HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2017 Council Agenda Packet
Tuesday, January 17, 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. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY (CODRON /
FOWLER – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Participate in a Study Session on Climate Action Plan Implementation strategy and
receive and file the background reports; and
2. Consider the recommended Climate Action Plan implementation strategies to further the
City’s efforts to address climate change and to mitigate Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions as part of the process of creating Major City Goals, Other Important
Objectives, and other budget priorities as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
RECESS TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2017
Packet Pg. 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 17, 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: Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire
INTRODUCTION
2. KEITH AGGSON - DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF (OLSON – 5 MINUTES)
Fire Chief Olson to introduce Keith Aggson as the new Deputy Fire Chief.
PRESENTATIONS
3. PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE AWARD
RECOGNITION (CANTRELL – 10 MINUTES)
Presentation by Police Chief Cantrell, recognizing the Police Department's 2016 Award
recipients.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
Packet Pg. 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 17, 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. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, NOVEMBER 15 AND DECEMBER 9, 2016
(GALLAGHER)
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of November 1, November 15 and
December 9, 2016.
6. PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2560
PHASE 2, 215 BRIDGE STREET (TR 64-03) (CODRON / DOSTALEK)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, partially accepting the public improvements, certifying partial completion of the
private improvements, and authorizing release of the remainder of the securities once
improvements are complete for Tract 2560-Phase 2 (215 Bridge Street, TR 64-03).”
7. GRANT FUNDED CALLE JOAQUIN PARK & RIDE, SPECIFICATION NO. 91288
(GRIGSBY/HUDSON/RICE)
Recommendation
1. Award a contract and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with RDZ
Contractors in the amount of $500,000 for the Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot,
Specification No. 91288; and
2. Appropriate $75,000 from Fund 460 – The Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Fund for
use on the project; and
3. Approve the transfer of $158,251.41 from Account No. 99821.953 - the Los Osos Valley
Road Interchange Project.
Packet Pg. 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 17, 2017 Page 4
8. FY 2017-18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
(CANTRELL / ELLSWORTH)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic
Safety for a FY 2017-18 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) not to exceed
$125,000; and
2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the City Manager to execute all grant related documents
and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the
award of the grant.
9. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA) GRANT
APPLICATION (CANTRELL / AMOROSO)
Recommendation
1. Authorize staff to pursue a grant application submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice,
California Sex Offender Registry, for a total amount not to exceed $25,000 for equipment
and training that will enhance our ability to manage our local sex offender population; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents, and appropriate the
grant amount into the Police Department’s budget upon grant award.
10. LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) GRANT
APPLICATIONS (GRIGSBY / ANGUIANO)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to annually apply for Low Carbon Transit
Operations Program funds on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo; and
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the City Manager or their designee, to file, execute and
fulfill any related Low Carbon Transportation Operations Program grant applications,
certifications, assurances, forms, agreements, and associated documents on behalf of the
City” for transit capital projects.
11. REPLACEMENT VEHICLE FIRE PREVENTION (OLSON / COX)
Recommendation
Approve purchase of one 2017 Ford F150 from Perry Ford San Luis Obispo in the amount
of $25,995 for Fire Prevention, Hazardous Materials Program with funding for this purchase
coming from a dedicated account, rather than the General Fund or the Fleet replacement fund
or CIP.
Packet Pg. 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 17, 2017 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
12. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY DONNA DUERK &
URSULA BISHOP) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO APPROVE A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES 18
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A COMMERCIAL SPACE AND PARKING WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE (560 HIGUERA STREET) (CODRON /
COHEN – 60 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 Donna Duerk & Ursula Bishop) thereby
approving the development of a mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a
commercial space within the Downtown Commercial zone, with a categorical exemption
from environmental review, as represented in the City Council agenda report and
attachments dated January 17, 2017 (560 Higuera Street, APPL-4063-2016).”
13. CONSIDERATION OF FEATURES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING
THE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM (CODRON / PURRINGTON –
45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Provide direction about the format and features of a City Council special meeting regarding
the Rental Housing Inspection Program in the City of San Luis Obispo.
14. PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - SAFETY
ENHANCEMENT ZONES AMENDMENT (CANTRELL / SMITH – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, amending section 9.22.040 of the Municipal Code to increase the Safety
Enhancement Zone time period surrounding St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day.”
Packet Pg. 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 17, 2017 Page 6
STUDY SESSION
15. VOLUNTARY PARTY REGISTRATION (CANTRELL / WALLACE 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Receive a presentation on voluntary party registration program options; and
2. Provide guidance to staff regarding initiation of a voluntary municipal party registration
pilot program.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
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 City Council meeting to be held on Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.,
in the City/County Library Community Room, 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for
the purposes of conducting the Goal-Setting Workshop.
The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, February 7, 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 17, 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: 1/17/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATION
1. Participate in a Study Session on Climate Action Plan Implementation strategy and receive
and file the background reports; and
2. Consider the recommended Climate Action Plan implementation strategies to further the
City’s efforts to address climate change and to mitigate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions as
part of the process of creating Major City Goals, Other Important Objectives, and other
budget priorities as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
On October 18, 2016, the City Council received a status update report on the implementation of
the 2012 City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP). Council provided input and
direction to staff to proceed with an analysis of the feasibility of implementing the near-term
recommendations that were identified in the 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report
(Attachment A) and the City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report (Attachment B).
Staff’s analysis concluded that all of the identified recommendations that Council directed staff
to analyze are feasible for implementation in the near-term, however they require varying
degrees and commensurate allocation of resources (staffing and financial) to complete. This
report categorizes the individual recommendations based on their source (i.e., Progress Report,
Energy Baseline Report, staff, public, etc.) and then assigns a completion timeframe and
identifies the anticipated resources be needed for successful completion.
Background
In July 2012 the City Council adopted the City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP).
The CAP serves as the City’s policy document that sets forth objectives and strategies that the
City and community members can in turn use to implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and to establish infrastructure that will save energy and reduce energy-related
costs in the future.
The CAP is available online at <http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4086>. The
California American Planning Association (CalAPA) recognized the CAP with an Award of
Excellence-Innovation in Green Community Planning, which is the highest level award provided
in this category.
In August 2016 two assessments related to the implementation of the CAP were completed. The
first was an assessment of the near-term CAP implementation strategies to reduce GHG
Packet Pg. 9
1
emissions. The findings of that assessment are compiled in a report entitled “2016 Climate
Action Plan Progress Report.” The report identified specific recommendations designed to
further the City’s progress towards achieving its GHG emissions reduction objectives.
The second was an assessment of the City’s energy use and costs from June 2013 to May 2016,
and is entitled “City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report.” The report serves as the
baseline and guiding document for future energy efficiency efforts, and identifies specific
recommendations to further the City’s efforts regarding energy management.
Climate Acton Plan Implementation Strategy Recommendations
The following is a list of near-term CAP implementation strategy recommendations that staff
analyzed, as previously directed by the City Council.
Implementation of Recommendations
The Progress Report, Baseline Report, and additional recommendations that follow include
action items to further the City’s efforts to address climate change and to mitigate GHG
emissions in the near term. Many of these recommendations involve tasks that could be assigned
to a Sustainability Coordinator. The creation of a Sustainability Coordinator is included in the
CAP as Government Operations (GO) Strategy 10. This report includes a recommendation to
consider establishing the Sustainability Coordinator role as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
The CAP strategy calls on the City to “allocate or hire staff” to implement these energy
programs. The decision about how the role of Sustainability Coordinator will be filled (e.g.
allocate existing staff resources by adjusting work programs and priorities, or by creating a new
position) should be made as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan process so that the decision can
be made in the context of all City goals and objectives. As a result, the following
recommendations do not presume exactly how the role of Sustainability Coordinator would be
created or funded.
2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report Recommendations
1. Re-evaluation of the feasibility or relevance of some of the identified GHG emissions
reduction implementation measures that are identified in the CAP, and identification of
potential implementation funding sources.
Resources: Task should be assigned to a Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 3-6 months to initiate, then ongoing for monitoring with recommendations to be
included in the annual report.
2. Creation of a City “Green Team” to be comprised of a representative from each
department with expