S zone; Dave Schlossberg, applicant.
Associate Planner Bell presented the staff report, previewing the two-story industrial building
expansion and provided PowerPoint presentation with project description, contextual map, and
design renderings.
Commissioner Root inquired about the performance history of the bicycle parking spaces provided
for projects, which proposes them toward parking reduction requests.
Chair Wynn referenced Condition #24 and inquired about the proposed use of ex isting private
water well; inquired about the noise generation from within the facility as it pertains to a roll-up
door on an installation room as opened toward neighboring residences.
Commissioner Soll requested viewing of the landscape plan in ensurin g that the requisite number
of trees would be planted in the parking area.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Thom Jess, Arris Studio Architects, and Dave Schlossberg, owner of Poly Performance, Inc.,
discussed the vacant portion of the current business site devoted to its proposed expansion.
Commissioner Root inquired whether there would be any mechanized communication system,
such as a conveyor, between the operation’s two buildings.
In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Director Davidson suggested that the conflict over whether
or not an elevator was a Condition of Approval would be best handled by adding the words “or as
approved by the Chief Building Official” to Code Requirement #2.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a resident neighboring project site; indicated that the
Commercial-Industrial Zone in development has created a streetscape in which there is insufficient
lighting; spoke in favor of the project.
COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION
In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Associate Planner Bell pointed out that the examples existed
of access to private wells being used for landscape watering specifically; indicated that reclaimed
water would have been required, had it been more immediately available to the site.
Packet Pg. 188
11
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 3, 2016 Page 3
Chair Wynn and Commissioners Root, Soll & Nemcik spoke in the support of encouraging
Applicant to consider further articulation to the long, flat walls. Owner Schlossberg discussed
having employed high, unadorned windows for allowing increased natural light.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR EHDAIE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
NEMCIK, the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft Resolution which approves
the project, with the following amendments:
A.) Code Requirement #2 to read: “Elevator access shall be provided to the second floor
offices in accordance with CBC 11-B-206.2.3 or as approved by the Chief Building
Official.”
B.) Condition #8 to read: “Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details
indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions,
and colors. The Applicant is encouraged to provide additional articulation along the
elevations of the building. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels,
sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features.”
on the following 5:0:0:0 vote:
AYES: Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
2. 1144 Chorro Street. ARCH-3773-2016: Review of modifications to a previously approved
remodel of an existing commercial structure (ARCH-1376-2015) which includes a request for
a marquee sign and other exceptions from the Sign Regulations, with a categorical exemption
from environmental review; C-D-H zone; Discovery San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Bell provided staff report on the proposed modifications to the commercial
storefront; displayed PowerPoint slides which included background of the project review process
by both the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission; presented
two (2) Discussion Items pertaining to the proposed sign package modifications.
Chair Wynn suggested referring to the multiple signs in proposal by numbers to mitigate confusion
in discussion.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jeremy Pemberton, Managing Partner of Discovery, and Scott Martin, RRM Design Group,
discussed the operational design of the of the project and the inclusion of the functional marquee
sign in the proposal.
Packet Pg. 189
11
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 3, 2016 Page 4
PUBLIC COMMENT
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, discussed how providing exceptions for the marquee signage can
only lead to unwelcome precedents being set; informed that Save Our Downtown supports Staff’s
recommendation to reduce number of signs in conformance with Sign Regulations.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, advocated for the citizenry to be able to hold on to that “degree
of special” that SLO possesses; voiced that she considers it audacious to compare proposed
marquee sign to that of the iconic Fremont Theatre.
COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION
Commissioner Nemcik commented favorably on the laser cutout of corten metal panel and less
favorably on the backlit faux-marquee element.
Commissioner Root suggested making the bowling ball & music notes logo more discrete;
commented on scale of raised letters of word “Discovery” and suggested its reduction by 30%.
Commissioner Soll commented that proposed signage does create a modicum of clutter when
considered cumulatively.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie inquired whether marquee sign was allowed under Community Design
Guidelines or Land Use Ordinance.
Chair Wynn voiced disagreement with Public Comment that approving marquee sign would
grant special privilege to Applicant; commented that extension of the marquee’s underside could
create an integrated solidity which would aesthetically enhance the streetscape; proposed
Conditioning the LED lighting of the illuminated backdrop of faux-marquee to be dimmable.
Applicant Representative Martin displayed a PowerPoint slide of another of the Applicant’s
Discovery venues with an alternatively-scaled “Discovery” sign.
The Commissioners voiced varying opinions on the appropriate dimensions for the marquee’s
projection.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SOLL, the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft Resolution which approves the
project, with the following amendments:
A.) Finding #5 to read: “The proposed marquee sign is consistent with the intent and purpose
of the Sign Regulations and will not result in visual clutter or constitute a grant of special
privilege toward the property or those in the vicinity, because the sign is of a superior
design specific to the concert venue which is typical of other theater-like uses and is
architecturally compatible with affected structures and the character of surrounding
development. The marquee sign in this location is appropriate because it identifies a
separate concert venue, one that sells tickets and is located on a downtown side street.”
Packet Pg. 190
11
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 3, 2016 Page 5
B.) Condition #4 to read: “Plans submitted for a building permit shall eliminate the Raised
Logo sign over the entrance of the business along the Chorro Street elevation, and may be
replaced with two pedestrian scale signs at the main entry, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
C.) Condition #5 to read: “Tenant signage shall be limited to a maximum of six signs for all
types of signs, including pedestrian scale logo signs, sandwich-board signs or larger
window signs (excluding the Marquee sign).”
D.) Condition #6 to read: Plans submitted for a building permit shall limit the projection of the
Marquee sign to be no more than six feet and six inches over the width of the public
sidewalk; the underside of the Marquee sign shall be solid and substantially integrated
with the building to the ceiling of the recessed entry, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Chief Building Official.
E.) Newly crafted Condition #7 to read: “The Raised Letter sign (Discovery) shall be reduced
in size to 75% of what has been proposed with the submitted project plans dated August
31, 2016, approximately 66 square feet.”
F.) Condition #8, formerly Condition #7, to read: “Plans submitted for a sign permit shall call
out the colors and materials of signage and shall clearly indicate which portions of the signs
do/do not illuminate. All proposed exterior illumination including signage and the transom
window panels shall be designed to be dimmable with appropriate colors consistent with
Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations (Night Sky Preservation), to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director. The portion of the marquee sign that is the marquee
shall not be internally illuminated or resemble an illumination style such as a cabinet sign
which is prohibited downtown.
G.) With newly crafted and inserted Conditions, Condition #9 is the former Condition #8, and
so forth.
on the following 5:0:0:0 vote:
AYES: Root, Soll, Nemcik, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Chair Wynn instituted five-minute recess.
3. 1042 Olive Street. ARCH-2946-2016: Architectural review of a new four story mixed-use
building including ground floor commercial/retail space, and 17 extended stay hotel rooms,
including a request for a mixed use and shared parking reduction of 25%, with a categorical
exemption from environmental review; C-T zone; Garcia Family Trust, applicant.
Director Davidson introduced Technician Van Leeuwen who provided Staff Report on the
proposed development on the vacant site.
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about the relocation of the trash enclosure.
In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie’s inquiry, Director Davidson clarified that the parking statistics,
Packet Pg. 191
11
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 3, 2016 Page 6
in which the provisioned number of spaces exceed what is allowed, build in a flexibility for future
Uses that might require more parking.
Chair Wynn inquired about the potential offset for vertical-height tree growth outside of the
parking area.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
George Garcia, project architect, provided clarification on the trash enclosure being located in an
area to better accommodate trash company loaders; discussed background of design process and
displayed PowerPoint renderings of the project.
Commissioner Root inquired about the intended user market for the extended-stay concept.
Commissioner Soll inquired about the street trees on the site.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie inquired about the building access for overnight occupants; inquired about the
vertical living wall elements for controlled landscaping and their maintenance.
Chair Wynn inquired about the easement between the site and the neighboring Taco Bell parcel;
inquired about how to not value-engineer the green living wall, integral to the articulation, out of
the project.
PUBLIC COMMENT
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, indicated that Staff is misrepresenting the project as a hotel; shared
concern that design does not fit in the prevailing context of existing neighborhood.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, cited general principles of the “explicit” Community Guidelines
and indicated this building is inconsistent with the scale of the existing neighborhood context.
Gita Patel, San Luis Obispo, spoke as proprietor of neighboring Ramada Olive Tree Inn; shared
concerns that the project downgrades the existing businesses.
Matt Sansome, spoke in enthusiastic support about further development promoting growth in the
manner in which this project is being proposed with its modern elements.
COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION
Commissioner Root noted that the project is not requesting any exceptions; favored both the
expanded Use of the front-planted area and further building articulation in order to enliven its
facades.
Commissioner Soll voiced support for paying stricter attention to Community Guidelines;
indicated there is a lack of transition between project and its existing surroundings.
Packet Pg. 192
11
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 3, 2016 Page 7
Commissioner Nemcik concurred with Commissioner Soll and indicated that, while architecturally
elegant, the scale and massing are too oversized for the area’s context.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie voiced that the design might not befit the current area, but did allow that future
developments might point to this project as being an anchor toward inspiration.
Chair Wynn indicated that the scale of, and degree of articulation on, the project are both
appropriate according to Community Guidelines; voiced own struggle with what project should
specifically emulate in surrounding neighborhood; indicated this project could commence a trend
and become a landmark to which future proposals aspire; requested some consensus and direction
from Commission.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY CHAIR WYNN,
the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft Resolution which approves the project,
with the following amendments:
A.) Condition #5 to read: “The applicant shall submit building plans that include a trash
enclosure that shall have a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet along Olive Street be
designed and finished with high quality materials to match the architecture of the project
buildings; which shall be fully screened from upper stories with a trellis or other horizontal
cover; the design of the enclosure is subject to the Community Design Guidelines, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
B.) Condition #6 to read: “Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and
materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Materials shall be
consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review
application. The ARC recommends that the applicant modify the proposed color palate to
include additional and/or more muted colors”
C.) Condition #7 added to read “The ARC recommends that the applicant explore the
possibility of incorporating a public art installation to the proposed development.”
D.) Condition #13 added to read “The final landscaping plan shall incorporate additional
landscaping, including tree types that provide full canopies near the street frontage
parking spaces and a landscaped island in the front parking area to break up the line of
parking.”
E.) Vice-Chair Ehdaie and Commissioners Nemcik & Soll provided recommendations for
new, additional Conditions pertaining to 1.) Increased transitional landscaping in 5-to-7-
foot area in front of property; 2.) Encouragement of Public Art inception over paying in -
lieu fees; 3.) Possibility of canopied trees installed within parking islands; and 4.)
Encouragement for re-visiting color palette scheme to satisfaction of CDD; both motion-
maker Root and seconding Wynn concurred.
on the following 3:2:0:0 vote:
AYES: Root, Wynn, Ehdaie
NOES: Nemcik, Soll
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Packet Pg. 193
11
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 3, 2016 Page 8
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
Director Davidson provided the Agenda Forecast:
October 17th: Southtown 18 response to ARC direction; 2017-19 City Budget process goal-
setting.
November: Broad Street Collection, south of Crossroads @ Broad & Orcutt (3229 Broad Street);
399 Foothill mixed-use project; French Hospital Master Plan modification
Director Davidson informed that City Council would announce former Commissioner Ken Curtis’
replacement on or about October 18th; informed that December 19th is potential date for a last-of-
year ARC convening; speculated on further open dates for future meetings during holiday season
and first-of-new-year.
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about the possible reasons for projects requested by ARC to be
viewed in tandem, Southtown 18 & The Lofts @ Nipomo, would not be occurring; Director
Davidson informed of Cultural Heritage Committee’s having returned the latter back to Applicant
for complete revisions.
Informal discussion ensued on the Ikahn project at Taft & Kentucky Streets and State Assembly
Bill 1069 dealing with second dwellings on properties which has implications on City Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 11/07/2016
Packet Pg. 194
11
Filing Fee
Date Received
Tree Appeal: $113.00 RECEI VED
All Other Appeals: $281.00
Sfln LmS OBISPO Received by:~ OCT 13 2016 -CITYOF
S LO rrrv r1 i::: 'K
APPEAL TO T HE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
David Brodie 873 Chorro St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
805 544-0409
Phone Fax
David Brodie 873 Chorro St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
David Brodie 805 544-0409
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
Architectural Review Commission
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered : _O_c_to_b_e_r_3_, _2_0_1 _6 ______ _
3. The application or project was entitled: 1042 Olive St. Retail/Hotel
1042 Olive St. Retail/Hotel
4. I discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
JoHN PAUL MA IER , C1'1:Y CLERK OFFon_k ..... 0"'---___._7 _--__.1 __ 6...___
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
No
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider
your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional
pages, ff necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1of3
Packet Pg. 195
11
Reason for Appeal continued
This project was approved as submitted with a 3 yes - 2 no vote based on the conclusion
that the surrounding cohesive context comprised of the Ramada motel, the Budget motel,
the Best Value Inn and the historical Heritage Inn would soon be replaced with buildings
similar in scale and appearance to 1042 Olive St. Not only is this not likely, but neither staff
nor the ARC made any attempt to follow the Community Design Guidelines. The opposing
votes by Angela Sol and Amy Nemcik in fact stated that this was the case.
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City
Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification , all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $28f, which must accompany the
appeal form.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal,
please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified
in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
~~/ 10-/3-/.6
(Signature of Appellant) (Date)
*Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $113. 2) The above-named appellant has
already paid the City $281 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.
This Item is hereby calendared for _____________________ _
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
Advisory Body Liaison
City Clerk (original)
07/16 update Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 196
11
Appellants of ARC decision on October 3, 2016 for ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street:
Kirit Patel
Sanjay Mistry
Jadish Panchal
Mabhu Patel
David Brodie
James Lopes
Cheryl McClean
Allan Cooper
Russell Brown
Packet Pg. 197
11
Appeal. Comments about ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street:
The proposed project does not comply with standards and guidelines as follows.
Appellant comments are written in bullets with bold text.
A. STAFF REPORT
The staff report does not make individual citations of standards or guidelines in most sections.
This appeal demonstrates that many standards and guidelines were not addressed or not
reviewed with any detail or focus in meet ing the intended, legislated meaning.
The staff report does not provide an accurate analysis of the conditions in the vicinity or of the
project proposal. It provides a sketchy, pejorative criticism of the neighboring development
instead as not being cohesive, although most of it was built before the City was even aware of
design guidance.
References are scant and individual design guidelines are not quoted, so that a commissioner
or reader has to make guesses which of the applicable guidelines were reviewed. The analysis
should have a full list of citations of individual guidelines which pertain to the project, preferably
in a table format.
Subject
The Subject section states that the project is mixed-use hotel and commercial uses; however,
the unit floor plans clearly show residential designs with two bedrooms, full closets, two
bathrooms, kitchens and dining areas.
• The project is not a hotel but is designed to be a residential project for long-term
rental, such as to students or other individuals. Key is the very small lobby space
on the ground floor, merely an alcove to the elevator and stairs. Therefore, Multi-
Family Residential design and parking standards should be required and reviewed
for project consistency.
B. ZONING STANDARDS
17 .08.072 Mixed Use Projects
This Section provides standards for the design of mixed use projects.
A. Design considerations. A mixed use project shall be designed to achieve the
following objectives ...
3. The design of the mixed use project shall take into consideration potential impacts
on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize
potential impacts.
• The staff report did not analyze this and other standards for a residential project.
4 . The design of a mixed use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a
residential character and that privacy between residential units and between other
uses on the site is maximized.
• The staff report did not analyze this standard in regard to residents' privacy from
other residents and visitors along outside corridors.
5. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the
Packet Pg. 198
11
street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of
plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture.
• The design of the project does not encourage integration of the street pedestrian
environment with the commercial uses; not does it attempt to include plazas,
courtyards, walkways and street furniture.
E. Performance standards.
2. Noise. All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from
non-residential project noise, in compliance with the City's noise regulations.
• The design is not clearly mitigating traffic noise.
C. COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.1 Consistency with Community Design Guidelines
3.1.A Overall design objectives for commercial projects The design of each project should
work toward achieving the following objectives.
1. Consider San Luis Obispo' s small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the design context
of the surrounding area.
2
• The project and staff review do not analyze nor demonstrate sensitivity to the
single and two-story context of this charming tourist commercial area or its small-
town scale. A conforming project would include many similar massing, height,
site placement, and stylistic references and features.
2. Avoid "boxy" structures with large, flat wall planes by articulating building forms and elevations to
create interesting rooflines, building shapes, and patterns of shade and shadow. See Figure 3-1.
• The project was approved with a "boxy" structure with large extrusions and box
cut-outs which are more confusing than interesting. This building form is out of
character with the surrounding small-scale and casual semi-residential scale of
development. A conforming project would have a one to three-story height,
horizontal and vertical articulation in similar style details as the area, and
rooflines which break up the massing.
3. Preserve the design integrity of architecturally or historically significant structures and neighborhoods
adjacent to the commercial area.
• The project contradicts and destroys the integrity of the neighborhood, especially
with the historic character of existing motels, especially in relation to the historic
bed and breakfast which was moved from downtown. A sensitive, conforming
project would be in a similar site design and architectural style as the existing
motels, with the building in front of parking.
B. General architectural design guidelines.
1. Architectural style. No particular architectural style or design theme is required in the City nor can
San Luis Obispo be defined by any particular architectural style. A wide range of architectural
characteristics adds to the City's overall image. While variety in design is generally encouraged, the
Appeal Comments about ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street
Packet Pg. 199
11
3
compatibility of new projects with the existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to
preserve not only the historic flavor of the community but. equally important. its scale and ambience.
"Canned" or "trademark" building designs used by franchised businesses in other cities may not be
acceptable in San Luis Obispo, as they can collectively have the effect of making the commercial areas of
the City look like anywhere in California.
• The project and staff review ignore the important emphasis in this section, which
speaks to achieving a compatibility between new projects and the built
environment, and to preserve the historic flavor of the community and its scale
and ambience. The project is intended to overwhelm the existing scale, dominate
the neighborhood and create another kind of modern character than exists.
2. Neighborhood compatibility. In designing a building, it is important to analyze the areas surrounding
the building site to find elements of compatibility that can be used in a new design . Simply duplicating
the character of surrounding buildings, however, should not be a design goal. It is important for each site
to both maintain its own identity and be complementaty to its surroundings . Thus, a new building can be
unique and interesting and still show respect for and compatibility with the architectural styles and scale
of other buildings in its vicin ity .
Design factors that contribute to neighborhood compatibility include:
a. Appropriate design theme;
b. Proportional building scale/size;
c. Appropriate building setbacks and massing; and
d. Appropriate colors, textures, and building materials.
• The project proposes a modern style in a boxy rendition of horizontal and vertical
planes, which ignores compatibility with other style elements in the
neighborhood. There is no evidence that elements of compatibility were sought.
Therefore, the project is not complementary to its surroundings. Nor does the
project show respect for the architectural styles which have evolved in this area
and created a cohesive variety of buildings and styles.
4. Form and mass. A building's design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion.
Horizontal and vertical wall articulation should be expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed
windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades.
• The proposal is a modernist art-work onto itself, with no traditional sense of
entries, overhangs or arcades which would hint at human scale. Instead it is
designed to overwhelm human scale in a modernist statement. The overstated
protrusions on the front are not repeated on the sides as directed by the
guidelines; there is not any significant wall articulation on the sides. No building
setbacks are provided to scale the building down near its neighbors.
10. Building materials. Building materials shall be carefully chosen to enhance the consistency of the
architectural theme and design.
• The use of smooth plaster against rough bricks is not consistent with any other
development nearby, and it will appear "thin" and be subject to immediate wear
and weather patterns, as now showing at The Mix, a similar project by the
architect.
Appeal Comments about ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street
Packet Pg. 200
11
4
12. Colors. The exterior colors of a building are as important as the materials in det~rmining how people
think about the building and its surroundings. Colors should be compatible with the existing colors of the
surrounding area but need not duplicate existing colors.
a. The use of muted tones for the structure's base color is recommended. Color should not be used as an
attention getting device.
b. Accent colors should be used thoughtfully and complement the base color or a variation of its hue,
either weaker or stronger.
c. The transition between base and accent colors should relate to changes in building materials or the
change of building surface planes. Colors should generally not meet or change without some physical
change or definition to the surface plane.
• The white/dark gray color choices are not compatible with existing colors in the
surrounding area. They are either too white or too dark for comfortable
compatibility. They are used as "hip" attention-getting devices. Muted colors at
the base and accent colors in similar hues or in transitions should have been
used.
C. Site planning. Project site planning should comply with the following guidelines.
1. Consider neighboring development. Each development proposal should demonstrate consideration
for the existing conditions on and off the site including the following:
• The staff report does not analyze whether the project has done this adequately or
at all. In fact, it argues against the existing condition as sub-standard and
therefore not warranting any attention in the design. Staff in this section assumes
that the surrounding development should have a consistent massing, by stating,
"The massing of these structures do not contribute to a cohesive pattern for the
area." Actually, the variety of single and two-story heights and massing express
consistency, and lend a small-scale context. Paradoxically, the staff report then
relieves the proposed project from any attempt to "demonstrate consideration" in
its design for the scale of these buildings and character which they represent.
a. The uses on, and site layout of neighboring properties;
b. The architectural style, and the shape and massing of neighboring structures.
• The four-story height of the building does not decrease at its edges or offer any
reduction in scale to be in context with the adjacent buildings.
• The applicant clearly intended to ignore the existing prevailing styles and propose
a contemporary modern building instead, with no reference to the other buildings.
This omission contradicts Guideline 3.1.C.1.g, which encourages new projects to
have visual links with adjacent development, in addition to contextual
architectural design as noted in b. above. The result is a jarring contradiction in
the area's long-term developed character.
c. Existing natural features (i.e., mature trees, landforms, etc);
d. Opportunities to preserve or enhance views of the hills;
Appeal Comments about ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street
Packet Pg. 201
11
5
• The project at four stories is not reviewed for its blockage of fabulous views of
Bishop Peak to the north from the street and public sidewalk. Several easily
imagined and designed projects could break up massing, buildings and create low
courtyards to preserve some public views of Bishop Peak and achieve the
proposed uses.
e. Privacy and solar access of the site and neighboring properties;
• The project design does not provide any significant screening with landscaping to
provide privacy to adjacent properties.
f. Opportunities for new projects to provide physical links to adjacent development using sidewalks, and
shared access drives and parking, whenever possible; and
• The project design does not take any opportunities to provide physical links to
adjacent development except through driveway access including pedestrians.
g. Opportunities for new projects to provide visual links to adjacent development in the form of similar
landscaping, trees, etc., in addition to contextual architectural design as noted in b. above.
• The design does not take opportunities to visually link to adjacent development,
especially with contextual architecture and landscaping and trees.
6.2 -Landscaping
A. Goals for landscaping. The landscape design goals for the City include landscape that:
1. Enhances building architecture
• The landscape plan does not provide landscaping which frames the building or
softens views of the angular articulation.
4. Helps to preserve and create views
• The landscape plan does not enhance, frame or preserve views of San Luis
Mountain or Bishop Peak.
6. Provides aesthetic links and transitions between centers of activity
• The plant selection, sizing and location do not address this important guideline to
create aesthetic links such as between the street, sidewalk and the building
entrances. No patio or courtyards are proposed in the landscape plan to enhance
the commercial area's viability and enjoyment.
8. Provides shade, either seasonal or year round
• It is the era of worsening climate change, and this project does not propose
significant shading from trees, which would also contribute to carbon
sequestration. If this is a Tree City, U.S.A., then the staff, ARC and your Council
should have a priority of encouraging site designs which include generous
Appeal Comments about ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street
Packet Pg. 202
11
numbers of shade trees. The parking lots are not interspersed with tree planters
which may not comply with the City ordinance for parking lot shading.
B. Landscape design guidelines. The following guidelines are intended to assist in achieving the above
goals.
1. Overall landscaping guidelines. Planting areas should be integrated with the building design,
enhance the appearance and enjoyment of the project and soften the visual impact of buildings
and paving. Landscaping should use a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Project
plantings should blend with vegetation on nearby property ifthe neighboring greenery is healthy
and appropriate. The City encourages innovation in planting design and choice of landscape
materials.
• The project is not integrated with a landscape plan which achieves this important
guideline. Innovation in landscaping is not singularly the use of cacti and
succulents, but these plants can be part of a broader palette which blends with
the neighborhood and achieves the listed objectives.
3. Extent of landscaping. A site should be adequately planted on all sides, and within its interior.
Trees must be planted along streets in compliance with the City's Tree Regulations, and should
be selected from the City's "street tree" list. Trees not on the list may be used if approved by
the City's Arborist. Trees may also be required at other locations on a site for screening.
• The project design ignores this guideline, and leaves the impression of a barren,
paved and built site. It should be "adequately planted on all sides, and within its
interior." San Luis Obispo used to be known for generous areas of plantings
throughout projects, and that aspect is part of the city's character, which should
be continued as intended by this guideline.
6.3 -Parking Facilities
B. Siting and screening. Parking lots should not dominate street views of projects. Wherever possible,
parking lots should be placed behind buildings.
6
• Within a city, hotels are usually placed at or near the sidewalk, and parking is
placed underneath, or in back if necessary. The site is within the urban core, not
at a suburban edge, and the project should have been required to place the
building in front of parking lots. This guideline sets a high expectation ("wherever
possible") that a project meet this character defining objective. The parking lot
does dominate the view of the project, partly due to its close proximity to the
sidewalk and lack of screening landscaping.
4. Structured parking is encouraged to minimize "vast seas of parking" in large commercial
projects.
• Here again is the City's residents' intent to create urban, not suburban sprawl
kinds of projects. The project is a large commercial project, and at least a two-
level parking structure should have been required to meet the guideline. The use
of frontage parking does create a sense of isolation of the building from the street.
Appeal Comments about ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street
Packet Pg. 203
11
C. Landscaping in parking areas. The City encourages landscaping in parking Jots to provide visual
interest, buffers between land uses and shading for cars and people.
1. A minimum of five percent of the total area of a parking lot shall be devoted to landscaping, in
compliance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards.
7
• The staff and ARC did not require the project to be revised to meet this guideline,
which in C.1 is stated as a standard ("shall") so that this minimum should be
calculated and exceeded due to the height of the building. Otherwise, the building
appears as in olden times when landscaping was not even considered important.
Appeal Comments about ARCH-2946-2016; 1042 Olive Street
Packet Pg. 204
11
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
The following project statement is a part of the Architectural Review and entitlement application
submittal requirements for OMU, a proposed redevelopment project located at 1042 Olive
Street, in the city of San Luis Obispo. The applicants are proposing to redevelop an existing
commercial property into a new in-fill multi-story mixed use project.
Property Background
The existing vacant commercial parcel area totals 22,500 S.F. (0.517 acres). The property is
currently zoned C-T Commercial Tourist. The existing project site is bounded by Olive Street to
the south, an existing Taco Bell Restaurant and Santa Rosa Street to the east, an existing motel
to the west, and an existing apartment complex to the north. All surrounding parcels are
similarly zoned. The subject property is completely vacant, save for some existing unkept
landscaping.
Existing site topography is generally flat with an average cross-slope of approximately 4%, and
generally slopes from the northeast side of the site to the south. In addition to the existing
vegetation on this property, current off-site improvements include existing curb, gutter, concrete
sidewalk and driveways which were used to previously access this site. Proposed site grading
will require removal of on-site vegetation, as well as consolidation of the existing driveways into
a single point of access. Replacement landscaping will include new drought-tolerant and BMP
P r o j e c t S t a t e m e n t F o r :
Olive Mixed Use
1 0 4 2 O l i v e S t r e e t , S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C a l I f o r n I a Version 3.0: 07/08/2016 Packet Pg. 205
11
p a g e 2 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
compatible plant material, along with new street trees set in a proposed new parkway
“greenbelt” along the Olive Street property frontage.
Project Description
The proposed project involves construction of a new multi-story mixed use structure, with at-
grade parking. The proposed project is adjacent to and fronting on Olive Street, and will
continue to take ingress, egress, and all utilities directly from this public street. The project
proposes pedestrian-level street oriented small shop and commercial retail spaces along the
ground level. Lined
with inviting glass
storefronts and
retro-style roll-up
and/or sliding doors,
these shop spaces
are designed to
encourage and
promote pedestrian
activity at the street
level. The upper
levels consist of a
combination of 17
extended-stay hotel
units, of varying
size, scale and layout. Access to the upper level floors and hotel rooms are served via private
elevator and stairs, with circulation on each upper floor unit provided via exterior single-loaded
exterior walkway. These exterior open-air circulation “pedestrian streets” are intended to
promote guest interaction via “micro-neighborhood” on each individual floor, while a common
roof-top terrace will serve as a communal space available to all hotel guests. The extended-
stay hotel rooms vary in size, from 1 bedroom / 1 bath units to 2-bedroom / 2 bath loft units, all
of varying design, amenities and features to promote diversity in design and users.
The ground-floor level contains at-grade parking for the entire complex, with parking for
commercial tenants and customers
available directly adjacent to the
commercial spaces facing Olive Street,
while parking for the hotel users and
guests is relegated to the rear parking
area, which also includes provisions for
private secure motorcycle and bicycle
storage. The main structure effectively
splits the parking into two distinct areas
for separate commercial versus hotel
parking, which will minimize parking
conflicts throughout the day. Centrally located common trash, mail and utility areas complete
the proposed development, which encourage user interaction throughout the day.
Other key components of the project include flexible commercial ground floor lease space, as
well as environmentally responsible design elements, all packaged into a compact urban form
style density. In addition, a beautiful roof-top terrace will be incorporated into the roof of the
Packet Pg. 206
11
p a g e 3 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
project, which will provide a large common outdoor area for hotel guests to gather, relax,
barbeque, or just enjoy the sunset views over the city. Lastly, with the sites’ excellent solar
orientation and southern exposures, the project incorporates many sustainable and eco-friendly
design features, including active and passive solar, passive cooling, thermal mass heating, and
high efficiency day-lighting for all hotel and working spaces of the project.
Design Approach
Given the lack of a cohesive architectural context or common design vernacular for the
surrounding built environment, the design team developed a building typology that is a direct
product of exploring the nexus between the exterior and interior functions and use of the
proposed project components, in particular the interplay between the lower commercial spaces
and their relationship to the hotel uses above.
In that spirit, OMU seeks to establish a local sense of place with a modern architectural
language that will anchor this transitional neighborhood, while setting the standard for future
redevelopment in this area. In a “form-follows-function” approach, the design team took
inspiration from the very programmatic needs and requirements of the project itself. A complex
yet straight-forward massing approach emerged from a detailed analysis of the interaction
between the ground floor commercial units and the hotel rooms above. The result is a strikingly
modern and contextual rich design solution, which endeavors to bring energy and vitality to this
small stretch of Olive Street.
The proposed architecture therefore reflects simple modern elements and shapes that also
echo concepts envisioned by Le Corbusier’s “machine for living”. Simple, straightforward
rectilinear massing and articulation, which adds movement and interest to the contemporary
vocabulary, are integrated with modern and sustainable orientation strategies. The use of
materials common to both commercial and residential uses was key to establishing an
appropriate finish and color palette for the project. Concrete block, metal and wood siding, and
Packet Pg. 207
11
p a g e 4 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
cement plaster building materials all pay homage to the existing buildings and uses surrounding
this property. The intent is to simultaneously acknowledge context while integrating a new
architectural lexicon into this existing transitional neighborhood.
In order to put sustainable strategies in first position, all design decisions for this project were
guided by ecologically sustainable considerations and green principals. This is primarily
evidenced by the placement and orientation of all buildings and structures on the site, which are
oriented and sited to gain maximum solar exposure. This deliberate southern orientation not
only allows for maximum passive heating during winter months, but orients the buildings for
optimum year-round solar access. All upper floor units are accessed from a single loaded
exterior corridor, which affords natural cross-ventilation via location of operable fenestration on
at least two opposing sides of each unit.
This project therefore seeks to set new standards for sustainable and responsible urban in-fill
mixed use redevelopment for San Luis Obispo. In addition to implementation of many Smart-
Growth and L.I.D. concepts such as infill redevelopment, compact urban form, alternate
transportation, and integrated mixed uses, the project has been designed to the highest
standards in terms of energy efficiency and sustainable design. The proposed project qualifies
for LEED certification, and is also designed to meet the Architecture 2030 Challenge. As
members of SLO Green Build, the design team has also ensured compliance with the
established SLO “Green Build Guidelines”.
Provisions for traditional sustainable components such as thermal mass, correct solar
orientated fenestration, passive heating and cooling, solar shading, and natural day-lighting are
incorporated into the core design of all commercial and residential spaces of the project. In
addition, contemporary sustainable features such as cool roof, smart-energy devices, and
vertical gardens have also been incorporated into the facility. These sustainable and LID
strategies, which illustrate the beauty of eco-friendly design coupled with responsible
architecture and development, will be enjoy by all users and tenants alike.
Packet Pg. 208
11
p a g e 5 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
Site & Landscape Design
In conjunction with the proposed building improvements, new landscaping for this infill
redevelopment project will include installation of on-site infiltration devices, as well as linear bio-
swale planted parkway area along the street frontage, which will serve to minimize pollutant run-
off from the parking lot areas as well as provide storm water management for the project. The
existing multiple vehicular
driveways off of Olive Street will
be consolidated into a single
vehicular access point for the
project, in order to reduce traffic
conflicts and provide more street
exposure for pedestrian-oriented
commercial uses. Where
possible, additional on-site
landscape areas will be provided
to complement and enhance the
aesthetics and green architecture
of the proposed project. The
strategically located upper level common decks not only provide an architectural break on each
level, but will be furnished and treated as an inviting communal area to encourage interaction
between the hotel guests. The exterior ground-floor commercial parking area will be finished in
pervious paver materials, intended to enhance the pedestrian experience and provide human
scale, while also serving to enhance on-site storm water mitigation. All new on and off-site plant
material will be drought tolerant and irrigated with typical water-conserving systems. In addition,
all required parking for the proposed project will be provided on-site via common surface
parking lot. The project will also
provide required motorcycle parking, as
well as required short and long-term
bicycle parking, designed to encourage
alternate modes of transportation.
Proposed commercial signage will
consist of building or canopy-mounted
identification signage to denote the
various retail businesses on the ground
floor, along with wall-mounted icon or
individual logo signs to denote
individual business within the development, as well as the hotel tenant. All business and
directional signage will be integrated into the architecture of the project, including building and
address numbers located along the public way. All proposed signage will comply with the city’s
adopted sign regulations.
Entitlement Strategy
All proposed uses are allowed pursuant to the underlying C-T zoning for this parcel. Therefore,
the applicant is seeking to secure the require Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval
for the overall design of this project.
Packet Pg. 209
11
p a g e 6 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
Summary
Olive Mixed Use will bring long anticipated redevelopment to a neglected, in-fill parcel of land
along the Highway 1 corridor of San Luis Obispo. This environmentally responsible Smart
Growth mixed use project will also generate additional retail and bed tax to the city, which will
be to the benefit of all residents of San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg. 210
11
Packet Pg. 21111
Packet Pg. 21211
Packet Pg. 21311
Packet Pg. 21411
Packet Pg. 21511
Packet Pg. 21611
Packet Pg. 21711
Packet Pg. 21811
Packet Pg. 21911
Packet Pg. 22011
Packet Pg. 22111
Packet Pg. 22211
Packet Pg. 22311
Packet Pg. 22411
Packet Pg. 22511
Packet Pg. 22611
Packet Pg. 22711
Packet Pg. 22811
Packet Pg. 22911
Packet Pg. 23011
Packet Pg. 23111
Packet Pg. 23211
Packet Pg. 23311
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 234
11
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
PREPARED BY: David Hix, Deputy Director – Wastewater
Jasmine Diaz, Assistant Program Manager – WSC
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT – DRAFT
PREDESIGN AND COST ESTIMATE; CH2M CONTRACT
AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive and file the Water Resource Recovery Facility Draft Predesign Report; and
2. Approve a CH2M contract amendment in the amount of $1,519,049 for changes in project
scope and membrane bioreactor preselection.
Report-In-Brief
The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project draft Predesign Report has been
prepared based on the July 2015 Facilities Plan and City Council direction on four project
components. The City Council authorized a State Revolving Fund application up to $140 million
at the December 13, 2016 meeting. The draft Predesign Report estimates project construction
costs between $91.8 and $119.3 million with total project cost going forward, including
construction and professional services, is estimated between $107 and $140 million, inclusive of
all contingencies and estimated price escalators. City Council is being asked to receive and file
the draft Predesign Report (PDR). The purpose of filing the PDR is to present the bridge
between the Facilities Plan and the path towards final design.
To best support future potable reuse and regulatory requirements, the secondary/tertiary process
recommended in the Facilities Plan, which was the basis for the CH2M design contract, has
changed from conventional activated sludge and granular media filtration to Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR). The benefits of MBR vs conventional filtration is outstanding performance in
meeting current and future regulatory requirements and best positioning the WRRF towards
potable reuse.
Due to the assortment of MBR process configurations available from manufacturers, the specific
type of MBR must be selected now to move forward with project design. Other changes to the
design project scope have also been required. Authorization of a CH2M contract amendment in
the amount of $1,519,049 is being requested to do this work. If approved, CH2M’s contract
amount would be $7,748,372.
The following are the WRRF project summary highlights:
1. The December 1, 2014 NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
permit issued by the Central Coast Water Board for the City’s Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WRRF) requires process changes to the facility in order to meet the new
regulations.
Packet Pg. 235
12
2. The City needs to rebuild and rehabilitate many components of i ts Water Resource
Recovery Facility on Prado Road in order to maintain compliance with its Central Coast
Water Board permit to discharge water to San Luis Obispo Creek. The facility has been
on-site since the early 1900’s. Structures and processes built over time must be
modernized.
3. The City kicked off the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project in January
2014. Focus group outreach, community workshops, and City Council feedback created a
WRRF Project vision to create a community asset that is recognized as supporting health,
well-being and quality of life. The Project Mission is to deliver a Water Resource
Recovery Facility in partnership with stakeholders that provides economic, social and
environmental value to our community.
4. The City is, essentially, rebuilding the Water Resource Recovery Facility at its current
site. When complete, it will position the City to create an additional 1500 acre feet per
year for potable water reuse while further improving the quality of the 1800 acre feet of
water discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek for environmental benefits.
5. The City has applied for a $140 million State Clean Water Revolving Fund loan in order
to fund the Water Resource Recovery Facility project. The City has been preparing its
wastewater fund to support this loan. Rates are expected to continue to track with past
projections of increasing 3 / 3-1/2% a year to support both operations and capital work
efforts of the wastewater division.
BACKGROUND
From Sewer Farm to Water Resource Recovery Facility
The City of San Luis Obispo has processed the community’s wastewater on property off Prado
Road between Higuera Street and Highway 101 since 1920 when the City purchased Schow
Place, a 10-acre sugar beet farm, for $2,000. Over the last century, many wastewater treatment
process changes have occurred and the plant has grown with the City.
Noteworthy changes to the plant occurred in 1994 when a project to improve plant processes also
focused on improving habitat
for fish in San Luis Obispo
Creek. This was the beginning
of a decades-long journey that
has expanded what was a sharp
focus on solely meeting
minimum regulatory
requirements to include the
provision of recycled water in
2006 for irrigation purposes (as
well as the dedication of
environmental water to San
Luis Obispo Creek) to energy
Packet Pg. 236
12
recovery, beneficial reuse of biosolids, a major energy efficiency project completed in 2015, and
a purposeful shift toward One Water resource management. The plant’s name was changed from
Water Reclamation Facility to Water Resource Recovery Facility in 2014 to better represent its
function as a facility to treat and recover water for beneficial uses.
The property on which the WRRF is located is also currently home to the City’s Corporation
Yard, Transit Operations bus barn, Prado Day Center, a small bore gun range, a secured storage
yard, and part of the Bob Jones Trail; all of which, over time, have constrained the way the
WRRF has been able to grow. Over the last century, equipment, processes, piping, and assorted
buildings related to treating wastewater have been added wherever there is room on the property.
While maintained to high
standards, the plant will no longer
meet future discharge future
discharge requirements... Some
processes installed in 1920 are
still operating; while other
processes, piping systems, and
several buildings have reached
the end of their useful lives and
need to be demolished.
The WRRF operates under a
permit issued by the Central
Coast Water Board. This permit
is called a NPDES permit.
NPDES stands for National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The NPDES permit, which has a five-year term, details
both prescriptive and narrative parameters the Water Resource Recovery Facility must meet in
order to operate in compliance with the permit. If the permit parameters are not met the City can
be assessed regulatory fines. There are numerous complex rules surrounding the plant operation.
The City’s current WRRF NPDES permit runs through November 30, 2019.
Packet Pg. 237
12
Water Resource Recovery Facility Project
The WRRF Project kicked
off in January 2014 with the
selection of a program
manager (WSC) and the
creation of a project charter.
The WRRF Project Charter
is a key tool that has been,
and will continue to be, used
as a filter to inform
knowledge-based decision
making for the project.
Months of varied
stakeholder engagement and
outreach informed the
WRRF Project Facilities
Plan. The Facilities Plan
took the project to about ten
percent design. It was
accepted by the City
Council in July 2015.
On July 7, 2015 the City
Council authorized a
Request for Proposals for
Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project design.
CH2M was the successful
proposer. The draft
Predesign Report is a key
project milestone. It was
submitted to the City for
review on August 5, 2016.
DISCUSSION
From Facilities Plan to Draft Predesign Report
The Facilities Plan is a foundational document that provided a solid framework necessary to bid
the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project design. Based on the information in the Facilitie s
Plan, CH2M commenced design work on the draft Predesign Report in November 2015. The
draft Predesign Report takes the project to 30 percent design. Plans, ideas, and changes to the
project accomplished during this phase have the least impact on project scope and budget. A very
critical point for the Council and Community to understand is that while the design will certainly
continue to be refined, any major changes made after 30 percent design become costlier as time
goes on – both in meeting critical timelines and staying within project budget.
Packet Pg. 238
12
With the addition of the new design team members, some key aspects of the Facilities Plan were
re-analyzed and subsequently changed to the betterment of the project. Some changes increase
initial project costs but holistically best meet the triple bottom line criteria in the long-term,
Attachment A provides a cost comparison of the Facilities Plan and the draft Predesign Report.
While there are numerous improvements to the Facilities Plan detailed in the draft Predesign
Report, major changes are the secondary and tertiary treatment processes, inflow and infiltration
management, water cooling alternatives, and the One Campus concept.
Secondary Treatment Process. Based on the Project Charter, the City Council provided
direction to do more with recycled water and create the plant’s capacity for the rapid acceleration
of potable reuse options spurred on by drought. CH2M brought forward an alternative that
strongly challenged the Facility’s Plan selection of a secondary treatment process. In the
community’s best interest, CH2M’s recommendation warranted consideration and needed to be
fully vetted.
After numerous workshops, several interviews and facility tours, and an extensive triple bottom
line analysis, that considers the economic, environmental and social aspects of the project, the
membrane bioreactor (MBR) was selected to replace conventional activated sludge as the
secondary process. The MBR process will preserve the existing filters for future use, allow the
disinfection process to be downsized, it has the ability to consistently meet or exceed regulatory
requirements (including anticipated future), and provides the City with the most flexibility for
future potable reuse options.
Holistic Inflow and Infiltration Management. On October 4, 2016 City Council conducted a
study session on collection system inflow and infiltration during which time it learned about
some of the impacts of inflow and infiltration on the system. Water that enters the wastewater
collection system through inflow and infiltration can result in normal flows to the WRRF being
increased from 3 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) to over 24 MGD during storm events.
All flows to the WRRF must be treated to the standards set forth in the NPDES permit. Peak wet
weather flows coming into the facility require all processes and equipment throughout the plant
to be sized large enough to handle these unusually large amounts of water.
Applying holistic thinking to the project, the WRRF Project team is current ly analyzing the
impacts and timing of collection system and lateral improvements in selected areas and whether
those improvements could be made quickly enough to eliminate sufficient storm flow to the
Water Resource Recovery Facility to allow the design team to reduce the process sizing and
produce significant construction savings at the plant. Modern collection system pipe can have a
lifespan of 100 years or more and uses little to no energy aside from that expended in its
manufacture and installation. WRRF processes and equipment use tremendous amounts of
energy and must be replaced every 15 to 35 years depending on the component. Chemical use is
also high at the WRRF. While the project cost impacts to apply the reduced inflow and
infiltration strategy are, if not greater, at least equal to construction costs on the WRRF site, the
long-term triple bottom line benefits are significant. Analysis on this option is underway. If it is
determined to be a viable project option, it will be incorporated into the WR RF Project. If it is
not a viable project option, projects will be addressed over time in the capital improvement
Packet Pg. 239
12
program.
Water Cooling Alternatives. The WRRF NPDES permit requires creek discharges do not
increase the temperature of San Luis Obispo Creek’s cold fresh water habitat beneficial use. The
WRRF’s discharge cannot increase the creeks temperature by more than 5 degrees or above 72.5
degrees. The Facilities Plan identifies cooling towers as the treatment process to meet this
requirement. During the draft Predesign Report process, CH2M proposed an option of cooling
treatment wetlands. This treatment option was included as an alternative in the Environmental
Impact Report approved by Council on August 16, 2016. There are promising benefits and
potential serious drawbacks to this option that require additional research and investigation
(including a robust triple bottom line analysis) in order to make a full knowledge-based decision.
This work continues in the concept validation phase of the project. Because it is a project
alternative, design and construction are additional costs. Maximum project cost includes a
preliminary construction estimate for a cooling wetland.
One Campus Concept. The Facilities Plan envisioned the repurposing of the existing laboratory
and office building into a One Water interpretive learning center. Unfortunately, it was
determined that the existing building cannot cost-effectively be repurposed due to building code
upgrades required with the proposed change in use. The building will be used as a satellite
process control lab for WRRF operators. The interpretive One Water learning center was
incorporated into the new Water Resources Center in the draft Predesign Report.
The Facilities Plan envisioned a new one-story Water Resources Center to house operators and
the plant control center, laboratory analysts and a new laboratory, supervisors, a large conference
room, lunch room, and adequate restroom/locker room facilities. Exactly how maintenance and
control systems operations were to be incorporated into the footprint was not clearly defined in
the Facilities Plan but noted as an outbuilding near the bus barn. Transit Operations bus
navigation and access, and Corporation Yard access were incorporated into the Facilities Plan,
but essentially the WRRF site was cleanly separated from those functions.
Based on its understanding of the Project Charter, professional experience, and in-depth
interviews and job shadowing with Utilities workgroups, CH2M’s architectural design firm
challenged the thought processes that led to the Facilities Plan Water Resources Center concept,
which were admittedly focused on WRRF functions and not meant to be fully fleshed out at that
stage of project planning. It recommended incorporating all operational functions, including
WRRF maintenance, control systems, wastewater collection, and water distribution personnel,
along with the associated supervisors, under one roof. This recommendation resulted in much
dialogue to ensure functional needs were met.
The design team architect challenged the team to view the new Water Resources Center as a new
addition to the Corporation Yard (much like a new building on a university campus). The
community won’t see the Water Resources Center as a different property fro m the Corporation
Yard; all is a City resource. This approach will resolve multiple operational issues, including
providing potential solutions for other City operations that are space constrained. Viewing the
Corporation Yard and the new Water Resource Recovery Facility as one campus led to
significant and positive changes in the draft Predesign Report. The new concept requires a two-
Packet Pg. 240
12
story building, incorporates the
One Water Learning Center, and
increases the building cost
estimate from the Facilities Plan.
City Council Triple Bottom
Line Analysis. At its March 3,
2015 meeting, the WRRF Project
program management team
brought four items to City
Council on which to receive
triple bottom line feedback
related to the direction the team
was headed. These items were 1)
odor control strategies, 2)
inclusion of a RV dump station,
3) recycled water production
efforts, and 4) incorporation of
interpretive center/public
amenities.
Odor Control Strategies. There is
no change from the Facilities
Plan to the draft Predesign Report related to odor control strategies. The focus remains on being
a good neighbor and incorporating odor control by design wherever possible across the site.
Operational changes resulting from the project will reduce or eliminate odor sources. Allowing
time to see how the changes impact odors once the new plant is operating through post-project
evaluation and then adding additional odor controls as required at that time remains the approach
moving forward.
RV Dump Station. City Council encouraged partnering with the Elks Lodge and its current
facility. If nothing could be accomplished through this avenue, Council indicated it was
important to have an easily accessible RV dump station somewhere. The Elks Lodge is not
interested in partnering to be a designated discharge point for RV generated wastewater; the only
alternative the City has been able to identify to-date is a facility be installed at the new WRRF.
The draft Predesign Report has designated space at the WRRF for a RV dump station.
Recycled Water Production. City Council clearly said do more. MBR (membrane bioreactor) is
now the secondary/tertiary process, and further studies have either been performed or are
underway to not only maximize production but maximize distribution of recycled water for
beneficial use. Preparations to take the next step to potable reuse are incorporated in the current
design.
Interpretive Center/Public Amenities. The Council indicated satisfaction with the direction the
project was headed with the One Water interpretive learning center and other public amenities
and encouraged the pursuit of grant funding and other partnerships to help with the effort. It was
Packet Pg. 241
12
determined repurposing the existing laboratory/office building into a learning center is not
feasible. The One Water learning center has now been incorporated into the design of the Water
Resources Center. A demonstration wetland at the entrance to the Water Resources Center and
other public amenities surrounding and throughout the facility are also in the design.
Value Engineering. The draft Predesign Report was provided to an independent team of
industry experts to evaluate opportunities to increase the economic, social and environmental
value of the project. This process is called Value Engineering and it encourages development of
critical, practical and out-of-the box ideas to achieve the objectives defined in the Project Charter
in a more cost efficient manner. The Value Engineering team identified concepts and ideas such
as alternatives for peak wet weather flow management, and ways to optimize the solids treatment
process that could have the potential to positively impact project components and/or reduce
overall project cost.
Constructability Review. As part of the review of the draft Predesign Report, the design was
evaluated by a team of discipline specialists to determine the constructability of the project based
on 30 percent design. The reviewers determine if there are built-in problems, or flaws that may
hinder construction or cause delays. Comments were provided to the project design team. At 60
and 90 percent design there will be additional opportunities to ensure the constructability and
ability to bid the WRRF Project based on the updated design.
Program Management Team and City Stakeholder Review. Hundreds of comments were
compiled, sorted by subject matter, and submitted for review to the project design team. These
comments will inform the design as it moves forward toward the 60 percent design milestone.
The completion of the draft Predesign Report is a major project milestone.
Where to From Here?
The draft Predesign Report bridges the gap between the “what’s” of the Facilities Plan
conceptual design and the “how’s” of the detailed design that eventually produces final design
and construction drawings. The City is now in the detailed design phase. Milestones in the
detailed design phase will be broken into 60%, 90% and final detailed drawing and specifications
for project construction. Its anticipated design will be complete at the end of 2017.
Concurrent with WRRF Project design other project work in 2017 includes:
1. Refining the costs estimates
2. Analyzing collection system improvements to reduce I/I as a part of the WRRF project
3. Examining treatment options for potable reuse
4. Investigating treatment options for peak wet weather events.
5. Evaluation cooling wetlands
6. Requesting proposals for pre-selection of MBR
7. Requesting proposals and hiring a construction management team
8. Additional value engineering
9. Continuing outreach to stakeholders and other interested parties.
Packet Pg. 242
12
Packet Pg. 243
12
CH2M CONTRACT AMENDMENT
A triple bottom line exercise with design engineer, CH2M, surfaced components of the Facilities
Plan that warranted reconsideration. After considerable analysis, several of these have
demonstrated significant advantages to the project. To include these components into the project
will require additional design services. CH2M has provided a contract amendment (Attachment
B) which addresses six areas;
1. Architectural
2. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
3. Existing Facility Modifications
4. Value Engineering
5. Concept Validation
6. MBR Pre-selection
Architectural. To realize a One Campus concept described earlier in this report that will
combine workgroups and facilitate staff efficiencies and effectiveness will require additio nal
architectural design for the new Water Resource Center. Because the concept of having all the
workgroups under one roof wasn’t wholly envisioned in the Facilities Plan, the design scope did
not include the additional work space and only included 30% design for the maintenance facility.
This portion of the amendment includes design of the additional personnel space including the
maintenance facilities for all the workgroups and a remodel of the existing administration
building into a process laboratory and some additional offices.
MBR and MBR Preselection. To support the City’s objective of the most flexible use of
recycled water, the secondary/tertiary process recommended in the Facilities Plan, which was the
basis for the CH2M
design contract, has
changed from
conventional activated
sludge and granular
media filtration to a
membrane bioreactor
(MBR). MBR offers
many advantages such
as the best path for
potable reuse of
recycled water,
meeting future
regulatory
requirements and
simplifying
disinfection. This change requires additional design funding and, due to the assortment of MBR
process configurations available from manufacturers, the specific type of MBR must be pre-
selected soon to move forward with project design.
Diagram of a Membrane Bioreactor
(MBR)
Packet Pg. 244
12
Existing Facility Modifications. Several existing plant deficiencies were not well described in
the Facilities Plan. These include matching digester heating and mixing systems which will
ensure the most effective sludge treatment and maximum production of gas for the creation of
energy and sludge storage which will allow for efficient dewatering of biosolids. Both digester
and sludge storage processes will be incorporated into the odor control system.
City Fire and the Utilities Department have worked collaboratively examining the WRRF’s fire
protection system. The existing fire protection system is not adequate for the new plant and will
require some modifications that will better protect the facility and its users. The WRRF’s
primary clarifiers have been in service since the 1940’s and additional inspection revealed
several critical component replacements such as pump and pipe replacement, and junction box
removal.
Treatment processes such as MBR utilize biology to remove and convert pollutants and require
chemicals to ensure a suitable environment to thrive. The existing alkalinity feed system does not
allow efficient and safe chemical deliveries. Finally, the WRRF’s landscape irrigation system has
experienced several time consuming and expensive repairs. This portion of the amendment will
utilize a performance specification which will evaluate the existing system and will design only
the portions that need to be replaced.
Value Engineering. To make sure the City receives the maximum value from the WRRF
project, a process referred to as value engineering is performed at several milestones during
design. The value engineering for the pre-design discovered several valuable changes regarding
the flows that enter the WRRF and the subsequent sizing of processes and that will reduce
construction and operational costs. This portion of the amendment addresses the design and cost
estimates and also provides a bridging document that summarizes the basis of this change.
Concept Validation. As part of the original scope of CH2M’s contract, three elements of the
project design were intended to be evaluated. These elements are treatment options for potable
reuse, dual treatment for peak wet weather events and cooling wetlands. Presently significantly
more work than originally scoped has been performed on these important elements. Additional
funding is being requested to complete the evaluation.
Based on the changes that have occurred between the Facilities Plan and the Predesign Report it
became apparent CH2M had more to design than was originally set forth in the Facilities Plan.
CH2M submitted a request for a design contract amendment in September 2016. The City
diligently compared the request with CH2M’s existing scope, ensured the amount of design
requested was adequate to meet the facility design needs and negotiated with CH2M in a
collaborative fashion to produce an amendment that will adequately complete the WRRF
Project’s design and best meets the future needs of the WRRF and community.
Authorization of a CH2M contract amendment in the amount of $1,519,049 is being requested to
complete the remaining design and related construction bid documents. A Request for Proposals
for MBR selection is scheduled for the February 21, 2017 City Council meeting.
Packet Pg. 245
12
PROJECT SCHEDULE
FISCAL IMPACT
The amendment to the CH2M design contract for MBR pre-selection will cost $1,519,049. There
are adequate funds in the sewer fund working capital balance for this amendment and the
increased cost has been taken into account in the long-term fiscal forecast for the fund and the
recent authorization to apply for State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding Total design costs are
shown below:
Original CH2M Contract $6,229,323
Amendment $1,519,049
Total CH2M Contract $7,748,372
Construction and construction-related professional services for the WRRF Project are estimated
between $107 to $140 million. The relationship of design costs to construction costs is generally
that design costs run between 7% to 9% or $7,490,000 to $9,630,000 of a $107 million
construction project which places CH2M’s total contract after the amendment at the bottom of
that range. The sewer fund has been carefully planning for this project to be adequately
positioned to fund the debt service in the project rate sch edule. Total costs for the project will
continue to be refined as the design nears completion and funding analysis for subsequent stages
of the project will be presented to Council throughout this process
Packet Pg. 246
12
ALTERNATIVE
1. Council could choose not to amend CH2M’s contract for design services. This action would
significantly shift the course of the project. Staff could request CH2M to use its existing
contract funding which would result in returning to the original design. The original design
did not address existing facility deficiencies, had no MBR process, still requires additional
funding for completion of a WRRF maintenance facility and did not include a one campus
concept. Also completion of studies such as cooling wetlands, and peak wet weather flow
management would be discontinued. Lack of design funding will require significant changes
to the draft predesign report and decrease the overall ability of the WRRF project to meet
important aspects of the Project Charter.
Staff would return to Council to request additional direction for key elements of the design,
such as the existing facility deficiencies, potable reuse, architectural scope and other
elements to complete design and construction documents.
Attachments:
a - Facilities Plan Preliminary Design Cost Opinion Comparison
b - Amendment No 1 to CH2M Agreement
c - Council Reading File - SLO Draft Predesign Report
d - Council Reading File - SLO WRRF Drawings
e - Council Reading File - Basis of Estimate
Packet Pg. 247
12
WRRFProjectFacilitiesPlanPreliminaryDesignCostOpinionComparisonComponentFacility Plan w/ Division 1 & ContingencyFacility Plan w/ Division 1 & Contingency & EscalationGroup TotalHigh End of Estimate(Class 4)ItemPDR w/ Division 1 & Contingency & EscalationGroup TotalHigh End of Estimate(Class 3)EQFlow Equalization$1,501,000$1,741,000 $1,741,000 $2,350,350 Equalization Pond$2,222,685 $2,222,685 $2,889,491 $481,685 $539,141 23%Primary Clarifiers$2,879,000$3,338,000Primary Clarifiers$1,590,480Sludge Pump Station$237,872Aeration Basins$13,682,390$15,862,000Primary Effluent Screens$2,010,642Final Clarifiers$4,272,000$4,953,000Bioreactor 3 & 4$4,465,529Tertiary Filtration$4,975,689$5,769,000MBR$23,289,242Bioreactor 1 & 2 Modifications$2,337,457Recirculation Pump Station$1,321,222Disinfection UV Disinfection$7,485,000$8,678,000 $8,678,000 $11,715,300 UV Disinfection$5,156,821 $5,156,821 $6,703,867($3,521,179) ($5,011,433) (43%)Solids (Digestion, Thickening, Dewatering)$6,759,000$7,836,000Digester Building$1,957,461Dewatering Building$1,672,317Digester No. 2$1,387,135Solids Area Electrical Building$719,040Biosolids Blend Tank$521,734Thickening$1,666,672Sidestream Sidestream Treatment$3,642,000$4,223,000 $4,223,000 $5,701,050 Sidestream Treatment$2,497,294 $2,497,294 $3,246,482($1,725,706) ($2,454,568) (43%)Water Resource Center$4,800,000$5,565,000Water Resource Center & Amenities$12,009,690Maintenance Building$1,953,000$2,265,000Learning Center and Public Amenities$1,505,000$1,745,000Renewable Energy Generation$1,066,000$1,236,000General Site$9,616,850$11,149,000Site Work$11,005,063Flood Protection$1,500,000$1,739,000Yard Piping$5,206,105Headworks$500,181DemoDEMOLITION (Originally included in General Site)$1,473,150$1,708,000 $1,708,000 $2,305,800 Demolition$2,234,203 $2,234,203 $2,904,464 $526,203 $598,664 26%OdorHeadworks Odor Control$788,000$914,000 $914,000 $1,233,900 Odor Control$2,108,666 $2,108,666 $2,741,266 $1,194,666 $1,507,366 122%Cooling COOLING (Originally Included in Filtration)$1,187,311$1,377,000 $1,377,000 $1,858,950 Cooling Towers and Cooling Wetlands$5,048,233 $5,048,233 $6,562,703 $3,671,233 $4,703,753 253%Chemical Chemical (Originally in Aeration)$438,610$509,000 $509,000 $687,150 Chemical Storage$610,658 $610,658 $793,855 $101,658 $106,705 16%Construction ManagementConstruction ManagementOffice EngineeringOffice EngineeringProgram Management During Construction PhaseProgram Management During Construction PhaseEnvironmental Document and PermittingDesign ServicesTotal$90,381,200$104,787,000$104,787,000 $135,091,115Total$91,776,402 $111,709,415 $139,242,336 $6,922,415$4,151,221 3%* A Class 4 estimate is appropriate for a preliminary plan or study, and is generally based on limited information. Level of project definition required: 1% to 15%.** A Class 3 estimate is appropriate for budget authorization, and are generally prepared based on a preliminary design. Level of project definition required: 10% to 40%.$19,933,013($6,338,652) (24%)OtherConstructionRelated Costs***$20,857,200$24,180,000$26,271,665$24,180,000$19,933,0137%General$12,888,000 $17,398,800$16,711,349 $21,724,754 $3,823,349 $4,325,954 25%$14,594,850$12,009,690 $15,612,597 $1,198,690 $1,017,747Solids$7,836,000 $10,578,600$7,924,359 $10,301,667$88,359($276,933) (3%)PrimaryTreatment$3,338,000 $4,506,300$1,828,352 $2,376,858($1,509,648) ($2,129,442)GroupAdd / (Deduct) Add / (Deduct) (47%)***The Facilites Plan estimate for construction related costs (ex. construction managment, program management, etc.) included Design and Environmental Services cost estimates. To accurately compare the PDR and Facilities Plan estimate, it was removed from the high end estimate since the costs have already been incurred and were not included in the PDR estimate (total $6,371,335).($4,246,987)Facility Plan (June 2015)Draft Predesign Report (August 2016)%ChangeSecondary + TertiaryTreatment$26,584,000 $35,888,400$33,424,092 $43,451,320 $6,840,092 $7,562,920 21%Buildings$10,811,000Revised11/18/16Packet Pg. 24812
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 1
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
______________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after
referred to as City, and CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2015 the City entered into an Agreement with Contractor for Design Services
for the Water Resources Recovery Facility per Specification No. 91363; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to include Architectural, future and existing
facility design, value engineering modifications, concept valuation changes and MBR pre-selection, and Contractor
has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Clerk Mayor Heidi Harmon
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 249
12
CH2MCH2MCH2MCH2M
1501 W. Fountainhead Pkwy Suite 401
Tempe, AZ 85282
(480) 966-8188 (T)
(480) 966-9450 (F)
www.ch2m.com
December 8, 2016
Mr. Dave Hix
Deputy Director - Wastewater
Public Utilities
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710
Subject: City of San Luis Obispo – Water Resource Recovery Facility Project - Architectural, MBR, Existing
Facility Upgrades and VE
Dear Mr. Hix,
As we progress towards the Design Development (60%) Stage of the Project, there are a number of
changes that have occurred resulting in additional scope for the project. The additional scope of the
project has developed in the following areas:
•Item No. 1 - Architectural Scope Changes
•Item No. 2 - MBR Facility Design
•Item No. 3 - Existing Facility Modifications
•Item No. 4 - Value Engineering Modifications
•Item No. 5 – Concept Validation Changes
•Item No. 6 – MBR Pre-Selection
Item No. 1 - Architectural Scope Changes
The original scope of work included the following elements:
•A new 12,200 square foot Water Resources Center.
•30% design for a new 12,881 square foot Maintenance Facility based on the revised Maintenance
Facility Building Program dated October 16, 2015. The 60%, 95% and final contract documents were
based on the original maintenance facility program and presented in the Facilities Plan.
•Remodel of the existing 3,800 square foot Administration Building to a Public Learning Facility.
The current scope of work for the project includes the following:
•A new 27,500 square foot Water Resource Center will be constructed. The spaces within the new
WRC include an Interpretive Center, a large conference room, a new warehouse, maintenance space
for the Water Distribution, Wastewater Collections and WRRF Operations, men’s and women’s
locker facilities, process lab, team space for Water Distribution, Wastewater Collections and WRRF
Operations, SCADA Control room, offices, lunch room and public areas.
•The existing Administration Building (3,800 sf) will be remodeled, with spaces generally serving the
same functions as in the existing building. WRRF Operations will have the lab remodeled to serve as
Exhibit A
Packet Pg. 250
12
PAGE 2
DECEMBER 8, 2016
a process laboratory and office spaces will be remodeled to house regulatory compliance. It is not
anticipated that there are any structural modifications or space remodeling that will occur.
The additional architectural scope of the project is related to the Combined Maintenance Facility
Program identified in the October 16, 2015 document prepared by RRM Our original proposal only
included effort through 30% Preliminary Design for these combined functions. Therefore, additional
effort is required to reflect the change in the building programming for the additional design phases of
the project including the 60% submittal, 95% submittal, Final Contract Documents, Bidding Services and
building permitting assistance. The increase in personnel spaces as part of the increased staff functions
in the Water Resource Center results in additional design for architectural, structural, electrical, HVAC,
and plumbing.
Item No. 2 – MBR Facility Design
During the Concept Validation phase of the project, the City made the final decision to implement a
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) in lieu of the Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) treatment train. The
following items were included in the original scope of work and are deleted from the scope for
secondary/tertiary treatment:
• A separate blower building
• Two new final clarifiers, with new RAS and WAS pumps per clarifier
• Expansion of the filter feed pump station
• Expansion of the tertiary filter complex, including two new mono-media filters, new backwash
pumps and air scour blowers
The stated capacity of the MBR is still not determined. WSC recently issued a revised storm hydrograph.
This revised hydrograph will require that CH2M re-evaluate the equalization basin capacity. However,
the basic MBR Facilities required for treatment will be as follows:
• Membrane feed pump station, with submersible axial flow can arrangement pumps located in a wet
well.
• Membrane tanks with the associated mechanical and control systems. The tanks will be equipped
with tank covers, but will not be located in a building. Membrane tanks are proposed as above
grade tanks, with gravity flow of return activated sludge to the bioreactors.
• Membrane chemical cleaning systems, with chemical storage, metering, and cleaning systems
located outside, under a canopy cover.
• Blower room, including process aeration blowers and air scour blowers.
• Electrical room.
• Permeate pumps, located outside under a canopy cover. The permeate pumps will pump flow to an
in-pipe UV system.
• The original proposal from GE for a 16 mgd sustained peak flow peak flow for 2 days with one train
out of service required the following facilities; 1) 5 trains, 2) 10 full cassettes (room for 11) per train.
This configuration would result in a net flux of 22.5 gfd with 4 trains. The revised proposal from GE
for a 12 mgd sustained peak flow for 4 days with one train out of service requires the following
facilities; 1) 5 trains, 2) 7.5 cassettes (room for 9) per train. This configuration would result in a net
flux of 22.5 gfd with 4 trains.
In addition to the MBR Facility, the following will be incorporated, based on MBR operating
requirements:
• Primary effluent fine screen facility, with two screens with 2mm openings. The facility will include
the fine screen channels and flow split gates for the bioreactors. The primary effluent screen facility
Packet Pg. 251
12
PAGE 3
DECEMBER 8, 2016
will be located outside, with channel covers. Two washer compactors will be included for screenings
washing/dewatering. The washer compacters and screening bin will be located outside.
• Primary effluent mixer. A primary effluent mixing chamber will be located upstream of the screens,
with a vertical rapid mixer installed for mixing calcium hydroxide.
• WAS pumps configured for bioreactor surface wasting.
Item No. 3 – Existing Facility Modifications
The following existing facility modifications will be added to the project scope:
• Existing Digester Heating and Mixing System Upgrades. The WRRF Operations and Maintenance
staff have requested that the heating and mixing systems for existing Digester No. 1 be replaced to
match the new digester and be located with the heating and mixing systems for the new digester.
The June 2015 Facility Plan identified that the mixing system for existing Digester No. 1 be replaced
as part of the project; however, upgrade of the heating system was not specifically identified. In an
effort to provide a complete mixing and heating system for the digester complex to optimize
operation and maintenance, CH2M is proposing that the mixing and heating system for the new
digester be expanded to include the digester heating and mixing system for the new digester. Thus,
based on the scope identified in the Facilities Plan, the new work for this effort includes additional
design of the expanded heating system, additional yard piping to connect the existing digester to the
new mixing and heating system and the ancillary mechanical, electrical, and I&C work to incorporate
the expanded scope elements. Structural work is limited to any provisions for modified piping
penetrations of the structure. This scope does not include modifications to the existing digester gas
piping systems.
• Sludge Storage Tank Piping Modifications. The WRRF Operations and Maintenance staff have
requested that Digester No. 2 be converted to a digested sludge storage tank upstream of sludge
thickening. This approach will provide significant flexibility for the operations staff in managing the
dewatered sludge operation. The Facility Plan did not identify this approach so this scope is new
scope added to the project. Digester No. 2 has a connection to the existing digester gas system. A
site walk was conducted with WRRF to review the needs for converting the existing digester to a
sludge storage system. It was determined that some of the valves/piping, given the age and
potential condition need to be replaced. However, a detailed assessment is required to be
conducted to understand the full scope. Thus, the specific scope required to re-purpose existing
Digester No. 2 to a digested sludge storage tank is limited to modifications of the sludge inlet and
outlet piping, level control and valve modifications. The sludge storage tank will be de-coupled from
the digester gas system and will be connected to the odor control system. WRRF staff have
requested that a new mixing system is required to avoid the existing gas mixing system. It is
assumed that the installation of odor control for the Sludge Storage Tank will de-classify the space
around the sludge storage tank and thus eliminate the need to upgrade other equipment to be in
compliance with NFPA 820 and the NEC code.
• Site Fire Protection System Modifications. The WRRF Program Management Team in conjunction
with the City is anticipating that the existing Site Fire Protection system is inadequate and will
require upgrades to meet the current codes and standards. The June 2015 Facilities Plan did not
address the overall site fire protection plan or requirements. The level of effort for this scope is
based on the assumption that the existing fire loop inside the WRRF site is adequate to meet the
new fire flows. Thus, the planned scope to meet the current standards is as follows; 1) Installation
of a new connection to the existing water main along the WRRF’s entrance road to provide a new
Packet Pg. 252
12
PAGE 4
DECEMBER 8, 2016
water supply that can meet the flow requirements, 2) installation of a new backflow assembly near
the point of connection, and 3) connection to the existing fire loop. The scope includes modeling the
fire protection system modifications to demonstrate compliance with the required fire flow. It is
anticipated the existing Administration Building, and the new Water Resource Center will include
sprinklers to reduce the overall site fire flow requirements. There may be additional spaces on the
site where the Fire Marshall will require that sprinklers be added to existing spaces. The meeting
scheduled with the City Fire Marshall will provide clarity on this item. The scope assumes adequate
water supply is available to the site from the water main connection and fire pumps and fire water
storage are not required.
• Additional Primary Clarifier Modifications. Subsequent to submittal of the Preliminary Design
Report, the City has identified the need to evaluate and develop a plan for additional modifications
of the existing primary clarifiers. The City has expressed concern that these pipes may experience
severe corrosion given the fact that these pipes were installed in the 1940’s. These additional
improvements were not identified in the June 2015 Facilities Plan. The additional scope items
include the following: 1) Repair of the primary clarifier influent pipes beneath the primary clarifier
structures. For this scope item, the City will be completing an inspection of these existing pipes and
will determine the structural condition of the existing influent pipes. For the purposes of this scope
of work, it is assumed that the structural integrity of the existing primary clarifier influent pipes is
intact, thus only slip lining will be required to replace these pipes. It is not anticipated that new
pipes will be required to be installed beneath the existing primary clarifiers; 2) Replacement of all
piping in the primary effluent island; 3) Replacement of the old biofilter pumps and upgrading with
gates as necessary for individual primary clarifier effluent isolation, 4) Remove the two junction
boxes located south of Primary Clarifier 1 and direct route the lines to the primary clarifiers.
• Alkalinity Feed System. The current location of the alkalinity connection for off-loading chemicals is
not conducive to safe and efficient delivery of chemicals. The June 2015 Facilities Plan did not
identify the remedy of this issue. The specific scope of work for this item includes the relocation of
the alkalinity off-loading connection. This scope includes the relocation of the chemical supply
connection along the road where other chemicals will be delivered. A spill containment slab will be
provided to capture incidental spills. CH2M is also to confirm the appropriate location for chemical
dosing. Currently the WRRF is dosing above the amount required for nitrification for pH control. A
sodium hydroxide dosing station is partially installed in tertiary treatment, and could be used for pH
control to lower the calcium hydroxide dose.
• Irrigation System Replacement. The WRRF Operations and Maintenance staff have identified that
the existing landscape irrigation system is in poor working order and needs to be replaced. This item
was not identified in the June 2015 Facilities Plan. The scope of work for this item is to replace the
irrigation system serving existing and new landscaping. It is assumed that the irrigation system
water will be supplied from the plant’s W3 system. It is also assumed that the existing W3 system
will be tapped at the appropriate location, a new backflow preventer and flowmeter will be installed
to monitor the amount of reuse water being used on-site for irrigation. This item will be addressed
utilizing a performance specification.
Packet Pg. 253
12
PAGE 5
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Item No. 4 - Value Engineering Modifications
A value engineering study was conducted based on the Predesign Report and a decision was made to
proceed with several of the value engineering cost saving revisions, including the following:
• WSC has proceeded with re-evaluating the storm hydrograph, resulting in a reduction in peak flows
to the WRRF.
• Additional equalization basin volume will be provided by expanding the existing equalization basin,
resulting in a reduction of peak design flow to the liquids treatment processes.
• Reduce the size of the membrane bioreactor system and the UV disinfection system to
approximately 10 to 12 mgd or as small as possible based on lower peak flows and increased
equalization volume.
In order to incorporate the value engineering modifications, additional design work is required to revise
design work already completed during the Predesign. The scope of the additional design work includes
the following:
1. Value engineering proposal evaluations, including presentation development and attendance at
meetings occurred during September and October 2016. The original design scope included
providing responses to value engineering comments, but did not include design or analysis related
to value engineering.
2. Update treatment plant hydraulic modeling based on the peak flow revisions. This task will include
an update of the hydraulic profile. Update treatment plant process modeling, based on the revised
flow to treatment.
3. Revise membrane bioreactor and UV disinfection system sizing and update design memoranda
based on the reduced size. Coordination with equipment suppliers based on the revised system
sizing.
4. Expand the flow equalization pond size to the north to increase flow equalization capacity. This task
includes developing sizing criteria, coordinating geotechnical and civil requirements for the
increased size, design for equalization modifications, including developing drawings, and developing
a basis of design memoranda for the revised sizing.
5. Cost estimate update to incorporate value engineering revisions.
6. Develop a Bridging Document, summarizing the value engineering modifications, basis of design
revisions, and information as needed for cost estimating and as required to proceed with final
design for the value engineering modifications.
Deliverables for Task 4 include the following:
• Presentations and meeting notes (for meetings already conducted, through October 14)
• Updated hydraulic profile, incorporating the value engineering modifications
• Updated mass balance
• Updated design memoranda summarizing the revised sizing for the MBR and UV disinfection
systems including an updated process flow diagram
• Flow equalization basin design drawings and basis of design memoranda. Final design drawings will
be developed concurrently with final design for the WRRF project. Preliminary drawings will be
developed initially and submitted with the basis of design memoranda.
• List of existing facilities that will remain and facilities that will be demolished.
• Documentation of management of flow events greater than the 10-Year design storm.
• Updated construction cost estimate, incorporating the value engineering revisions.
• Site plan including a list of upgrades and design criteria
Packet Pg. 254
12
PAGE 6
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Item No. 5 – Concept Validation Changes
The intent of the Concept Validation tasks included in the original scope of work was to evaluate three
elements of the project: 1) Treatment options to facilitate future potable reuse, 2) Dual treatment for
peak flow events, and 3) Effluent cooling utilizing wetlands. Consideration of theses alternative has
provided the City the opportunity to consider additional options that were not previously considered in
the City’s 2015 Facilities Plan. As it stands today, there has been significant consideration, dialogue and
discussion of each of these alternatives with the City and the Program Manager. This additional
consideration, dialogue and discussion with the City has resulted in additional work and effort by CH2M
beyond the original scope of work for these items. The paragraphs below will provide a detailed
discussion of the additional work that has been completed for each area.
Item No. 1 – Treatment Options to Facilitate Future Potable Reuse
In an effort to position the City on the path to potable reuse, during the Concept Validation stage of the
project the City decided to utilize a membrane bioreactor (MBR) in lieu of conventional activated sludge
(CAS). Utilizing an MBR will achieve the following benefits for the City:
• Consistent production of high quality Title 22 reuse water to maximize effluent reuse.
• Consistent production of high quality effluent that will consistently meet the NPDES permit limits.
• Position the City to implement future potable reuse and preserve some existing facilities in an effort
to achieve that goal. For example, not utilizing the tertiary filters to produce Title 22 effluent will
preserve them for future utilization in an advanced treatment scheme aimed at implementing
indirect or direct potable reuse.
CH2M expended additional effort beyond the scope of work in developing and evaluating detailed
information to compare MBR with CAS. This additional effort included the following items:
• CH2M conducted the following additional workshops: 1) December 15, 2015, 2) MBR 101 workshop
on February 9, 2016, 3) Triple Bottom Line workshop on February 24, 2016, 4) MBR Working Session
on March 16, 2016 and 5) an MBR Follow Up workshop on March 23, 2016. The additional effort
associated with these workshops included advanced preparation of the presentation materials,
review of these materials with WSC and then presentation to the City team.
• CH2M attended with the City and the Program Manager the IRWD and Fillmore MBR site visits on
February 10 – 11, 2016.
• CH2M arranged and led the City of Henderson and City of North Las Vegas site tours on June 23,
2016.
CH2M produced multiple versions of the MBR and CAS cost comparison utilizing our CH2M Cost
Parametric Estimating System.
Item No. 2 – Dual Treatment for Peak Wet Weather Events
The original focus of this task was to evaluate dual treatment for disinfection to optimize infrastructure
provided to treat wet weather flows. This was later expanded to CH2M working with the City’s Program
Manager to identify and evaluate treatment alternatives aimed at “right sizing the secondary and
tertiary treatment train” as well as developing approaches to manage the peak wet weather events. The
specific additional work that has been completed includes:
• Multiple meetings were conducted with the Program Manager in discussing alternatives for
managing peak wet weather events. Included in these meetings were consultations with CH2M Wet
Weather Senior Technical Consultants seeking advice and approaches aimed at reducing the size the
of the wet weather events. Process evaluations and cost estimates were developed to evaluate
potential scenarios. These meetings, consultations, and evaluations resulted in the approach to
focus on a strategy to expand flow equalization, coupled with the Program Manager revisiting the
design storm hydrograph based on updated rainfall data.
Packet Pg. 255
12
PAGE 7
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Item No. 3 – Cooling Wetlands. There has been additional effort expended in evaluating and considering
the alternative of implementing the cooling wetland for effluent cooling. The additional effort included
the following items:
• CH2M conducted the additional following workshops: 1) December 17, 2015, 2), August 24,
2016 and September 29, 2016. The additional effort associated with these workshops included
advanced preparation of the presentation materials, review of these materials with WSC and
then presentation to the City team.
• CH2M attended an additional meeting with the Regional Board on June 3, 2016.
Based on the last workshop with the City on September 29, 2016, the City is requesting that additional
analysis be conducted to determine the long term implications of implementing cooling wetlands. The
City’s Program Manager has requested that CH2M implement the relocation of the cooling towers and
addition of the new cooling towers on the southern end of the site. The final decision on the
implementation of wetlands will occur at a later date.
Item No. 6 – MBR Pre-Selection
In late March 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo Utility Department made the decision to utilize a
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) technology for implementation at the City’s Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WRRF). This decision was based in part of the City’s consideration for the future implementation
of Potable Reuse at the City’s WRRF. Thus, this scope of work is for CH2M to work with the City’s
Program Manager and the City to go through a process to pre-select the MBR manufacturer, approve
the submittals for the selected manufacturer and assign the final equipment contract to the City’s
contractor. The basic tasks that will be required to accomplish this are as follows:
• Establish the Bidding Requirements
• Develop the Contract Forms
• Develop the Conditions of the Contract
• Prepare the Technical Specifications
• Develop Required Drawings
• Conduct Vendor Presentations
• Prepare Addenda
• Conduct a Bid Evaluation and Recommendation
• Review Equipment Supplier Submittals
This scope of work has been prepared with the following assumptions:
• CH2M will be required to coordinate with the State Board Division of Financial Assistance to confirm
that all pre-selection activities are in compliance with SRF requirements
• Pre-selection will incorporate elements of the Project Charter
• CH2M will be required to coordinate with the City’s Legal and Finance Department
• The MBR is separate from any other equipment pre-selection process
• The pre-selection of the MBR will be conducted as a separate and distinct task
• The MBR pre-selection will be conducted to position the City for future potable reuse alternatives
Criteria specific to obtaining log removal credits will be included in the pre-selection documents
Section 1 – Scope of Work
The specific scope of work for this effort is as follows:
Task 1 - Bidding Requirements
Packet Pg. 256
12
PAGE 8
DECEMBER 8, 2016
CH2M will be responsible for developing the Bidding Requirements for the project. The specific items
that will be developed include:
- Invitation to Bid
- Instruction to Bidders
- Bid Form
- Supplements including:
Bid Schedule A – Bid Schedule A – Life Cycle Cost Evaluation Form and Worksheets
Bid Schedule B – Warranties and Service Contracts
Bid Schedule C – Technical Data for Membrane System
Bid Schedule D – Scope of Supply
Bid Schedule E – Drawings
Bid Schedule F – Baseline Wastewater Quality Conditions
- Bid Bond Form
This task includes one meeting to coordinate with the City’s pre-selection and legal department on the
Bidding Requirements for pre-selection.
Deliverable: Bid Documents
Task 2 - Contract Forms
CH2M will be responsible for developing the Contract Forms for the pre-selection. The specific items
that will be developed include:
- Agreement including the following sections:
- Supplementary Conditions and Supplements:
Exhibit A-1: Assignment of Contract, Consent to Assignment, Acceptance of Assignment
Exhibit A-2: Agreement to Assignment by Sellers Surety
- Performance Bond
- Payment Bond
This task includes one meeting to coordinate with the City’s pre-selection and legal department on the
Contract Forms for pre-selection.
Deliverable: Contract Forms
Task 3 - Conditions of the Contract
CH2M will be responsible for developing the Conditions of the Contract for the pre-selection. It is
anticipated that the Standard General Conditions of the Procurement contract utilized will be Engineers
Joint Contract Document Committee (EJCDC) general conditions. It is assumed that the EJCDC General
Conditions contract are acceptable to the City. Supplementary Conditions will also be developed that
are specific to each pre-selection.
This task includes one meeting to coordinate with the City’s pre-selection and legal department on the
Conditions of the Contract forms for pre-selection.
Deliverable: Conditions of the Contract
Task 4 - Technical Specifications
CH2M will be responsible for developing the technical specifications required for the pre-selection of
the equipment. The technical specifications that will be developed for the pre-selection of the MBR
equipment will include:
- Technical Specifications:
Packet Pg. 257
12
PAGE 9
DECEMBER 8, 2016
Division 1: Section 01011 – Summary, Section 01025 – Measurement and Payment, Section
01250 – Contract Modification Procedures, Section 01301 – Administrative Requirements,
Section 01601 – Product Requirements, Section 01701 – Special Services
Division 9 – Finishes
Division 11 – Equipment
Division 13 – Special Construction
Division 15 – Mechanical
Division 16 – Electrical
Deliverable: Conditions of the Contract
Task 5 – Drawings
CH2M will develop a general layout drawing to inform the equipment suppliers the area allocated for
installation of the equipment.
Deliverable: General Layout Drawings
Task 6 - Vendor Presentations
It is anticipated that as part of the equipment pre-selection process, the potential equipment suppliers
will come in and make a presentation to the Program Management staff and the City WRRF staff. The
purpose of these presentations is for the potential equipment vendors to present the performance and
operating requirements of their equipment. It is also anticipated that the WRRF staff that will be
responsible for the operations and maintenance of the equipment can become knowledgeable and
familiar with the equipment to understand the pros and cons of each equipment supplier. This task
assumes that there will be up to three presentations MBR equipment vendors. For this task, it has been
assumed that two CH2M team members will be in attendance at the presentations.
Deliverable: Presentation Summaries
Task 7 - Addenda Preparation and Bid Evaluation
It is anticipated that based on the Vendor Presentations, questions and clarifications that evolve from
issuance of the contract documents, that an addenda will be required. Furthermore it is anticipated that
only one addenda will be needed for each equipment pre-selection activity. The addenda will be issued
prior to the bid for the equipment but after the Vendor Presentations.
Upon receipt of the bids from the equipment vendors, CH2M will complete an evaluation of the bids for
compliance with the contract documents. CH2M will then make a recommendation to the City for award
of the preferred equipment supplier based on the selection criteria provided in the contract documents.
CH2M will submit a formal letter to the City with a recommendation for award.
Deliverable: Addenda and Letter for Recommendation of Award
Task 8 - Supplier Submittal Reviews
CH2M will perform up to 2 submittal reviews for each equipment vendor. The objective of these
submittal reviews is to ensure that the assignment of the contract to the Contractor for construction is
completed with the approved submittals. If more than two reviews of the submittals is required, CH2M
is entitled to additional compensation if required.
Deliverable: Submittal Review and Comments
Packet Pg. 258
12
PAGE 10
DECEMBER 8, 2016
We look forward to discussing the details of this proposal at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc.
Ronald E. Williams, P.E., BCEE
Vice President
C: Jeff Szytel, WSC
Jasmine Diaz, WSC
Howard Brewen, City of San Luis Obispo
Jennifer Phillips, CH2M
Barb Engleson, CH2M
Packet Pg. 259
12
2015$252$252$220$220$191$170$161$149$132$108$99$151$91$1062016$256$256$224$224$194$173$163$152$134$109$101$154$92$1082017$258$258$226$226$196$175$165$153$135$110$102$155$93$1091.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 180 $40,680 0 $0 38 $6,650 150 $24,750 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 100 $15,100 0 $0 0 $0 468$87,180$0 $96,362 $0 $95,900 $0$0$0$192,262$279,4422015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 180 $40,680 0 $0 38 $6,650 150 $24,750 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 100 $15,100 0 $0 0 $0 468$87,180$96,362$95,900$192,262 $279,4422.225 $58,050 0 $0 0 $0 50 $11,300 0 $0 25 $4,375 820 $135,300 0 $0 0 $00 $0 0 $0 690 $106,950 0 $0 40 $4,360 1850 $320,335 $0$0$0 $320,3352015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02017 225 $58,050 0 $0 0 $0 50 $11,300 0 $0 25 $4,375 820 $135,300 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 690 $106,950 0 $0 40 $4,360 1850 $320,335$0 $320,3353186 $47,988 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 31 $5,425 62 $10,230 615 $94,022 410 $55,307 0 $0 0 $0 682.8 $105,834 62 $5,766 46.5 $5,069 2094.5 $329,640 $20,000 $54,340$54,340 $403,9802015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$54,340$54,340 $54,3402017 186 $47,988 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 31 $5,425 62 $10,230 615 $94,022 410 $55,307 0 $0 0 $0 682.8 $105,834 62 $5,766 46.5 $5,069 2094.5 $329,640 $20,000$0 $349,6404.216 $55,296 0 0 0 0 50 $11,200 0 0 80 $13,840 878 $143,114 0 $0 0 0 0 0 00 158 $24,332 0 0 28 $3,024 1410 $250,806$0$0 $250,8062015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 216 $55,296 0 $0 0 $0 50 $11,200 0 $0 80 $13,840 878 $143,114 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 158 $24,332 0 $0 28 $3,024 1410 $250,806$0 $250,8062017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$05. Concept Validation Changes40 $10,240 0 $0 0 $0 128 $28,672 50 $9,700 0 $0 0 $0 70 $10,640 0 $0 50$5,450 0 $0 54 $8,316 0 $0 0 $0 392 $73,018 $10,000 $0$0 $83,0182015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $2,500$0 $2,5002016 40 $10,240 0 $0 0 $0 128 $28,672 50 $9,700 0 $0 0 $0 70 $10,640 0 $0 50 $5,450 0 $0 54 $8,316 0 $0 0 $0 392 $73,018 $7,500$0 $80,5182017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$06 MBR Pre-Selection0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 244 $54,656 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 416 $63,232 0 $0 71 $7,739 240 $24,240 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 971 $149,867 $0 $31,601$31,601 $181,4682015 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$02016 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 244 $54,656 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 416 $63,232 0 $0 71 $7,739 240 $24,240 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 971 $149,867$31,601$31,601 $181,4682017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$0$0667 $171,574 0 $0 0 $0 652 $146,508 50 $9,700 174 $30,290 1,910 $313,394 1,101 $167,894 410 $55,307 121 $13,189 240 $24,240 1,685 $260,532 62 $5,766 115 $12,453 7,186 $1,210,846 $30,000 $182,303 $0 $95,900 $0$0$0 $278,203 $1,519,0492-Dec-16Total Labor Hours Total Labor Costs ($) Travel and Other Expenses ($)Cannon Corp.Project Professional 1 Staff Professional 2 Staff Professional 1Architectural Scope ChangesMBR Facility DesignProject Professional 2Project Manager Process OptimizationTOTALExisting Facility ModificationsValue Engineering ModificationsTOTAL Estimated Cost ($)Public Learning Facilities Amenities DesignSurveying Utility PotholeGeotech BoringsMWA ArchitectsSubconsultant TotalDetailed Fee EstimateWater Resource Recovery Facility City of San Luis ObispoEngineering Technician Technician Office / ClericalPrincipal in Charge Principal Professional 2 Principal Professional 1 Sr. Professional 2 Sr. Professional 1Task Nos. Task/Activity DescriptionLabor ClassificationSubconsultant Costs ($) Packet Pg. 26012
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Julie Cox, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and File the 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation P lan Action Second Annual Update
(Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
Background
The 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is an update to the City of San Luis Obispo’s
2006 LHMP. The LHMP analyzes the community's risk from natural hazards, coordinates
available resources, and implements actions to reduce or eliminate risks. The LHMP is prepared
before a disaster to guide risk reduction activities before an event. The LHMP is a five-year plan,
reviewed and amended annually, so as to include opportunities for vulnerability reduction. This
is the second annual report for the LHMP adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2014 and
approved by FEMA on October 7, 2014. The five-year plan period begins with approval of the
plan by FEMA.
The Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT) discussed the extent to which goals, objectives, and actions
from the 2006 LHMP were implemented and whether the mitigation strategies should be revised
or continued in the 2014 LHMP. The HMT agreed to consolidate the 2006 goals from eight goals
(including hazard specific goals) to two comprehensive goals.
In establishing the 2014 LHMP Mitigation Actions, the HMT reviewed the list of mitigation
actions from the 2006 plan. Following this review, the HMT consolidated several mitigation
actions, removed a few that have become irrelevant, and identified several new actions. The
actions have been categorized as either supporting hazard mitigation efforts or disaster
preparedness efforts. While both are important to public safety in preparing for and responding
to natural disasters, the primary focus of the LHMP is to identify actions that will minimize
threats to public health, safety, and welfare.
The 2006 and 2014 LHMPs identified storm and flood related events as a risk to San Luis
Obispo. During this reporting period, storm and flood related LHMP actions include increased
staff training on the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) operations; increased community outreach regarding storm and flood preparation;
focused assessment of Corporation Yard operations during heavy storms; tree maintenance
and/or removal in the creeks; and five silt removal projects.
On October 12, 2016 the City HMT convened for the second annual meeting of the 2014 LHMP
to review and discuss mitigation progress and any new concerns that may benefit from mitigation
Packet Pg. 261
13
activities. At the annual meeting, each goal and objective was reviewed, attachment A, to
evaluate its: relevance to the evolving situation in the City of San Luis Obispo, and consistency
with changes in State and Federal policy and relevance to current and expected conditions. At the
meeting an additional Objective 1.G was added: “Due to the announced closure of Diablo
Nuclear Power Plant, insure the needs of the City of San Luis Obispo planning and response
activities retain sufficient support until all spent fuel rods are placed into dry cast and the full
decommissioning of the two reactors is completed.”
The Hazard Identification and Prioritization Worksheet was reviewed, attachment B. No changes
were made. Updates completed in 2016 on the mitigation implementation actions have been
provided on attachment C.
Public comment received will be documented and stored with the plan for use in the five-year
update.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is not a project and therefore not subject to
Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Providing an
update on the status of the effort is also not a project as defined under CEQA.
CONCURRENCE
Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Police Department and Parks
and Recreation Department concur with the report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Action items in the LHMP would be funded through various City Departments budget requests
through the Financial Planning process.
ALTERNATIVES
Council can direct staff to revise 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Second Annual
Update.
Attachments:
a - 2016 Update Goals and Objectives
b - Hazard Identification and Prioritization
c - 2016 Update Actions
Packet Pg. 262
13
2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation goals are guidelines that explain what a community wants to achieve in terms
of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long-range, policy-oriented
statements representing community-wide visions. Objectives are statements that detail
how to achieve a community’s goals. Typically, objectives define strategies, or
implementation steps, to attain identified goals. Below are the goals and objectives
established for the 2014 LHMP.
Hazard Mitigation Team will annually review each goal and objective to evaluate its:
Relevance to the evolving situation in the City of San Luis Obispo
Consistency with changes in State and Federal policy
Relevance to current and expected conditions
Goal 1. Cultivate a disaster -resistant community through
implementation of risk reduction measures and increased public
awareness to prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural and
human -caused hazard even ts.
Objective 1.A Ensure that local plans, policies, and programs are consistent with the
hazard information identified in the LHMP.
Objective 1.B. Increase City employee capacity through SIMS and NIMS compliant
training and EOC drills to identify hazards, and assist in emergency preparedness,
response, and recovery.
Objective 1.C Pursue available grant funding to implement hazard mitigation efforts.
Objective 1.D Maintain critical and essential key assets to increase resiliency and
minimize future damage from hazard events.
Objective 1.E Increase public awareness of hazards, emergency response, and
recovery.
Objective 1.F Promote public/private partnerships to increase community resiliency.
Objective 1.G Due to the announced closure of Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, insure
the needs of the City of San Luis Obispo planning and response activities retain
sufficient support until all spent fuel rods are placed into dry cast and the full
decommissioning of the two reactors is completed. (Added in 2016 annual update)
Goal 2. Reduce the severity of damage and losses due to natural and
human -caused hazards.
Objective 2.A Protect and enhance as practical existing assets, as well as any future
development, from the effects of natural and human-caused hazards.
Packet Pg. 263
13
Table 4-1 Hazard Identification and Prioritization Worksheet
Hazard Type Probability
Impact Survey
Rating
Survey
Score
Total
Score Affected
Area
Primary
Impact
Secondary
Impacts
Earthquakes/Liquefaction
s 2 4 4 4 2.35 7.83 39.83
Wildland Fires 2 3 3 3 2.08 6.93 30.93
Adverse Weather 2 4 2 2 1.53 5.10 27.50
Hazardous Materials 3 1 2 2 1.67 5.57 24.77
Floods 2 2 2 2 1.63 5.43 21.43
Pandemic 1 4 4 4 1.45 4.83 20.83
Landslides 1 1 2 2 1.34 4.47 10.87
Table 4-2 Hazard Prioritization Exercise Legend
Probability Importance 2.0
Secondary
Impacts Importance 0.5
Based on estimated likelihood of
occurrence from historical data Score
Based on estimated secondary impacts to
community at large considering economic
impacts, health impacts, and crop losses
Score
Unlikely (Less than 1% probability in
next 100 years or has a recurrence
interval of greater than every 100
years.)
1
Negligible - no loss of function, downtime,
and/or evacuations 1
Somewhat Likely (Between 1 and 10%
probability in next year or has a
recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.)
2
Limited - minimal loss of function, downtime,
and/or evacuations 2
Likely (Between 10 and 100%
probability in next year or has a
recurrence interval of 10 years or less.)
3
Moderate - some loss of function, downtime,
and/or evacuations 3
Highly Likely (Near 100% probability in
next year or happens every year.) 4
High - major loss of function, downtime,
and/or evacuations 4
Affected Area Importance 0.8
Survey Score Importance 1.0
Based on size of geographical area of
community affected by hazard Score
Survey Score = (Survey Rating / 3) x 10 where:
Isolated 1
Survey Rating is the average rating of concern
based on a scale of 1 (low concern) to 3 (high
concern) compiled from the survey responses. Small 2
Medium 3
Large 4
Total Score = (Probability x Impact) + Survey Score,
where:
Probability = (Probability Score x Importance)
Primary
Impact Importance 0.7
Impact = (Affected Area + Primary Impact +
Secondary Impacts), where:
Based on percentage of damage to
typical facility in community Score
Affected Area = Affected Area Score x Importance
Negligible - less than 10% damage 1
Primary Impact = Primary Impact Score x
Importance
Limited - between 10% and 25%
damage 2
Secondary Impacts = Secondary Impacts Score x
Importance
Packet Pg. 264
13
1
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
1.A.1
Regularly review
and continue to
maintain
consistency
between the Safety
Element, Municipal
Code, zoning
regulations, hazard
area maps, and
LHMP
implementation
strategies. Added
10/2016: Review the
implementation and
impacts of SB1069
Land use zoning.
Valid
from
2006
LHMP
B
Hazard
Mitigation
Improved parcel flood outreach,
Supervising Civil Engineer and
Fire Marshal work with Community
Development Director on wildland
urban interface (WUI) design, hillside
design standards
FEMA National Flood
Insurance Program
improved rating from 7 to 6.
Code adoption added to
Nov 2016 1st reading
Fire response time goal
aligned with NFPA
standard. City Council
approved ordinance to
adopt by reference the 2016
California Building and Fire
Codes with local
amendments. As a result of
passage of SB1069 Land
use zoning legislation,
annual review of the
implementation and impacts
of this specific legislation
added to the action
description.
Fire Marshal and Chief
Building Official have met to
review impacts on local
amendments to California
Residential Code
1.B.1
Train all city
employees including
fire fighters, police
Modified
from
2006
Disaster
Preparedness
Established minimum level of
training. National Management
Incident System (NIMS) / Standard
Continue training with new
employees
Packet Pg. 265
13
2
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
officers, building
inspectors, and
public works and
utilities staff to levels
appropriate for their
hazard mitigation
tasks and
responsibilities.
LHMP B Emergency Management System
(SEMS) training over next year.
1.B.2
Provide training for
City staff who apply
its building
regulations and
planning standards,
emphasizing the
lessons learned in
locations that have
experienced
disasters.
Valid
from
2006
LHMP
B
Disaster
Preparedness
Greater understanding of flood
implications at Corp yard
(Supervising Civil Engineer)
Additional remodeling
1.B.3
Conduct disaster-
preparedness
exercises for the
types of hazards
discussed in this
LHMP.
Valid
from
2006
LHMP B
Disaster
Preparedness
Exercises Public Health has
conducted: March 2014: Pan Flu
Tabletop Exercise October 2014:
Public Point of Distribution Exercise
(the two locations exercised were in
Arroyo Grande and Atascadero but
those sites were intended to cover
the whole county, including SLO)
October 2015: First Responder Point
of Distribution Exercise (4 locations:
Public Point of Distribution
drills held in South and
North County Oct 23, 2106
Statewide Medical and
Health exercise Nov 2016
FEMA drill Nov 2, 2016
Pan Flu Plan authenticated
Nov. 2015.
Packet Pg. 266
13
3
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
SLO City Fire, Morro Bay Fire, Paso
Fire and Five Cities Fire in Grover)
Public Works (PW) prep for flood
season. Update to the SLO County
Pan Flu plan. The plan will go out for
authenticating signatures this week
or next.
1.B.4
Establish ongoing
Disaster Service
Worker training
program to include
training for City staff
to deal with
emergencies as well
as contribute to risk
reduction measures.
Modified
from
2006
LHMP B
Disaster
Preparedness
See 1.B.1 Same
1.B.5
Conduct EOC
training for CERT
members
NEW
2014 B
Disaster
Preparedness
None None
1.B.6
Incorporate
pandemic into
CERT training
program
NEW
2014 B
Disaster
Preparedness
None None
1.C.1
Review funding
opportunities and
establish centralized
internal procedures
to coordinate efforts
for securing funds
Modified
from
2006
LHMP A
Hazard
Mitigation
Mid-Higuera Bypass
study/Environment Impact Report
(EIR). Public Health (PH) Department
receives pandemic “flu grant”
funding.
City applied for the Hazard
Mitigation Program Grant (3
million). Public Works will
review opportunities for
future grant funding and will
include grant development
Packet Pg. 267
13
4
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
that support risk
reduction measures.
in the 95% plans scope for
the Mid-Higuera Bypass
project
1.C.2
Identify hazard
mitigation projects
eligible for grants as
part of the Capital
Improvement
Program planning
process.
NEW
2014 B
Hazard
Mitigation
The Mid-Higuera Bypass project has
been identified as a project suitable
for grants.
As mentioned above, grant
application submitted for
HMPG funding. Funding
decision expected in three
months.
1.D.1
Assess structural
capacity of key
assets (including
bridges) and pursue
infrastructure
improvements as
necessary.
NEW
2014 B
Hazard
Mitigation
Assets are reviewed and prioritized
through the City’s capital
improvement program (CIP) and
funding pursued through the
Financial Plan process.
As part of 2017-19 financial
plan CIP process will be
reviewing and prioritizing
assets as the CIP write ups
are submitted by the various
Departments. Public Works
will be making priority
recommendations to the
CIP Review Committee as
part of that process. In
addition, city has submitted
grant funding applications
for three bridges that
includes a bridge on Chorro
Street, Nipomo/Peach and
on Madonna Road (outlet to
Laguna Lake).
1.D.2 Continue offering NEW Hazard October 2015 First Responders Point Flu shot provided during
Packet Pg. 268
13
5
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
free flu vaccines to
City employees.
2014 B Mitigation of Distribution flu vaccines exercise
in SLO city.
employee health benefits
open enrollment fair and
available at county health
dept.
1.D.3
Establish policies to
maintain health of
City employees
such as
discouraging
employees from
coming to work
when sick and
encouraging
employees to
develop a plan for
taking care of ill
family members.
NEW
2014 B
Hazard
Mitigation
None Increase in distribution of
hand sanitizer stations in
city buildings.
1.E.1
Establish a funded
program or
mechanism to
distribute public
information
regarding risk
reduction activities
and projects at City-
sponsored events.
Identify
materials
available for
Modified
from
2006
LHMP B
Hazard
Mitigation
Fire Prevention Open House: smoke
detectors distributed.PW flood
awareness table at Fire Department
Open House 10/10/15.
PH outreach health related topics,
infection control. Hospital health
outreach. SLO city touchless access
and sanitizer dispensers.
Fire Prevention Open
House: 10/15/16. PW flood
awareness table at Fire
Department Open House.
Presentations at Cal Poly
orientations for students and
their parents.
Packet Pg. 269
13
6
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
use at public
education
workshops
Coordinate
messaging
with external
agencies such
as the
American Red
Cross and
Volunteer
Organizations
Active in
Disasters.
1.E.2
Support the efforts
and education of
people with access
and functional
needs to prepare for
disasters.
Modified
from
2006
LHMP B
Disaster
Preparedness
Carless collection points online.
PH Access and Functional Needs
links online.
Presentations at Las Brisas
and Villages. Review of
emergency plan for
Transitions.
1.E.3
Educate the
community on
individual
preparedness and
response to deal
with emergencies at
times when
professional
Modified
from
2006
LHMP B
Disaster
Preparedness
Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT)
organizational meeting 10/23/15.
SLO City employees SLOWhat
quarterly newsletter articles. Week of
Welcome at Cal Poly education. PH
long term care facility preparedness
seminar.
CERT class not held due to
insufficient enrollment.
Recalibrating CERT as a
part of the Fire Department
strategic plan.
Packet Pg. 270
13
7
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
responders would
be overwhelmed.
1.F.1
Offer CERT training
to local / small
businesses
NEW
2014 B
Disaster
Preparedness
Outreach to Downtown Association
to discuss Farmers Market disaster
preparedness including special
training for Downtown Association
staff and long-standing vendors. Also
discussing improving the soft barrier
surround the Market.
Police/Fire downtown
association meetings and
dialogue are on-going,
including informing the
Downtown Concept Plan
project.
1.F.2
Offer seminars
and/or resources to
assist local / small
businesses in
planning for
continuity of
operations and
emergency
preparedness.
NEW
2014 B
Disaster
Preparedness
None Police/Fire downtown
assoc. meeting.
2.A.1
Continue to enforce
local codes,
ordinances, and
standards pertaining
to safe development
and resiliency to
natural and human-
caused hazards.
Modified
from
2006
LHMP A
Hazard
Mitigation
Of the 126 Unreinforced Masonry
(URM) buildings in the City 118 have
completed seismic strengthening or
were otherwise brought into
compliance with the ordinance and
six are currently under construction.
Mitigation for the remaining eight
buildings are expected as part of
pending development projects such
as the future Garden Street Terrace
and Chinatown Projects or are
Engage public input related
to Bishop Peak safety
access, recommendations
will be presented to city
council in Jan 2017. Fire
sprinkler- downtown retrofit
will be completed by July
2017. Add unreinforced
masonry map to website.
In May 2016 letters were
Packet Pg. 271
13
8
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
proceeding independently as
required under the City’s ordinance.
Downtown fire sprinkler retrofit (Fire
Marshal)
mailed to the owners of the
remaining 16 buildings in
the downtown that required
fire sprinkler retrofit. To date
7 properties are undergoing
retrofit.
2.A.2
Continue to
implement the
Unreinforced
Masonry Hazard
Mitigation Plan and
strengthen buildings
identified in Levels A
and B.
Valid
from
2006
LHMP
(almost
complete)
B
Hazard
Mitigation
See above 2.A.1 See above 2.A.1
2.A.3
Develop and provide
managers of mobile
home parks with
information on how
to improve the
seismic
performance of
mobile homes and
awareness of flood
risk.
Modified
from
2006
LHMP B
Hazard
Mitigation
Planned outreach (Supervising Civil
Engineer and PD).
Still in planning process.
2.A.4
Develop and carry
out environmentally
sensitive flood
reduction programs.
Valid
from
2006
LHMP B
Hazard
Mitigation
Reviewed high priority erosion sites
in the Waterway Management Plan,
cleared two of the three sites,
reviewed City owned property and
property with drainage easements
Mid-Higuera Bypass project
plans are currently at 30%
completion. The County
has issued the
Supplemental
Packet Pg. 272
13
9
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
covering private properties and
conducted vegetation
management/removal as needed,
completed five silt removal projects
at key drainage locations. Reviewed
and removed as necessary
undesirable trees from creek system
with tree/landscape contractors.
Natural Resources manages
vegetation management to maintain
the riparian corridors. CIP projects
incorporate revegetation and Natural
Resources participates to minimize
impacts of the projects.
Environmental Impact
Report for the project. The
comment period will
conclude in November
2016. Additional funding is
being requested of the
County for 2017-18 and the
project plans will be
developed to the 95%
completion milestone and
project permitting will
commence.
2.A.5
Continue requiring
businesses that use,
store, or transport
hazardous materials
to ensure that
adequate measures
are taken to protect
public health and
safety.
Modified
from
2006
LHMP A
Hazard
Mitigation
Audit report pending (Fire Marshal).
California Accidental Release
Program (CALARP) compliant. The
California Highway Patrol (CHP)
conducts outreach training upon
request to companies that transport
HAZMAT. CHP conducted several
roadside inspections to ensure
HAZMAT transport vehicles are
compliant with applicable laws within
the city of SLO. HAZMAT terminals
are high on the priority for CHP Motor
Carrier Safety Unit. Specialist inspect
each HAZ MAT terminal every two
years.
Same as 2015. Will be
annexing Clarion Ct./ Fiero
Lane area. Added Air Gas
(CALARP facility).
Packet Pg. 273
13
10
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2.A.6
Coordinate with
allied agencies to
prepare for
hazardous materials
incidents.
Reference City
EOP and
Training and
Exercise Plan
Maintain
participation in
County
hazardous
materials team
Modified
from
2006
LHMP B
Hazard
Mitigation
Seven City Fire Dept members on
County Haz Mat team, monthly
meetings.
Chemical Hazard Emergency
Medical Management (CHEMPACK)
exercise in January 2015.
PW coordinated with Fire Dept. and
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).
County Hazard Materials Emergency
Response Plan used for city related
information and is currently up to
date.
Fire Department Deputy
Chief attended Emergency
Management Institute class
with Atascadero city
representatives and other
SLO county and city
representatives. Partnered
with Union Pacific for Smart
Rail app for train
information.
2.A.7
Maintain City’s web
site and other
outlets with
information
regarding the safe
handling and
disposal of
household
chemicals.
Modified
from
2006
LHMP B
Hazard
Mitigation
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
2.A.8
Continue to conduct
current fuel
management
programs and
investigate and
apply new and
Valid
from
2006
LHMP A
Hazard
Mitigation
Ongoing. Laguna Lake, Terrace Hill,
Prefumo Canyon fuel reduction. (Fire
Marshal). Citywide creek
maintenance. (GIS) creek
maintenance easement maps.
Good partnership- natural
resources, Bishop Peak,
South Hill, Terrace Hill,
Laguna Lake Hazard trees,
removal of dead pine tree
projects.
Packet Pg. 274
13
11
Action
# Action Description
Status &
Priority
(A or B)
Hazard
Mitigation or
Disaster
Preparedness
2015 Progress on Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
2016 Progress on
Action
Comments/Notes/Revision
emerging fuel
management
techniques.
2.A.9
Require an
enhanced fire
protection plan in
Local Very High Fire
Severity Zones.
Valid
from
2006
LHMP B
Hazard
Mitigation
Ongoing Ongoing. New code
adoptions in residential
codes in future.
2.A.10
Enhance
partnerships with
CalFire and the local
Fire Safe Council for
fuel reduction
efforts.
NEW
2014 B
Hazard
Mitigation
Ongoing. 2014-2015 grant money
from FireSafe Council $7,000 for fuel
reduction.
CalFire and city rangers
supervised fuel reduction
projects. Continued city
participation on the Fire
Safe Council.
2.A.11
Support ongoing
urban forest
maintenance and
tree trimming
programs.
NEW
2014 B
Hazard
Mitigation
PW, Fire, CalFire, City arborist 68
dead trees removed. Private Property
dead tree enforcement. Continued
regular maintenance by city arborist
on existing street trees. City arborist
species replacement.
Bishop Peak fuel reduction
project.
2.A.12
Add gas pipeline
mapping to City’s
GIS resources.
NEW
2014 B
Disaster
Preparedness
CAD map high pressure gas pipeline
added in Spillman. S. Higuera main
mapping forthcoming.
Completed.
Packet Pg. 275
13
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 276
13
Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SINGLE -USE PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE AND WATER
BOTTLE FILLING STATION REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a presentation on single-use plastic water bottle and water bottle filling station
regulations and policy options; and
2. Provide direction to staff regarding any changes to current policies and practices.
REPORT IN BRIEF
At the February 2, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to agendize a
Study Session related to regulations for single-use plastic water bottles (“plastic bottles”) and the
addition of water bottle filling stations in the City. In particular, the City/County of San
Francisco’s Ordinance was directed to be used as a model. (Attachment A, City Council Meeting
Minutes). The purpose of this study session is for the City Council to provide specific policy
direction to staff so that additional outreach can occur and staff can craft an ordinance and
complete environmental review, as required dependent on the ultimate scope of the project.
Community members who spoke at the meeting cited concerns regarding the environmental
impacts associated with the resources required to manufacture plastic bottles which are used
once and subsequently end up as litter, in a landfill, or at a processing facility for recycling.
City Council discussion focused on having a Study Session to review plastic bottle regulations
and water bottle filling station efforts implemented in San Francisco as well as nationally. The
research section of the report focuses on a discussion of San Francisco’s regulations and also
provides an analysis and summary table of common policy elements found in four other
communities’ regulations.
Most agencies, including San Francisco, focus on environmental concerns throughout the
lifecycle of a plastic bottle as the basis for their regulations. The effort focuses on reducing
consumption of plastic bottles due to their associated natural resource depleting impacts during
manufacture/transportation as well as reducing the impacts associated with waste that ends up in
the landfill, as litter, or is recycled. The communities which were reviewed address regulating
plastic bottles in different ways, but the commonality is a limitation on the sale/use of single-use
plastic water bottles (referring to those constructed with recyclable Polyethylene Terephthalate
or PETE) by restricting the spending of city funds. The regulations also typically included a
concomitant commitment to the installation of water bottle filling stations.
This report also provides relevant City policies, information on state and local plastic bottle
Packet Pg. 277
14
recycling, discusses current City practices related to purchasing of plastic bottles and use of
water bottle filling stations, and also summarizes the results of a survey that was sent to
potentially affected businesses/events. The report concludes by providing questions to facilitate
City Council discussion and direction, should Council want to pursue policy and/or operational
changes.
CITY POLICY REVIEW
When considering new regulations, it is necessary to first review existing plans and policies to
determine if there is guidance within those items that can inform discussion and potential action
on new policies.
General Plan Policies
The General Plan does not specifically address the use of plastic bottles or water bottle filling
stations, but does have a number of related policies/goals (provided below) which recognize the
City’s responsibility for efficient use of materials and recycling while also acknowledging its
role in encouraging residents and businesses to do so as well.
1. Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 2.2.5. Model City. The City will be
a model of pollution control efforts. It will manage its own operations to be as pollution
free as possible. The City will work with other agencies and organizations to help educate
citizens in ways to prevent air pollution.
2. COSE Policy 4.6.3. Sustainable design in City facilities. Incorporate conservation and
sustainable energy sources and features in existing and new City facilities.
3. COSE Goal 5.2: Efficient use of materials. The City will use materials efficiently in its
buildings and facilities, services and operations, and encourage others to do the same
4. COSE Policy 5.4.1. Best available practices. The City will employ the best available
practices in materials procurement, use and recycling, and will encourage individuals,
organizations and other agencies to do likewise. “Best available practices” means
behavior and technologies that, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social
and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies: A. Use the least
amount of newly refined materials for a desired outcome; B. Direct the largest feasible
fraction of used materials to further use; C. Avoid undesirable effects due to further use
of materials.
5. COSE Policy 5.4.2. Material recycling in City facilities and operations. The City will set
a community example for waste diversion and material recycling in City facilities,
services and operating systems to achieve a goal of 100 percent recycling of paper,
bottles and cans and require similar goals in contracts and procurement for public goods
and services and capital improvements.
6. COSE Policy 5.5.2. Promote City materials reuse and recycling. The City will manage its
Packet Pg. 278
14
operations to foster reuse and recycling by: A. Avoiding use of inks, papers, and plastics
that inhibit recycling or that produce pollutants in preparation for recycling.
7. COSE Policy 5.5.3. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts. The City will
coordinate local, and participate in regional, household and business waste-reduction and
recycling efforts.
Climate Action Plan
The San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a policy document that provides a road map
to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. According to the CAP, the majority of
local emissions reductions come from building efficiency, transportation, and waste reduction
strategies. Although not specifically contemplated as a strategy in the CAP, decreasing plastic
bottle usage and increasing the use of reusable alternatives decrease the GHG emissions
associated with manufacture and transport of single use bottles.
Additionally, reduced consumption of single-use plastic bottles can reduce the amount of plastic
bottles that end up as litter or in the landfill, consistent with the CAP’s Solid Waste Chapter
which has an ultimate goal of reducing the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill. The solid
waste chapter identifies strategies to increase the community’s waste diversion rate; the amount
of material diverted from the landfill which can then be recycled, composted or reused. These
strategies help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with transport
and decomposition of waste.
Revenue and Finance (Municipal Code Title 3)
Title 3 of the City’s Municipal Code provides purchasing policies for “environmentally preferred
purchases” (Municipal Code Section 3.24.075) which indicate the intent of the City Council that
the City take a leadership role in recycling its waste products as well as the purchase of recycled
products for use in the delivery of City services. Specifically, section E (below) requires the
purchase of equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the natural environment.
Section 3.24.075.E. City departments shall examine their purchasing specifications and, where
feasible, purchase equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the natural
environment. This involves the purchase of equipment, supplies, and services in a manner that
uses less harmful materials, employs recycled or recovered materials (where appropriate and
available), and utilizes techniques intended to result in less impact on the environment than other
available methods
Packet Pg. 279
14
-San Francisco Quick Facts-
Ban on drinking water
bottles
21 ounces or less
Locations: (not citywide)
- City/County Property:
offices, facilities, parks,
streets, sidewalks
- Events on City/County
Property (when permit is
required with
attendance exceeding
100 persons)
Exceptions:
- Participants in
“Participant Athletic
Events” (e.g. marathon)
- Infeasible, no reasonable
alternative, undue
hardships.
Policy to increase
availability of drinking
water in public areas
(filling stations, drinking
fountains, water hook-
ups).
Phased implementation
timeline (2014 to 2018)
RESEARCH
San Francisco Ordinance No. 28-14 (Attachment B)
Adopted in 2014, San Francisco amended their environmental
code to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic water bottles (21
ounces or less) on City/County property only (e.g. facilities,
parks, streets and sidewalks); including events held on City
property. The Ordinance did not include any restrictions for
businesses or events on private property (i.e. not a city/county-
wide ban. This is accomplished by barring the use of
City/County funds for purchase of bottled water and placing
restrictions on new leases, permits, or other agreements on
City/County property awarded by the City and County of San
Francisco.
The Ordinance also modified City/County policy to increase the
availability of drinking water in public areas, especially public
parks frequently used for special events. The modified policy
requires capital improvement projects in parks, plazas,
playgrounds, or other public spaces to install bottle-filling
stations, drinking fountains, and/or potable water hook-ups for
public use, as feasible and proximate with the scale/scope of the
project. The policy also encourages the inclusion of bottle-filling
stations/drinking fountains for public use in privately-owned
public open spaces. Currently San Francisco has about 40 bottle
filling stations installed or planned for installation in public
areas.
Consistent with the majority of other plastic bottle regulations, San Francisco cites
environmental reasons for implementing the ban, specifically reducing the production of waste
from plastic bottles. The San Francisco Ordinance strives to reduce consumption of plastic
bottles due to the “tens of millions of single-use plastic water bottles from San Francisco that end
up in the recycling stream, or landfill annually.” The Ordinance further indicates environmental
impacts from the petroleum, energy, and pollution associated with production, transportation,
and processing (e.g. recycling) of the bottles. San Francisco also notes the regulation and quality1
of San Francisco’s tap water supply and the lower cost of tap water as compared to bottled water.
1 San Francisco Ordinance No. 28-14. Section 2. Finding (h): “In the United States, public water is regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which requires multiple daily tests for bacteria and makes results
available to the public. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates bottled water, only requires weekly
testing and does not share its findings with the EPA or the public.
Packet Pg. 280
14
Approaches from Other Agencies
In addition to San Francisco, a range of communities with adopted plastic bottle regulations were
reviewed to study the scope and methods for implementation and enforcement. Four
communities were selected for further discussion herein due to the amount of information
available on their regulations; the full text of each is provided in Attachment C. A breakdown of
common elements found in these regulations is provided below which is preceded by a summary
table which compares the key elements of the different regulations. Furthermore, a table of
communities which have implemented bans across the United States is provided for reference in
Attachment D.
Most communities focus on the environmental concerns of natural resource depletion and
associated plastic bottle waste at a national and local level as the basis for an ordinance
including:
1. Producing bottles for American consumption requires an estimated equivalent of more
than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for transportation, requiring 3
liters of water to produce each single liter of bottled water, and producing more than 2.5
million tons of carbon dioxide (Seattle, WA).
2. Depletion of water from aquifers used to fill plastic water bottles (Concord, MA)
3. Americans purchase of 31 billion liters of water (2006) mostly sold in PET bottles
requiring nearly 900,000 tons of plastic produced from fossil fuels (Seattle, WA).
4. Reducing dependence on plastics that end up in the waste stream; estimated to end up as
litter or in the landfill more often than they are recycled (Concord, MA)
5. An estimated two million tons of plastic water bottles end up in landfills each year (San
Francisco).
6. High number of plastic bottles ending up in the landfill take several hundred years to
decompose (San Francisco)
7. Local policies associated with reducing waste and greenhouse gas emissions such as San
Francisco’s “zero waste” policy.
8. Use of reusable bottles, drinking fountains, and water bottle filling stations produce an
insignificant amount of waste as compared to single-use bottles (San Francisco).
Most ordinances have several common/key elements including:
1. Focus: The majority of communities regulate plastic water bottle sale/use on their own
property by restricting use of their funds for purchase of bottles and prohibiting the use at
certain special events
2. Phasing: a period of time is given to allow time for affected businesses to adjust to the
requirements before a ban is in effect.
3. Exemptions: Waivers and exclusions are authorized by those with authority to issue
permits and are provided to allow flexibility in locations, such as parks, that do not
currently have convenient access to safe drinking water. Exemptions are also provided to
ensure public health, safety, and welfare during times of emergency (including
degradation to the public water supply). San Francisco, in particular, requires annual
reporting of all issued exemptions.
Packet Pg. 281
14
4. Water Bottle Filling Stations: Encourage additional drinking fountains and water bottle
filling stations in community buildings and throughout the community.
5. Fines: Fine structures are established for those who do not comply with the restrictions of
the ban. Generally, the structure begins at a warning with subsequent escalating fines.
Some communities have additional elements which further specify the scope of their regulations
including:
1. Focus on the use/sale of plastic water bottles of varying sizes (21 to 34 ounces and less).
2. Regulations do not include a ban of soda or flavored/carbonated beverages contained in
plastic bottles (note: these bottles are manufactured with the same type of plastic as water
bottles) (note: research indicates this may be due to the ability to provide alternative
access to water (e.g. water bottle filling stations) and also because certain communities
had already implemented a tax on soda).
Other considerations addressed by communities include:
1. Toronto exempted all authorized special events in City facilities and parks from the ban.
2. Concord, MA is the only community in the United States to ban the retail sale of water in
plastic bottles. The towns ban took effect in January 2013 and regulates the retails sale of
single-use plastic (PETE) bottles of 34 ounces or less.
3. Chicago, IL instituted a tax in January 2008. The $0.05 per bottle tax applies to the retail
sale of bottled water (plastic and glass) sold within City limits.
Outcomes of Regulation
There is relatively little data on the outcomes of plastic water bottle regulations. However,
commonly occurring criticism of the regulations include concerns related to restricting the
sale/use of the “healthy option” (i.e. water) rather than restricting the sale/use of the “less
healthy” option (i.e. soda and other sugar-sweetened bottled beverages) and that reducing
availability of the healthy option increases consumption of the less healthy option. This topic
was a part of a focused study conducted at the University of Vermont by the American Journal of
Public Health in July 2015 (see Attachment G).
The subject study examined how the removal of bottled water on a university campus, along with
the implementation of a minimum healthy beverage requirement, affected the purchasing
behavior, healthiness of beverage choices, and consumption of calories and added sugars of
university campus consumers. Utilizing shipment data for all bottled beverages sold to the
university, the study reviewed consumption habits over three semesters (Spring 2012: before the
regulations, Fall 2012: during transition to a 30% healthy beverage availability requirement,
Spring 2013: bottled water removed as an option).
The study found that when bottled water was banned, the per capita number of bottles shipped to
campus increased significantly; indicating that the ban did not reduce the number of bottles
entering the waste stream from the university. The study also suggests that consumers not only
continued to buy bottled beverages but also made less healthy beverage choices after the
regulations were in place. It should be noted that the University of Vermont made an effort to
provide alternative water sources by retrofitting sixty drinking fountains with spouts to fill
Packet Pg. 282
14
reusable bottles, accompanied by a marketing campaign. Also, as noted in the study, it is limited
by the short duration of data collection (only collecting one semester of data during full
implementation of the bottled water ban) and further research would be needed to better
understand whether consumers adjust their behavior over time to make healthier beverage
choices. The long-term observations may reveal that the potential negative impact of banning
bottled water is a short-term setback.
Packet Pg. 283
14
The chart below compares the key elements of ordinances from the agencies selected for research.
Packet Pg. 28414
Plastic Bottle Recycling
According to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2013 there
were approximately 21 billion California Refund Value (CRV) eligible containers that were sold,
more than 18 Billion of which were recycled. The remaining 3 billion end up in landfills or as
litter. CalRecycle indicates that recycling reduces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in
the air by limiting the need to manufacture new products from raw materials; for every 10
pounds of clear plastic water or soda bottles, 3.3 pounds of carbon emissions disappear.
Beverages sold in plastic bottles (water, soda, or other) are made of PETE (also PET) which
stands for Polyethylene Terephthalate and is a form of polyester.2 PETE is commonly made
(recycled) into flakes and pellets which are used in carpet, fiberfill/geotextiles, strapping,
molding compounds, and food/non-food containers.3 At the local level, CalRecycle estimates4
that within the City of San Luis Obispo approximately 13,306,000 PETE bottles were purchased
in fiscal year 2015-16 with 5,404,000 (or 41%) of those bottles being recycled; indicating that a
large number of PETE plastic bottles purchased within the City end up as litter or in the landfill.
Countywide, the recycling rate of PETE increases to 52%.
CURRENT CITY PRACTICES
Use of City Funds for Purchase of Bottles. Current City policy does not explicitly restrict the
usage or sale of single-use plastic water bottles on City property or at City events. Generally
plastic water bottles and soda bottles/cans are purchased for use at City events (workshops or
other gatherings), advisory body and City Council meetings, and are vended in some City
offices.
Water Availability. The majority of City buildings have water available from drinking fountains
or from water fillers attached to a break-room sink.
At least one drinking fountain can be found in all City parks with the exception of approximately
8 of the smallest parks (e.g. Cheng Park located at Santa Rosa Street and Marsh Street).
Water Bottle Filling Stations. The Public Works Department (Parks Maintenance and Facilities
Maintenance) has a current practice to install water bottle filling stations in City parks and
facilities as feasible. For example: when existing park-located drinking fountains reach the end
of their useful life they are replaced with a fountain with a typical drinking fountain and a water
bottle filling station. Currently the City has four water bottle filling stations as pictured below:
2 National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), PET Sustainability, 2015. Available at:
http://www.napcor.com/PET/sustainability.html
3 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Plastics Recycling - Polyethylene
Terephthalate, 2016. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Plastics/Markets/PETEProfile.htm
4 Estimate based on PETE bottles sold throughout California in fiscal year 2015 -16 with per capita sales applied to
San Luis Obispo’s City/County population. Recycling rate based on PETE from recycling centers and Cold Canyon
Processing Facility.
Packet Pg. 285
14
LOCAL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE
A bottled water ban
similar to that of San
Francisco could impact
businesses/events in San
Luis Obispo that operate
on City property;
including streets,
sidewalks, parks, and
City buildings. This
would include businesses
that operate at Farmer’s
Market and events such
as Concerts in the Plaza
and the SLO Marathon.
To aid the City Council
in decision making, staff designed a survey, using San Francisco’s Ordinance as a model. The
survey was sent to businesses/event purveyors (with 63 responses) that would be potentially
affected by plastic water bottle regulations. The results of the survey are provided as Attachment
E and a summary is provided below. Note: totals exceed 100% because respondents were
allowed to select more than one option.
Seven core questions were asked of the respondents with intent to obtain an understanding of 1)
the types/sizes of plastic bottles being used, 2) if the sale of beverages in plastic bottles was a
significant component of the business/event, and 3) if the respondent would be concerned with
restrictions on the sale of plastic bottles at City events/on City property.
1) The majority of respondents (60%) did not sell beverages contained in plastic bottles.
Select all that apply. Currently my business sells (or plans to sell in the future)
the following:
Water Soda Flavored/ Carbonated
water or similar
We don’t sell
beverages in
plastic bottles
Santa Rosa Park (2) City Hall Police Station (retrofit)
Packet Pg. 286
14
2) 37% sold water contained in plastic bottles
3) The majority of bottles sold (including water, soda, and other types) ranged from 12 to 16
ounces.
4) The majority of respondents (68%) indicated the success of their business did not depend on
the sale of beverages contained in plastic bottles while 16% indicated “yes” and 16%
indicating “somewhat."
5) Respondents were split between being concerned and not being concerned with the passage
of regulations banning the sale of plastic bottles at City events/on City property:
a) 45% were not concerned with the passage of a ban
b) 43% were concerned with passage of a ban
c) 12% were neutral
6) The general reasons provided in the survey for being concerned with passage of a ban are
paraphrased below:
a) Costumers want to buy the product/Bottled water sale is a notable portion of the profit
margin
b) Athletic type events have participants who need access to water
c) Less convenient/No convenient alternative
d) Recycling addresses the problem
e) Too many local regulations
f) Eliminating drinking water bottles encourages consumption of a less healthy
alternative (e.g. soda).
It is also important to note that, although not expressed in the survey responses, non-profit
groups use city facilities to host fundraisers and a potentially significant portion of the revenue
generated during these events may arise from the sale of bottled water.
IMPLEMENTATION
If the City Council’s direction is to prepare regulations limiting the use/sale of single-use plastic
water bottles on City property/at City events and encouraging the use of water bottle filling
stations similar to that of San Francisco’s Ordinance, the additional steps needed to complete the
project are as provided below:
1. Focused Outreach and Meetings. Debrief after receiving City Council direction and
obtain input from interested parties and impacted Departments.
2. Create Initial Draft Language. Hold meetings to obtain internal input and create draft
regulation language.
3. Community Outreach. Broad public outreach to review and discuss proposed language
using the City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual.
4. Draft Final Language. Create draft regulations for review at Council Hearing.
5. City Council Review. City Council review of draft regulations.
Public Engagement and Noticing Manual (PEN Manual)
The City’s PEN Manual is designed to improve communication efforts and increase public
participation on topics that affect them; providing steps to take for broadening public outreach.
Packet Pg. 287
14
The subject project is identified as a “consult” project in the PEN Manual’s Action Plan Matrix
(see Attachment F) which provides the level of complexity and communication objective
depending on the project type. A consult project includes a number of outreach tools with
strategies to implement said tools. Outreach tools for consult include, but are not limited to,
official legal notification (e.g. newspaper), electronic notification and website posting, public
survey, focus groups/public input meetings, working with key contacts/liaisons, and study
session(s). See Attachment F for all “expectation” and “additional” outreach tools provided in
the consult category).
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council direction to help
guide the City Council in their deliberations:
Questions for City Council direction
Yes No
(Focus) Restrict the use/sale of single-use plastic water bottles
1. At City facilities only (e.g. City offices, City Council meetings)
2. On all City owned property (e.g. facilities, parks, structures on city owned
land)
a. Include streets and sidewalks in definition of City property
3. At events held on City property
a. Only events held by the City
b. Only events that require a permit from the City
(Filling Stations) Modify the current practice for installation of water
bottle filling stations
1. Increase the number available within City facilities
2. Increase the number available within City parks
3. Modify requirements for filling stations in private developments with
public spaces
4. Include water bottle filling stations as feasible in appropriate Capital
Improvement Projects
(Phasing) Establish a phased approach to implementing regulations
(e.g 3-months for City departments to phase out bottled water purchases, 6-
months for outreach to businesses/events, 6-months enforcement without fines)
(Exemptions) Establish waivers and exclusions to allow flexibility
(e.g. locations with limited access to water, undue hardship, emergencies)
(Fines) Establish fine schedule for compliance
(e.g. follow typical administrative fine schedule)
The staff presentation at the Study Session will include a similar decision matrix to help focus
Council direction.
Packet Pg. 288
14
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Upon City Council direction staff will review the project’s consistency with the California
Environmental Quality Act and provide an environmental determination for City Council review.
For reference, San Francisco determined their Ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act per section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines which indicates that
“a project is not subject to CEQA if the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The work to prepare regulations using the traditional outreach and public engagement approach
can be absorbed through existing resources.
If the City Council decides to increase the number of water bottle filling stations beyond the
current practice, there would be an additional cost. The typical park water bottle filling station
with attached drinking fountain (similar to that installed at Santa Rosa Park) has an installed cost
ranging from $4,000 to $5,000. The higher number includes an estimated variable cost increase
if the drinking fountain does not have an existing water line or sanitary sewer line for the
drinking fountain (some of the older drinking fountains used a “sump style” draining system
which is no longer compliant with modern Health and Safety Codes). Modifying an indoor wall
mounted drinking fountain to include a water bottle filling station (similar to that installed in the
Police Station) has an approximate installed cost of $2,500.
Costs for implementation, on-going enforcement, and installation, and replacement are
dependent on City Council direction and the scope of regulations and may require additional
budget and resources. It should be noted that through careful outreach and thoughtful and
deliberate roll out, the City has been able to achieve good compliance with the City’s Expanded
Polystyrene (EPS) Ordinance through use of existing resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the study session if more information is necessary in order to provide direction to
staff on preparing an ordinance.
2. Direct Staff to return with an ordinance to the City Council as soon as possible and limit
public outreach efforts. This is not recommended as the City’s public outreach efforts
bring valuable input to the Ordinance preparation process and have become an integral and
expected component of any such effort and will help with eventual roll out of an ordinance.
Packet Pg. 289
14
Attachments:
a - City Council Meeting Minutes
b - San Francisco Ordinance No 28-14
c - Regulations from Other Agencies
d - Table of Communities with Plastic Bottle Regulations
e - Survey_City of San Luis Obispo Local Business Perspective
f - PEN Manual Action Plan Matrix
g - American Journal of Public Health Study - University of Vermont
Packet Pg. 290
14
sir
Council Minutes
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
February 2, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present
at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with uncommon structured buildings that
satisfy tourists' interests; inquired about the City Council's allegiance to developers and high
profile projects; voiced concerns regarding the City's water resources for development projects.
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9:
No. of potential cases: One.
San Luis Obispo Page 1Packet Pg. 291
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2, 2016 Page 2
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency
on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the local agency. The existing facts and
circumstances exposing the City to litigation include allegations by ARH Quicky
Investments, LLC regarding ownership of a well located at 1460 Calle Joaquin, San Luis
Obispo. A letter, dated January 21, 2016, from the property owner's attorney is on file
with the City Clerk.
ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2016
Packet Pg. 292
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2. 2016 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
February 2, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
John Ashbaugh, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and
John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff
members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action, noting that the City Council
directed staff to agendize Item A for consideration in open session at the February 16, 2016 City
Council meeting.
INTRODUCTION
1. MIGUEL BARCENAS - UTILITIES ENGINEER AND MICHELLE BULOW -
SUPERVISING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Utilities Director Mattingly introduced Supervising Administrative Assistant Bulow and
Utilities Engineer Barcenas and provided brief introductions.
PRESENTATION
2. PRESENTATION BY JOHN FOWLER PRESIDENT & CEO OF PEOPLE'S SELF-
HELP HOUSING, REGARDING AN UPDATE ON LOCAL HOUSING MARKET
John Fowler, President and CEO of People's Self -Help Housing narrated a PowerPoint
presentation entitled "Local Update Regarding and State Housing and Community
Development Programs, Initiatives and Budgets" and responded to City Council inquiries.
Packet Pg. 293
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2 2016 Pa<,c a
3. PRESENTATION BY FIRE CHIEF OLSON AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
GRIGSBY REGARDING WINTER STORM PREPAREDNESS
Fire Chief Olson and Public Works Director Grigsby narrated a PowerPoint presentation
entitled "City of San Luis `El Nino' Preparation" and responded to City Council inquiries.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Barbara Frank, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the Rental Housing Inspection
Program; opined that surrounding counties do not have an inspection program; stated that most
cities inspect properties when there is a citizen complaint.
William Derrin er, San Luis Obispo, distributed a packet regarding his dogs Shadow and
Pebbles; voice concerns about the City's open space policy; opined that aggressive dogs should
not be off leash in City parks, revealing that an aggressive dog that was not on a leash attacked
his dog.
Jeff Eideliiian, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of a letter submitted to the California State
University (CSU) about limiting the number of students that will be attending Cal Poly in the
future; requested that the City Council agendize an item at a future City Council Meeting,
relating to limiting the enrollment of students at Cal Poly.
Pamela Werth, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the use of dangerous or toxic
poisons at City parks; opined that the City did not provide adequate signage waring the public of
poisons being used to control ground squirrels at the park; stated that a feral cat and her nursing
kittens died after the mother cat ingested a dead ground squirrel.
Odile Aural, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns about the number of students at Cal Poly; urged
the City Council to agendize a CSU petition to limit the number of students at Cal Poly.
Heidi Harrison, San Luis Obispo, requested that the City Council agendize an item related to the
bail of single use plastic water bottles and the creation of refill infrastructure in the City; opined
that the ban will align with the City's Major City goals.
Carol Winger, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the housing project at Slack Street
proposed by Cal Poly; stated that she attended numerous meetings at Cal Poly regarding its
future growth, noting that this project was never mentioned.
Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, commended staff regarding the bicycle marking lanes on the
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Santa Rosa Street; voiced the importance of these markings,
indicating that it will help to reduce the number of accidents; suggested adding markings to
Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the catastrophe in Los Angeles, relating to a large
gas leak; opined that the disaster was due to fracking.
Packet Pg. 294
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2, 2016 Page 5
Jaiiinc Rands, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of "SLO Refills NOT Landfills'; encouraged
the City to install rehydration stations; recommended that the City Council ban the sale of single
use water bottles under twenty-one ounces.
Cory Jones, San Luis Obispo, urged the City Council agendize an item related to the ban of
single use plastic water bottles at City Events; encouraged the implementation of refill stations
throughout the City; opined that there is only one refill station in the City currently.
Linda White, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the City's neighborhood wellness; opined that
ordinances have been adopted to improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods; urged the City
Council to agendize a CSU petition to limit the number of students at Cal Poly.
Sharon Whitney, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the petition regarding limiting the number
of students at Cal Poly; encouraged the City Council to agendize this matter at a future meeting.
Helene Finger, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding Meadow Street near the South
Hills Open Space; stated that the there is a fence blocking the public access to the open space;
requested that the City Council contact the property owner to remove the fence or agendize an
item to discuss any changes to the current City public easement that is in place.
Mayor Marx advised that Ms. Finger contact the City Attorney to discuss the public easement
matter.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a shelter crisis in the City; requested that the
City Council find a way to help assist the homeless who are in need of a shelter; noted that the
costs associated with providing a shelter are minimal.
Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of endorsing the refillable water
stations in the City, the senior care facility proposed by the Madonna family on Froom Ranch
and the petition to limit the number of students at Cal Poly.
Kyle Jordan, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his experience being student in the City; voiced
concerns regarding the costs for housing in the City; opined that residents do not want students to
live in their neighborhood; requested that the City Council prioritize student housing.
In response to public comment, City Attorney Dietrick addressed Ms. Franks concerns regarding
the Rental Housing Inspection Program; stated that the City is aware of a case in Ohio, noting
that there was a ruling that the ordinance issued was unconstitutional based on a Federal and
Supreme Court precedent; noted that the ordinance adopted by the City Council was based on a
California Court of Appeals case.
In response to public comment, Assistant City Manager Johnson explained that San Francisco
was the first jurisdiction to ban the use of single use water bottles on city property and at city
events; noted that universities throughout the nation have taken a similar stance on this ban;
stated that this ban was not contemplated in our City's Climate Action Plan, noting that there are
efforts to reduce the overall waste stream; voiced that some City events use the single use water
bottles as a source of revenue for nonprofits that sell water at the events.
Packet Pg. 295
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2 2016 Paize 6
In response to public comment, Assistant City Manager Johnson explained that the City has
several hydration stations installed throughout the City; stated that when a water fountain needs
replacing in the City, the Public Works department looks to see if a hydration system can be
installed.
In response to public comment, Public Works Director Grigsby addressed Ms. Werth's concerns
regarding poison used to control ground squirrels at City parks; stated that staff will provide Ms.
Werth and the City Council a response regarding the City's protocol and practices relative to the
use of chemicals at City parks in two weeks.
In response to public comment, Community Development Director Codron provided an update
regarding the City's housing project; stated the staff is in the process of preparing the
Environment Impact Report (EIR) for the Cal Poly Master Plan; noted that the draft EIR is not
ready for review at this time; stated that staff will proved an update to the City Council when it is
ready for review.
Mayor Marx reopened Public comment; indicated that the public comment period was not open
during the Winter Storm Preparedness presentation, Item 3; stated that there were two speaker
slips submitted for this item.
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, submitted a speaker card and was not present during Public
Comment.
Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, spoke on Item 3; voiced concerns regarding the City's creeks,
flooding of creeks and fire protection; stated that flooding accumulates lots of debris in the
City's creeks; suggested that the City include in their utility billing inserts information about
flooding awareness along with fire protection awareness.
By consensus, the City Council directed staff to agendize a study session to consider approaches
to regulation of single use plastic water bottles, including work program and resource
prioritization impacts and desired scope of potential regulations.
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 6.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as
appropriate.
Packet Pg. 296
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2 2016 Page 7
5. TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE & ON-CALL TRAFFIC MODELING SERVICES
STUDY RE VEST FORQUALIFICATIONS; SPECIFICATION NO. 91434
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
I. Approve the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide "Traffic Model
Update & On-call Modeling Services, Specification No. 91434"; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract is within the proposed budget of
180,000; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend purchase orders for on-call
traffic modeling services purchase orders in an amount not -to -exceed the authorized
budget.
6. CALTRANS SPONSOR APPLICANT AGREEMENT WITH RACE SLO
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support ("Support Letter") for the
2016 SLO Marathon + Half, and
2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a CalTrans Sponsor Application Agreement
Agreement") and supporting document ("Authorization Letter") with Get Off The
Couch, Potato Sports Productions, LLC authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to serve
as the Sponsor Applicant for the CalTrans encroachment permit for the 2016 SLO
Marathon + Half.
BUSINESS ITEMS
7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL_ FINANCIAL REPORT.
SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND ANNUAL AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR 2014-15
Glenn Burdette CPA Principal Allen Eschenbach, Assistant City Manager/Finance and IT
Director Johnson, and Senior Accountant Warner narrated a PowerPoint presentation
entitled "New Pension Accounting and Reporting Summary," and responded to the City
Council's inquiries.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 5-0 to receive and file the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the Transportation
Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2104-15.
Packet Pg. 297
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of Februa 2 2016 Rage 8
LIAISON REPOR
Council Member Ashbaugh reported on a conference and other City activities.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 4:00
p.m., and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, respectively 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 03/15/2016
Packet Pg. 298
14
Packet Pg. 299
14
Packet Pg. 300
14
Packet Pg. 301
14
Packet Pg. 302
14
Packet Pg. 303
14
Packet Pg. 304
14
Packet Pg. 305
14
Packet Pg. 306
14
Packet Pg. 307
14
Packet Pg. 308
14
Packet Pg. 309
14
Packet Pg. 310
14
Packet Pg. 311
14
Packet Pg. 312
14
Concord, Massachusetts
Bylaw Article 32 and FAQ Sheet
Packet Pg. 313
14
TOWN OF CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
SALE OF DRINKING WATER IN SINGLE-SERVE PET BOTTLES BYLAW
Section 1. Sale of Drinking Water in Single-Serving PET Bottles
It shall be unlawful to sell non-sparkling, unflavored drinking water in single-serving polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottles of 1 liter (34 ounces) or less in the Town of Concord on or after January
1, 2013.
Section 2. Exemption for Emergencies
Sales occurring subsequent to a declaration of an emergency adversely affecting the availability
and/or quality of drinking water to Concord residents by the Emergency Management Director or
other duly-authorized Town, Commonwealth or United States official shall be exempt from this
Bylaw until seven days after such declaration has ended.
Section 3. Enforcement Process
Enforcement of this Bylaw shall be the responsibility of the Town Manager or his/her designee.
The Town Manager shall determine the inspection process to be followed, incorporating the process
into other town duties as appropriate. Any establishment conducting sales in violation of this Bylaw
shall be subject to a non-criminal disposition fine as specified in Appendix A of the Regulations for
the Enforcement of Town Bylaws under M.G.L. Chapter 40, §21D and the Bylaw for Non-Criminal
Disposition of Violations adopted under Article 47 of the 1984 Town Meeting, as amended. Any
such fines shall be paid to the Town of Concord.
Section 4. Suspension of the Bylaw
If the Town Manager determines that the cost of implementing and enforcing this Bylaw has
become unreasonable, then the Town Manager shall so advise the Board of Selectmen and the
Board of Selectmen shall conduct a Public Hearing to inform the citizens of such costs. Subsequent
to the Public Hearing, the Board of Selectmen may continue this Bylaw in force or may suspend it
permanently or for such length of time as they may determine.
And to amend Appendix A of the Non-Criminal Disposition Bylaw by adding the following:
Bylaw Fine Schedule Fine Allowed Enforcement
Agency
Drinking Water in
Single-Serving PET
Bottles Bylaw
1st offense
2nd offense
3rd & each
subsequent offense
Warning
$25.00
$50.00
Town Manager’s
Designee
Passed by Counted Majority Vote
(403 voting in favor; 364 opposed)
Annual Town Meeting, April 25, 2012
Approved by Attorney General –September 5, 2012
Packet Pg. 314
14
Frequently Asked Questions about Interpretation and Enforcement of the Drinking Water in Single-
Serve PET Bottles Bylaw. Updated January 9, 2013
1. What is the effective date of the bylaw?
The bylaw becomes effective January 1, 2013.
2. How do I know which bottles are made of PET?
Almost all clear plastic bottles in which beverages are sold are made of polyethylene
terephthalate, also called PET or PETE. Bottles made of PET will have the number 1 and/or PETE
with the recycling symbol on the bottle. Recently, some beverages are starting to be sold in
clear bottles made of other plastics; these bottles do not have the number 1 and PETE included
in their recycling symbol.
3. What types of bottles are prohibited from sale under the bylaw?
The bylaw prohibits the sale of non-sparkling, unflavored drinking water in PET bottles of 1 liter
(34 ounces) in size or less.
Only bottles made from PET are prohibited from being sold. The sale of water in bottles made
from other types of plastics is allowed.
Only the sale of non-sparkling, unflavored drinking water in bottles of 1 liter or less in size is
prohibited. The sale of juice beverages, flavored waters, and sparkling water, in bottles of any
size, is allowed. Examples of these types of beverages include flavored waters such as
Vitaminwater®; sports drinks such as Gatorade®; energy drinks; seltzers and other sparkling
drinks; soda; juice; juice-flavored and artificially-flavored beverages; and bottled teas.
4. May unflavored water with added electrolytes or minerals be sold?
There are several brands of bottled non-sparkling water to which electrolytes and/or minerals,
but no flavoring, have been added. These brands include, but are not limited to, OWater and
SmartWater. If the water is unflavored, non-sparkling, and in bottles of 34 or less, it may not be
sold.
OWater and SmartWater (and possibly other brands) also produce electrolyte-added or mineral-
added water that is flavored. Bottles of flavored water products may be sold, regardless of size.
5. May cases of bottled water (for example, cases of 12 1-liter bottles or 24 12 oz. bottles) be
sold?
No. The sale of cases of small (<34 oz.) bottles of water is still a sale of “water in single serving
[PET] bottles …” regardless of how the bottles are packaged and labeled. If the individual
Packet Pg. 315
14
bottles in the case are 1 liter or less, and the product being sold is non-sparkling, unflavored
drinking water, the sale is prohibited, even though the bottles are packaged in case quantities.
6. May bottled water be offered for sale in vending machines?
No, not if the bottles are 1 liter in size or less and the product being sold is plain, non-sparkling,
unflavored drinking water in PET bottles.
7. May bottled water be offered for sale at civic events such as sports events, road races,
festivals, theater performances, catered events, and similar situations?
No, not if the bottles are 1 liter in size or less and the product being sold is plain, non-sparkling,
unflavored drinking water in PET bottles.
8. May bottles of water or cups of water be offered for free to patrons?
Yes. Only the sale of bottled drinking water is prohibited. Water may be provided for free in
any form.
9. May businesses to give away bottles of water but post a sign or put out a container asking
customers if they would like to make a voluntary donation?
No. By soliciting donations, a business is essentially asking for payment for the water, regardless
of whether the transaction is characterized as a sale or a donation.
10. How will the bylaw be enforced?
The Town Manager has designated the Health Division as the primary town agency who will
ensure compliance with the bylaw. Early in January 2013, Health Division staff will begin
inspections of retail stores, restaurants, and other venues that are likely to be selling bottled
beverages. Health Division staff will determine whether bottled water of 1 liter or less is being
offered for sale. If so, upon first inspection the business will be issued a written warning. Re-
inspection of businesses violating the bylaw will occur within one week. If bottled water is
being sold at the time of the second inspection, a Non-Criminal Citation with a fine of $25 will be
issued to the business. On the third and subsequent inspections, a Non-Criminal Citation with a
fine of $50 will be issued to the business if bottled water is being sold in violation of the bylaw.
11. What is the appeal process if I believe a Non-Criminal Citation has been issued to my business
in error?
The Town’s Bylaw Providing For Non-Criminal Disposition Of Violations Of Town Bylaws, and
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, section 21D outlines the appeal process. Any person
who wishes to contest a Non-Criminal Citation may, within 21 days of receiving such citation, file
a written request for a hearing at District Court.
Packet Pg. 316
14
Seattle, Washington
Mayor’s Executive Order 02-08 and Implementation Guidelines
Packet Pg. 317
14
~ fflce of the Mayor
ity of Seattle
regory J. Nickels, Mayor
Executive Order: 02-08
Restrictions on Bottled Wiater
An Executive Order, directing that after December 31, 2008, City of Seattle funds may
no longer be used to purchase bottled water. To reduce the environmental impacts of
bottled water, the Executiv'e Order directs departments to eliminate the purchase and
se of single.;.serving and large-volume bottled water dispensers in most circumstances,
given the high-quality municipal water available.
WHEREAS, Americans bought a total of 31.2 billion liters of water in 2006 sold in
qottles, mostly made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), requiring nearly 900,000 tons
qf the plastic produced from fossil fuels; and,
WHEREAS, in 2006 it is estimated that producing the bottles for American consumption
~ qUired the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for
t ansportation, requiring 3 liters of water to produce each single liter of bottled water,
nd producing more than 2.!5 million tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities, provides some of the highest-
9uality water in the nation e(~ual to or exceeding the quality of bottled water; and,
WHEREAS, the average pri(~e for bottled water is approximately $1 per pint (16 oz.)
bottle or $8 per gallon and the average price for Seattle water is only 1/3 of 1 cent a
~allon; and,
WHEREAS, bottled water is approximately 2,400 times more expensive than tap water;
~nd,
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, I launched the US Mayors Climate Protection
~greement to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol to address climate disruption by
nacting policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction
t rget suggested for the Uni1:ed States in the Kyoto Protocol --7% reduction from 1990
levels by 2012,
executive Order 02-08
~estrictions on Bottled Water
1
Packet Pg. 318
14
order that, after December 31, 2008, City funds no longer be used to purchase bottled
water for use in City of Seattle facilities or at City of Seattle events.
FURTHERMORE, City implementation guidelines will be developed by the Fleets and
Facilities Department.
FURTHERMORE, upon request, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) will inspect water quality
at City of Seattle facilities;
FURTHERMORE, by September 30, 2008, the Fleets and Facilities D~partment, or
other departments responsible for managing specific City of Seattle facilities, will
conduct an assessment for phasing out and replacing bottled water dispensers with thel
most environmentally responsible alternative that addresses any water-quality issues
that may exist in some facilities.
FURTHERMORE, exceptions may be made to this policy, in cases \ivhere there are no
reasonable alternatives to access safe drinking water; when there are hydration
requirements for employees working outside of City facilities; or othE~r legal or other
contractual reasons are present.
Executive Order 02-08
Restrictions on Bottled Water
2
Packet Pg. 319
14
IfURTHERMORE,
SPU will develop and execute an education campaign for City of
peattle employees and SPU customers on the economic and environmental benefits of
I~rinking water from the City's water supply and moving away from bottled water.
For inquiries regarding this Executive Order please contact SPU at 684-5800, option 2
l~atedthis~~~Of k~-~
,2008
Efxecutive Order 02-08
~estrictions on Bottled Water
3
Packet Pg. 320
14
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 1
Revised Implementation Guidelines
for
Restrictions on Bottled Water
This document provides guidance to departments for the implementation of restrictions on bottled water, as
directed in the Executive Order 02-08 issued by Mayor Greg Nickels on March 13, 2008.
Bottled Water Restrictions
As directed by Executive Order 02-08:
Effective January 1, 2009, City of Seattle funds may not be used to purchase bottled water for City facilities
or events;
Departments are required to eliminate the use of single-serving and/or large-volume bottled water
dispensers (i.e., water coolers);
Departments that are responsible for managing specific City of Seattle facilities are required to conduct an
assessment for phasing out the purchase and use of bottled water/dispensers with the most
environmentally responsible alternative (see Appendix A) that addresses any water quality issues that may
exist in some facilities;
Departments that currently purchase bottled water or have a bottled water dispenser are required to phase
out the purchase and use of bottled water/dispensers by December 31, 2008.
Exceptions to these restrictions include:
Where there are no reasonable alternatives to access safe and drinkable water,
When there are hydration requirements for employees working outside of City facilities (i.e., fieldwork),
When legal or other contractual reasons are present, and/or
For emergency supplies or in the event of emergencies that affect access to potable water.
The Executive Order:
DOES NOT restrict City employees from privately purchasing bottled water for individual personal use;
however, it does not allow private purchase of water service for the office, unless otherwise authorized.
City employees are encouraged to take advantage of the City’s high quality water.
DOES NOT require departments to have bottled water removed from vending machines contracted by the
department.
Implementation Guidelines
If the department has concerns about replacing existing bottled water use with an environmentally responsible
alternative, the department should have its water tested to determine whether it is safe for drinking. If the water
is safe for drinking, the department should inform employees and proceed with discontinuing bottled water use.
If water is not safe for drinking the department will be responsible for incurring the cost of providing safe drinking
water to staff, and must utilize an environmentally responsible alternative to bottled water (see alternatives on
page 3, Appendix A). If an environmentally responsible alternative does not meet the needs of the department
or the department’s needs fall under one of the exceptions listed above, the department may request to be
waived from restrictions outlined in Executive Order 02-08.
Below are the steps for departments to implement the restrictions on bottled water in City facilities:
1. Assess existing bottled water purchasing and use practices.
Please use the questionnaire in Appendix B to assess the department’s existing use. Give a copy of the
completed questionnaire to Fleets & Facilities and the property manager(s) of your building(s), if
different.
2. Where appropriate and needed, determine whether your facility’s water is safe for drinking.
Please contact Seattle Public Utilities’ Water Quality Lab at 684-7834. The lab will determine whether
your building’s tap water needs to be tested or if it has been tested in the recent past and what the test
results were.
Packet Pg. 321
14
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 2
3. Eliminate bottled water, or, as necessary, determine an environmentally responsible alternative.
If the tap water is determined to be safe for drinking and there are no significant aesthetic issues
(e.g., discoloration and/or unpleasant taste and odor), no further action is required of the department
and the department should discontinue bottled water use.
If tap water is determined to be unsafe for drinking, the department is responsible for providing safe
drinking water to staff and incurring the cost. The department must choose an environmentally
responsible alternative listed in Appendix A on page 3, unless alternatives do not meet the
department’s needs or needs fall under one of the exceptions listed on page 1. Departments should
choose the alternative that addresses the contaminants identified by SPU’s water quality test and is
appropriate for their business operations or needs.
If the tap water has significant aesthetic issues (e.g., discoloration or unpleasant taste or odor),
departments may implement an environmentally responsible alternative listed in Appendix A on page
3. Use the exemption request form in Appendix B to report to Fleets & Facilities and to property
management, if the property is not managed by Fleets & Facilities.
Bottled Water at City Events
Per Executive Order 02-08, City funds may not be used to purchase bottled water for any City events. It is
recommended that departments utilize pitchers or jugs of tap water at events.
Bottled Water for Field Work
To avoid heat-related illnesses in the outdoor environment, departments may continue to purchase bottled water
for employees working in the field where safe drinking water is not readily accessible. Washington
Administrative Code 296-62-09540 requires employers to provide and make at least one quart per employee per
hour of drinking water readily accessible when heat-related illness hazards are present. Jugs of tap water or
other alternatives should be considered.
More Information
For more information on the effects of using bottled water and the quality of Seattle’s tap water, see:
Water Quality: http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Water_System/Water_Quality/SPU03_001885.asp
Impact of Bottled Water: http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/News/News_Releases/SPU01_003484.asp
Help
If you need assistance with complying with the Mayor’s Executive Order, contact the Fleets & Facilities
Department, Facility Operations Division, Scott Minnix, Director, at 684-0142.
Packet Pg. 322
14
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 3 Appendix A: Environmentally Responsible Alternatives The table below lists the acceptable environmentally responsible alternatives to bottled water. Departments should choose the alternative that addresses the contaminants identified by the SPU’s water quality test and is appropriate for their business operations or needs. Any filters should be replaced according to manufacturer directions/recommendations. For additional information regarding treatment methods and systems, please visit the National Sanitation Foundation drinking water treatment website at http://www.nsf.org/consumer/drinking_water/dw_treatment.asp?program=WaterTre or Green Guides article comparing treatment products at http://thegreenguide.com/reports/product.mhtml?id=23 Alternative (treatment system) Treatment Method Approximate Costs Recommended for: Carafe (e.g., Brita or PUR) Uses an adsorption filter (i.e., carbon, charcoal, KDF, or ceramic) to absorb contaminants or trap particles (greater than .2 microns) as water passes through. Carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Unit: $15-35 Filter: $7-15 each Installation: NA Filters typically need to be replaced after filtering 40 gallons of water. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for individuals and small groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Faucet Mount (e.g., PUR and GE SmartWater) Uses an adsorption filter (i.e., carbon, charcoal, KDF, or ceramic) to absorb contaminants or trap particles (greater than .2 microns) as water passes through. Carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Unit: $25-85 Filter: $15-25 each Installation: $300/device Maintenance: $225/filter change Filters typically need to be replaced after filtering 100 gallons of water. Maintenance costs represent the cost of having building maintenance staff replace the filter. Filters may be able to be changed by staff. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for larger groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Under Counter/Sink (e.g., Culligan, Aquasana, Pentek, etc.) Treatment method depends on model. Generally an adsorption filter or reverse osmosis is used. Models with adsorption absorb or trap contaminants. Models with reverse osmosis push water through a membrane and then flush away a Unit: $35-250 Filter: $10-50 each Installation: $300/device Maintenance: $225/filter change Reverse osmosis models are only recommended for departments that have nitrate and perchlorate present in their tap water. Reverse osmosis models are not recommended as a general alternative because of significant amount of water wasted and contaminants are flushed back into the water supply. Packet Pg. 32314
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 4 few gallons of contaminant-containing water for every gallon purified. For adsorption models, carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Reverse osmosis based models remove Nitrates, perchlorate, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, chlorine byproducts, arsenic, and asbestos. For carbon based models, filters typically need to be replaced after filtering 500-1000 gallons of water, depending on model. For reverse osmosis models, filters typically are recommended to be replaced every 6-12 months depending on use and amount of contaminants. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for larger groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Counter and Floor Dispensers (Bottleless) These systems are generally plumbed in or connected to existing faucets to filter tap water. Treatment methods vary by model, but generally use a combination of methods including carbon, distillation, and/or reverse osmosis (see above options for info on carbon and reverse osmosis). Distillation boils water into steam and then condenses it back into water in a separate chamber. Carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Distillation kills microbes and removes trivalent arsenic, fluoride, lead, and mercury. Reverse osmosis remove nitrates, perchlorate, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, chlorine byproducts, arsenic, and asbestos. Rental: $35-85/mo Installation: depends on vendor Maintenance: part of contract Generally, filters typically are recommended to be replaced every 3-6 months depending on use and amount of contaminants. Because water is wasted and contaminants are flushed back into the water supply, reverse osmosis systems are only recommended for departments that have nitrates and perchlorate present in their tap water. Distillers require one kilowatt-hour to produce one liter of distilled water, which increases energy consumption. As such, systems utilizing distillation are only recommended for departments with bacteria and microbe contamination in their tap water. Generally, water dispensers, including bottleless, are discouraged because of the increased energy consumption to cool/heat filtered water. According to Energy Star, a standard hot & cold water cooler can use more energy than a large refrigerator. Increased energy consumption from water dispensers counteracts the City’s efforts to become more energy efficient, conserve resources, and reduce the impact of climate change. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for larger groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Packet Pg. 32414
Belmont, California
Resolution No. 10014
Packet Pg. 325
14
Packet Pg. 326
14
Toronto, Canada
City Council Resolution PW20.1 and General Permit Information
Packet Pg. 327
14
Tracking Status
City Council adopted this item on December 1, 2008 with amendments.
This item will be considered by Public Works and Infrastructure Committee on November 12,
2008. It will be considered by City Council on December 1, 2008, subject to the actions of the
Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.
See also By-laws 356-2009, 478-2009, 560-2009
City Council consideration on December 1, 2008
PW20.1 ACTION Amended Ward:All
Proposed Measures to Reduce In-Store Packaging Waste and Litter,
Municipal Hazardous and Special Waste and Plastic Water Bottles
City Council Decision
City Council on December 1, 2 and 3, 2008, adopted the following motions:
Bottled Water:
17. The City of Toronto:
a. prohibit the sale or distribution of bottled water at Civic Centres immediately,
with due regard for any current contracts related to the purchase or sale of bottled
water;
b. authorize and direct appropriate staff from Solid Waste Management Services,
Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Facilities and Real Estate, Purchasing and
Materials Management, Toronto Public Health, Toronto Water and the bottled
water industry, to work together to develop and implement a program that
prohibits the sale and distribution of bottled water at all remaining City facilities
by December 31, 2011; and
c. authorize appropriate staff to prohibit plastic water bottle sales at each City
facility upon completion of improved access to tap water at all City facilities as
water bottled sales are phased out, having due regard to existing contracts and
unique public health and safety related situations and authorized special events in
City facilities, by December 31, 2011.
Packet Pg. 328
14
Packet Pg. 329
14
Key
Marker
Color Description
Blue Municipalities w/ limited city
spending
Yellow Ban on spending public funds on
bottled water by state gov.
Pink Univeristy Ban
Green Planned or imminent ban
Red
Ban of all sales and supply of
bottled water in a town or
community
Marker
Color Location Year Type
Blue Los Angeles, CA 2005
Restricted using City funds to
buy bottled water for
employees
Blue Liverpool, UK 2007 Banned bottled water from
council buildings
Blue Santa Barbara, CA 2007 Restricted use of city funds to
buy bottled water
Blue Charlottetown, Canada 2007
Restricted use of city funds to
buy bottled water for public
meetings
Blue Salt Lake City, UT 2007
Restricted use of City funds to
buy bottled water
Blue Ann Arbor, MI 2007 Restricted bottled water sold at
city‐sponsored events
Blue Blue Mountains Canada 2007
Bottled water is banned at
town events and meetings.
Blue Davis, CA 2007
Using city funding to buy
bottled water for city
operations and events
Blue Miami, FL 2007
Purschase of plastic water
containers that are less than
two liters
Blue Islington, UK 2007
Using city funds to supply water
at council buildings and
meetings
Packet Pg. 330
14
Blue New York, NY 2008 Using city funding to supply
water
Blue Seattle, WA 2008 Banned city purchases of
bottled water.
Blue Bolton, UK 2008
Banned bottled water from all
council run buildings, including
schools.
Blue London, Canada 2008
Banned bottled water sales in
council facilities.
Blue Takoma Park, MD 2008
Restricted use of City funds to
purchase bottled water
Blue Arlington, VA 2009
Restricted use of Country funds
to purchase single serve plastic
bottles of water.
Blue Nova Scotia, Canada 2010
Banning the purchase of bottled
water.
Blue Whistler, Canada 2010
Banned the sale of bottled
water
Yellow Illinois, 2007 Restricted use of State funds for
bottled water
Yellow New York 2009 Restricted use of State funds for
bottled water
Pink Washington University in St.
Louis 2009 Stopped sales of bottled water
on its main campus.
Pink University of Winnipeg Canada 2009
Ban the provision and supply of
bottled water.
Pink University of Leeds, UK 2009
Bans the sales of bottled water
in union outlets.
Pink The University of Canberra
Australia 2011 Ban on the sale of bottled
water across the whole campus
Green Toronto Canada 2008
Sale and distribution of bottled
water at all city facilities by the
end of 2011
Green Brandon University, Manitoba
Canada 2009 Ban the distribution and sale of
all botteled water
Green University of Ottawa, Canada 2010 Ban of the sale of bottled water
Red Concord, MA 2011 Ban bottled water sales
throughout the town
Red Bundanoon, Australia 2009
Ban the sale of plastic bottled
still water.
Packet Pg. 331
14
$%& '
(% )'
%('
&(% )'
"
*%
* *
# +
" , -
" , . /,*#
0 # 0
.
#
1234
5 65*
"
.7 %
8
9
%:
#
#%
#
%
;
0
#
" %%%
%<*#
# 0
.
%%%
$%& '
(% )' %('
&(% )'
" 9
!
"#! $
Packet Pg. 332
14
%'
%'
)%&'
%'
% '
%'
$%'
&8"
=*,# "
*#
$ $
8
9 $
)
+
-
>
"
%'
%')%&'
%' %'$%'
" 9
!
!
!
!
!
!%&
' !
(
Packet Pg. 333
14
)%)'
% '(
)%)'
% $'
2 *# 0
* *+ .
#
-?
8
@ /A
)%)'
% '
)%)'
% $'
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg. 334
14
$%$'
% '(
%&'
%()'
$/,*
0 3 * 0
"
0 7
, "
*?
8
@ /A B /A
0
$%$'
% '
%&'%()'
" 9
)
*
+, -!
+,
Packet Pg. 335
14
&%('
)%)'
&%('
% '
)2 " ,*#
"
,# 0
.
# ?
8
@ "
/A
&%('
)%)'
&%('
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg. 336
14
%)'
%&'
% '(
(: *"
0 ,
"
#
"
,
#
"
*
0
* *+ .
#
-?!
C
%
8
@ /A
%)'%&'
% '
" 9
)
*
+, !
.
Packet Pg. 337
14
&%'
$%('
%( '.
: *# 0 #
#
0
"
*?
8
@ /A
&%'
$%('
%( '
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg. 338
14
INFORM CONSULT COLLABORATE
• One way communication –
outreach to citizens.
• Provide public with
balanced and objective
project/issue information to
increase awareness and/or
understanding of problems,
alternatives and solutions.
• Get ideas on finite number
of options / limited time
discussion.
• Take public feedback on
project or other issue
proposal.
• Interactive process
that incorporates
recommendations as much
as possible.
• Partner with the public to
develop alternatives and
identify preferred solutions.
• May be open ended.
STAFF LEVEL
Normal procedures,
existing program,
services delivery
DEPARTMENT HEADS,
CITY MANAGER
New program, expansion
of existing program
ADVISORY BODIES
(i.e., land use issues,
development projects)
CITY COUNCIL
New laws, major plans,
significant issues (i.e.
drought strategy)
Yes Maybe Not Required
1
1
2
3
4DECISIONMAKING: LEVEL OF COMPLEXITYCOMMUNICATION OBJECTIVE
Follow the steps below to find your outreach tool plan.
Cross tab the level of complexity with communication objective
ACTION PLAN MATRIX2.1
5
Packet Pg. 339
14
INFORM
CONSULT
COLLABORATE
EXPECTATION ADDITIONAL
Official notice (if legally required)
• Legal ad in newspaper
• Postcards to neighboring owners/tenants
• On-site signage
E-notification (including affected neighbors)
Website posting
Applicable advisory bodies
Key contacts, liaisons
Social media (if applicable and available)
Utilities billing insert – flyer
Community Calendar
Signage
Paid media (newspaper, radio, TV, social media,
digital, outdoor/transit)
Informational materials (should also be available
digitally on website, e.g. flyer, fact sheet, PowerPoint,
postcard, door hanger, banner, poster)
City website posting
Awareness Walk
Press release/Media notification
Neighborhood meetings
EXPECTATION ADDITIONAL
All of the “Inform” expectations listed above
Hearing (if legally required)
Social media (if applicable and available)
Utilities billing insert – survey
Mailed survey
Telephone survey
Study session
Focus group
Special events with opportunities for interaction
Awareness walk
Open City Hall (web based)
Neighborhood meetings
EXPECTATION ADDITONAL
All of the “Inform” and “Consult” expectations listed above
Open City Hall (web based)
Community Outreach Event (workshop, open house,
neighborhood meeting, etc.)
Utilities billing insert – survey
Mailed survey
Telephone survey
Study session
Focus group
Special events with opportunities for interaction
Awareness walk
Committee formation
Refer to glossary for tools descriptions
*Bold indicates detailed descriptions available on page 11.
OUTREACH TOOLS
6
Packet Pg. 340
14
TheUnintendedConsequencesofChangesin
BeverageOptionsandtheRemovalofBottled
WateronaUniversityCampus
Elizabeth R. Berman, BS, and Rachel K. Johnson, PhD, MPH, RD
Bottled water has gained the public’s attention
in recent years as towns and universities have
banned the sale of bottled water to be more
environmentally conscious. Americans use ap-
proximately 50 billion plastic bottles each year,
38 billion of which end up in landfills.1 Such
bans are instigated to reduce the number of
disposable bottles entering the waste stream by
convincing consumers to start carrying reus-
able water bottles or to drink from water
fountains instead of purchasing single-use
plastic water bottles.
1
More than 50 colleges and universities have
banned the sale of bottled water,
1 but little is
known about the environmental and health
impacts of such bans. According to indepen-
dent research by the Beverage Marketing
Corporation, approximately 73% of the growth
in bottled water consumption in recent years
has come from those who previously drank
caloric drinks, such as soft drinks, juices, and
milks.2 Another study by an International
Bottled Water Association member company
reported that on the basis of an Internet survey
of 13500 consumers, 63% would choose
a sugar-sweetened bottled beverage rather
than tap water if bottled water was removed
from the beverage offerings.
2 If these reports
are accurate, banning bottled water could lead
to an increase in consumers’calorie and added
sugar consumption.
Although the causes of excess weight gain
are multivariate, there is growing evidence that
added sugars, particularly added sugars from
sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), are large
contributors.3---5 Some studies have disputed
the connection between SSB consumption and
overweight, but the vast majority of research
supports an association.
6 A 20-ounce soft drink
has nearly 17 teaspoons of added sugars, far
exceeding the American Heart Association’s
recommended limit of 6 teaspoons per day for
women and 9 teaspoons per day for men.
7
According to National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey data, soft drinks alone are
the number1single source of calories in the US
diet and total SSB consumption contributes
46.2% of the added sugars in the US diet.
8,9
Ludwig et al. noted that among 548
schoolchildren, for each additional 12-ounce
serving of a SSB, the odds of becoming obese
increased by 1.6, whereas the increased con-
sumption of diet soda decreased the incidence
of obesity.
4 Other intervention studies have
tried to combat obesity by changing children’s
beverage environment. In intervention studies,
de Ruyter et al. and Ebbeling et al. found that
limiting the consumption of SSBs by providing
only bottled water or low-calorie beverages
reduced the body mass index (defined as
weight in kilograms divided by the square of
height in meters), skin-fold thickness, and fat
mass of children and adolescents compared
with a control group with no intervention.
3,10
Although such studies show promising results
when SSBs are replaced with low-calorie op-
tions,researchontheeffectsofremovingbottled
water from beverage offerings is limited.
3,10
We examined how the removal of bottled
water on a university campus, along with the
implementation of a minimum healthy bever-
age requirement, affected how many bottled
beverages consumers purchased, the healthi-
ness of their beverage choices, and their calorie,
total sugar, and added sugar consumption.
METHODS
Policy changes related to the types of bottled
beverages sold at the University of Vermont in
Burlington, Vermont, provided an opportunity
to study how changes in beverage offerings
affected the beverage choices as well as the
calorie and total and added sugar consumption
of consumers. First, inAugust 2012, all campus
locations selling bottled beverages were re-
quired to provide a 30% healthy beverage
ratio in accordance with the Alliance for a
Objectives.We investigated how the removal of bottled water along with
a minimum healthy beverage requirement affected the purchasing behavior,
healthiness of beverage choices, and consumption of calories and added sugars
of university campus consumers.
Methods.With shipment data as a proxy, we estimated bottled beverage
consumption over 3 consecutive semesters: baseline (spring 2012), when a 30%
healthy beverage ratio was enacted (fall 2012), and when bottled water was removed
(spring 2013) at the University of Vermont. We assessed changes in number and type
of beverages and per capita calories, total sugars, and added sugars shipped.
Results.Per capita shipments of bottles, calories, sugars, and added sugars
increased significantly when bottled water was removed. Shipments of healthy
beverages declined significantly, whereas shipments of less healthy beverages
increased significantly. As bottled water sales dropped to zero, sales of sugar-
free beverages and sugar-sweetened beverages increased.
Conclusions.The bottled water ban did not reduce the number of bottles
entering the waste stream from the university campus, the ultimate goal of the
ban. With the removal of bottled water, consumers increased their consumption
of less healthy bottled beverages. (Am J Public Health.2015;105:1404–1408. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2015.302593)
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
1404 |Research and Practice |Peer Reviewed |Berman and Johnson American Journal of Public Health |July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7
Packet Pg. 341
14
Healthier Generation’s beverage guidelines.
11
Then, in January 2013, campus sales locations
were required to remove bottled water while
still maintaining the required 30% healthy
beverage ratio.
We used beverage shipment data as a proxy
for calorie, total sugar, and added sugar
consumption under the assumption that the
university ordered only drinks that con-
sumers were buying and people on campus
purchased only beverages that they intended
to consume. We collected shipment data for
all bottled beverages sold to the university
from the 9 beverage vendors who had con-
tracts with the university’s food service
management company 1 semester before
any changes were enacted (spring 2012),
the semester when beverage offerings were
changed to 30% healthy beverages (fall
2012), and the semester when bottled water
was removed from the beverage offerings
while maintaining the 30% healthy beverage
ratio (spring 2013).
We used the shipment data to create a data-
base of all beverages shipped to campus during
the 3 semesters. We combined the nutrition
information for each beverage with the ship-
ment data to determine changes in beverage
choices as well as calorie, total sugar, and
added sugar consumption overthe 3 semesters.
We scored beverages on the basis of their
nutrition information using the Nutrition
Environment Measures Survey-Vending
(NEMS-V) calculator, an online tool used to
calculate the healthiness of beverages.
12 We
categorized beverages into 1 of 3 NEMS-V
categories. Green beverages, which can be
consumed regularly, included water without
flavoring, additives, or carbonation, low-fat
(1%) and nonfat (skim) milk (in 8 oz. portions),
lactose-free and soy beverages,flavored milk
with no more than 22 grams of total sugars
per 8-ounce portion, and 100% fruit or low-
sodium vegetable juice in 8-ounce containers.
Yellow beverages, which can be consumed in
moderation, include nonfortified low-sodium
beverages with less than 5 calories per portion
as packaged (with or without nonnutritive
sweeteners, carbonation, or flavoring). Red
beverages, which should be limited or ex-
changed for healthier options, include all
beverages that do not fall in the green or
yellow category.
12
We organized beverages into beverage cat-
egories with similar characteristics, calories,
and added sugar content, which we used to
assess how consumer beverage choices changed
over the 3 semesters. These categories included
100% juice, sugar-free drinks (£10 kcal/8 oz),
low-calorie drinks (11---50 kcal/8 oz), SSBs
(>50 kcal/8 oz), milk and protein drinks, and
plain water.
We focused on campus consumers’con-
sumption of single-serving bottled beverages.
We did not consider beverages with more than
34 ounces per container to be single-serving
beverages, and we therefore excluded them
from the study. We considered measuring
fountain drinks and hot tea and coffee beyond
the scope of this study because they were not
bottled beverages, but ended up excluding them.
These exclusions made the study results conser-
vative estimates of the liquid calories and sugars
being consumed by the university population.
We conducted statistical analyses using
SPSS, version 22, predictive analytics software
(SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). We set significance
at P <.05 and considered P <.1 a trend. We
used the v2 test to compare the percentage of
beverages shipped to campus with a green,
yellow, and red NEMS-V rating over the 3
semesters. We also used the v2 test to compare
the percentages of beverages from different
beverage categories shipped to campus over
the 3 semesters. We then compared shipments
of beverages within each NEMS-V rating and
beverage category using a repeated measures
analysis of variance using linear mixed models
to determine if there was a significant overall
change in consumers’beverage choices when
the 30% healthy beverage ratio was enacted
and when bottled water was removed. We
used location as the subject (n=8 campus
locations), NEMS-V rating or beverage cate-
gory as the between subject effect, and semes-
ter as the repeated measure.
We divided the calories and total and added
sugars of beverages shipped to campus for each
semester by the campus population to deter-
mine the average per capita consumption of
calories and total and added sugars from
bottled beverages. The campus population in-
cluded the total number of students, faculty,
and staff present on campus during each
semester (spring 2012: n=16582; fall 2012:
n=16968; spring 2013: n=16220). We
also compared the per capita results with
a repeated measures analysis of variance using
linear mixed models. When significant changes
were indicated, we conducted the paired t test
on single beverage categories and NEMS-V
grades over the 3 periods to test for significant
variation.
RESULTS
Per capita shipments of bottled beverages
did not change significantly between spring
2012 and spring 2013 (P =.71) but did in-
crease significantly from 21.8 bottles per per-
son in fall 2012 to 26.3 bottles per person in
spring 2013 (P =.03; Table 1). Calories, total
sugars, and added sugars shipped per capita
also increased significantly between fall 2012
and spring 2013, as shown in Table 1 (P =.02,
P =.02, and P =.03, respectively). Calories per
bottle shipped increased significantly over the
3 semesters by an average of 8.76 calories per
bottle each semester (P <.001).
The comparison of beverages with NEMS-V
grades of green, yellow, and red across the 3
semesters showed a significant decrease in
the percentage of green beverages shipped
to campus over the 3 semesters (P <.001;
Table 2). Green beverages fell 6.6% between
spring 2012 and fall 2012 (P =.007) and an
additional 6.3% between fall 2012 and spring
2013 (P =.009), with an overall decrease of
TABLE 1—Changes in the Number of
Bottles, Calories, Total Sugars, and
Added Sugars Shipped per Capita to 8
Campus Locations Over 3 Semesters:
University of Vermont, 2012–2013
Variable
Spring
2012
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Bottles 24.21
a,b 21.82a 26.27b
Calories, kcal 3248.91
a 3106.19a 3957.93b
Total sugars, g 714.11
a 675.77a 863.97b
Added sugars, g 528.45
a 492.26a 638.12b
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus
population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum
healthy beverage requirement was enacted, campus
population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled
water was banned, the campus population=16220.
Values in a row with different superscripts were
significantly different (P <.05).
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7 |American Journal of Public Health Berman and Johnson |Peer Reviewed |Research and Practice |1405
Packet Pg. 342
14
12.9% between spring 2012 and spring 2013
(P <.001). The decrease in green beverages
was accompanied by a significant increase in
red beverages across the 3 semesters (P <.001).
Red beverages shipped to campus increased
3.5% between spring 2012 and fall 2012
(P =.03), 5.0% between fall 2012 and spring
2013 (P =.004), and 8.5% between spring
2012 and spring 2013 (P <.001). There were
no significant changes in the percentage of
yellow beverages across semesters, although
there was a trend of increased shipments of
yellow beverages (P =.051).Asignificantly
higher percentage of red beverages than yellow
and green beverages were shipped to campus in
all 3 semesters (P <.001), and in spring 2013
there was a significantly higher percentage of
yellow beverages shipped to campus than green
beverages (P <.001).
We compared the percentage of beverages
shipped each semester across beverage cate-
gories (Table 3). The percentage of sugar-free
beverages (£10 kcal/8 oz) shipped was
significantly higher in spring 2013 than in
both fall 2012 and spring 2012 (P =.01 and
P =.008, respectively). There was a decrease
in the percentage of low-calorie beverages
(11---50 kcal/8 oz) between spring 2012 and
fall 2012 (P =.006), with no significant differ-
ences between spring 2013 and either spring
2012 or fall 2012. SSBs (‡50 kcal/8 oz)
trended toward an increase as a percentage
of total beverages shipped between spring
2012 and fall 2012 (P =.09) and significantly
increased between spring 2012 and spring
2013 (P =.03).
The percentage of water shipped to campus
decreased significantly from 17.6% of total
shipments to 13.2% between spring 2012 and
fall 2012 (P =.04) and dropped to zero with
the bottled water ban in spring 2013. As
Figure 1 shows, the increase in sugar-free
drinks and SSBs closely matched the decline
in bottled water consumption. Compared with
baseline (spring 2012), bottled water ship-
ments as a percentage of total shipments fell
5.2% in fall 2012 and 18.4% in spring 2013,
whereas sugar-free beverage and SSB ship-
ments increased 5.9% in fall 2012 and 15.7%
in spring 2013.
The number of bottles of water with flavor-
ing or carbonation, which were still permitted
to be sold following the bottled water ban,
increased significantly in spring 2013 com-
pared with spring 2012 (P =.002). In spring
2012, 3033 bottles of seltzer (flavored and
carbonated water) and flavored noncarbonated
water were shipped to campus. In fall 2012 the
number fell to 2652. Then, in spring 2013,
16824 bottles of seltzer and flavored water
were shipped to campus.
DISCUSSION
The number of bottles per capita shipped to
the university campus did not change signifi-
cantly between spring 2012 (baseline) and fall
2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was put in place. However, be-
tween fall 2012 and spring 2013, when bottled
water was banned, the per capita number of
bottles shipped to campus increased signifi-
cantly. Thus, the bottled water ban did not
reduce the number of bottles entering the
waste stream from the university campus,
which was the ultimate goal of the ban.
Furthermore, with the removal of bottled
water, people in the university community
increased their consumption of other, less
healthy bottled beverages.
The significant decrease in the percentage
of beverages shipped to campus that received
a green (healthy) NEMS-V rating and the
significant increase in beverages receiving
a red (unhealthy) NEMS-V rating when bottled
water was removed in spring 2013 as well as
the increase in calories per bottle suggest that
consumers not only continued to buy bottled
beverages but also made less healthy beverage
choices after the ban was in place.
The comparison of the percentage of bottles
shipped by beverage category helps to explain
the changes in NEMS-V grades. As the ship-
ments of water decreased to zero, most of the
beverage categories remained relatively con-
stant as a percentage of total shipments. How-
ever, the percentage of sugar-free beverages
and SSBs increased, closely matching the de-
crease in water. This, paired with the finding
TABLE 2—Change in the Percentage of Beverages Shipped by Nutrition Environment
Measures Survey-Vending Rating to 8 Campus Locations Across 3 Semesters: University of
Vermont, 2012–2013
Beverage Spring 2012, % Fall 2012, % Spring 2013, %
Green (consume regularly)23.52a 16.92b 10.58c
Yellow (consume in moderation)19.28a 22.37a 23.73a
Red (limit or exchange for healthier options)57.20a 60.71b 65.69c
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was enacted, campus population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled water was banned, the campus
population=16220. Values in a row with different superscripts were significantly different (P <.05).
TABLE 3—Percentage of Beverages Shipped by Drink Category to 8 Campus Locations
Across 3 Semesters: University of Vermont, 2012–2013
Beverage Spring 2012, % Fall 2012, % Spring 2013, %
100% juice 15.3a 13.6a 15.1a
Sugar free (£10 kcal/8 oz) 11.9
a 14.5a 21.2b
Low calorie (£50 kcal/8 oz) 11.2
a 8.4b 9.4a,b
Sugar sweetened (>50 kcal/8 oz)28.2a 32.2a,b 35.3b
Milk and protein drinks 17.3a 20.6a 20.2a
Water 17.6a 13.2a 0.0b
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was enacted, campus population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled water was banned, the campus
population=16220. Percentages in a row with different superscripts were significantly different (P <.05).
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
1406 |Research and Practice |Peer Reviewed |Berman and Johnson American Journal of Public Health |July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7
Packet Pg. 343
14
that overall shipments increased each semester,
suggests that many consumers who previously
drank bottled water replaced bottled water
with sugar-free or sugar-sweetened bottled
beverages (Figure 1).
Ideally, when bottled water was removed,
those who previously purchased bottled water
would have adjusted their behavior and started
carrying reusable water bottles. The university
made several efforts to encourage consumers
to carry reusable beverage containers. Sixty-
eight water fountains on campus were retrofitted
with spouts to fill reusable bottles, educational
campaigns were used to inform consumers about
the changes in policy, and free reusable bottles
and stickers promoting the use of reusable
bottles were given out at campus events.
Although these efforts may have influenced
some consumers, the ban does not appear to
have achieved its goal of decreasing the num-
ber of plastic bottles entering the waste stream
from the university campus.
Because it appears that many bottled water
consumers instead decided to purchase other
bottled beverages, the best result, nutritionally,
would have been for them to select calorie- and
sugar-free options, such as seltzer, unsweet-
ened tea, or diet soda. However, the data
suggest that some consumers increased their
consumption of calorically sweetened drinks,
such as soda and sports drinks, which could
add to their liquid calorie and added sugars
consumption, thus increasing the risk of weight
gain.
Our findings are consistent with those in the
literature, which has shown that consumption
of calories from beverages, especially SSBs, has
increased incrementally over the past several
decades. Research also suggests that people of
college age (19---39 years) have the highest
consumption of bottled beverages among all
age groups.
13---15 The removal of bottled water
seems to magnify the undesirable beverage
consumption patterns observed in the litera-
ture and may influence people to select less
healthy beverage options.
Our study was limited by the short duration
of data collection. Having additional data from
both before and after the campus beverage
options changed would be advantageous.
Additional data from before the ban would
help determine whether the incremental
increase in bottled beverage consumption
occurred only as beverage policies changed
or whether consumption was increasing before
the changes took place. Data from semesters
after spring 2013 could show whether con-
sumers changed their behaviors and began
carrying reusable water bottles over time as
the bottled water ban was in place longer.
Our study was also limited by the small
number of campus locations where beverages
were shipped (n=8), thus limiting the statistical
power of the analysis. However, despite the
limited power, significant associations were
apparent. Additionally, the necessity of using
shipment data as a proxy for consumption
may have resulted in an overestimation of
the actual calories and total and added sugars
consumed.
A further limitation was the dependence
on beverage companies for shipment records,
which could have led to inconsistent data. To
address this limitation, we compared trends in
the data across locations to identify possible
gaps in sales records. When we identified
missing data, we made every effort to obtain
complete records from the beverage compa-
nies. Furthermore, because of the observa-
tional nature of the research, no causalities
can be drawn between the removal of bottled
water and the increase in unhealthy beverage
consumption or in calorie and added sugar
consumption, although associations exist.
Despite these limitations, the study has many
strengths. We collected data on more than 1
million bottles that were shipped to campus
over the 3 semesters. The number of bottles
shipped to campus increased over the 3
semesters across all beverage companies, sug-
gesting that the increases were meaningful and
not merely anomalies. In addition, we collected
data on all shipments to all campus beverage
sale locations for the 3 semesters, allowing
a complete picture of the changes occurring
on campus during the bottled water ban.
Further research is needed on the long-term
implications of removing bottled water for
the health status of consumers to better un-
derstand whether consumers adjust their be-
havior over time to make healthier beverage
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013Percent
Semester
100% Juice
Sugar free
Low calorie
Sugar sweetened
Milk/protein
Water
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was enacted, campus population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled water was banned, the campus
population=16220.
FIGURE 1—Change in the percentage of beverages shipped by drink category over 3
semesters: University of Vermont, 2012–2013.
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7 |American Journal of Public Health Berman and Johnson |Peer Reviewed |Research and Practice |1407
Packet Pg. 344
14
choices. Remembering to carry a reusable
water bottle, like any other behavior change,
takes time. Therefore, long-term observations
may reveal that the potential negative impact
of banning bottled water on health is merely
a short-term setback.
Our study raises questions about the overall
bottled beverage consumption patterns of the
university community. Our findings suggest
that per capita consumption of bottled bever-
ages, and especially SSBs, increased over time.
If this trend continues over the long term it may
have negative implications for the health and
weight status of the campus community. Addi-
tional research should be conducted in other
communities because both the young age of the
university community and the location in Bur-
lington, Vermont, a midsized city that is noto-
riously invested in both environmental and
physical well-being, may have affected the
beverage choices of consumers.j
About the Authors
Elizabeth R. Berman and Rachel K. Johnson are with the
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of
Vermont, Burlington.
Correspondence should be sent to Rachel K. Johnson,
PhD, MPH, RD, FAHA, Bickford Professor of Nutrition,
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Professor of
Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The University of Vermont,
Burlington, VT 05446 (e-mail: Rachel.johnson@uvm.edu).
Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking
the “Reprints”link.
This article was accepted January 16, 2015.
Contributors
E. R. Berman contributed to the data collection and
analysis and drafted the article. R. K. Johnson revised the
article. Both authors conceptualized and designed the
research, interpreted the data, and approved the final
version of the article.
Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by the University of Vermont
Summer Research Award Fund and the Bickford Scholar
Research Fund.
The authors would like to thank Caylin A. McKee for
her assistance with data collection and Alan B. Howard,
MS, for his assistance with the statistical analysis.
Human Participant Protection
This project was determined to be exempt from Univer-
sity of Vermont institutional review board review be-
cause the project did not involve human participants.
References
1. Ban the Bottle. Bottled water facts. Available at:
http://www.banthebottle.net/bottled-water-facts.
Accessed February 12, 2014.
2. International Bottled Water Association. Proposed
bottled water ban not in the best interest of San
Franciscans.2013. Available at: http://www.bottledwater.
org/proposed-bottled-water-ban-not-best-interest-san-
franciscans. Accessed February 12, 2014.
3. de Ruyter JC, Olthof MR, Seidell JC, Katan MB. A
trial of sugar-free or sugar-sweetened beverages and
body weight in children.N Engl J Med. 2012;367(15):
1397---1406.
4. Ludwig DS, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. Relation
between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and
childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.
Lancet. 2001;357(9255):505---508.
5. Hu FB. Resolved: there is sufficient scientific
evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage
consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and
obesity-related diseases.Obes Rev. 2013;14(8):606---
619.
6. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-
sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic
review.Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84(2):274---288.
7. Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, et al. Dietary
sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific
statement from the American Heart Association.Circu-
lation. 2009;120(11):1011---1020.
8. Ervin RB, Ogden CL.Consumption of Added Sugars
Among U.S. Adults 2005---2010. Washington, DC: US
Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
9. Guthrie JF, Morton JF. Food sources of added
sweeteners in the diets of Americans.J Am Diet Assoc.
2000;100(1):43---51.
10. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Chomitz VR, et al. A
randomized trial of sugar-sweetened beverages and
adolescent body weight.N Engl J Med. 2012;367(15):
1407---1416.
11. Alliance for a Healthier Generation. USDA smart
snacks in school beverage guidelines. Available at:
https://schools.healthiergeneration.org/_asset/wgrpk6/
07-267_BeverageGuidelines.pdf. Accessed February 12,
2013.
12. Nutrition Environment Measures Vending Survey.
Available at: http://www.nems-v.com. Accessed October
8, 2012.
13. Duffey KJ, Popkin BM. Shifts in patterns and
consumption of beverages between 1965 and 2002.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(11):2739---2747.
14. Bleich SN, Wang YC, Wang Y, Gortmaker SL.
Increasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages
among US adults: 1988---1994 to 1999---2004.Am J Clin
Nutr. 2009;81(1):372---381.
15. Popkin BM. Patterns of beverage use across the
lifecycle.Physiol Behav. 2010;100(1):4---9.
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
1408 |Research and Practice |Peer Reviewed |Berman and Johnson American Journal of Public Health |July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7
Packet Pg. 345
14
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 346
14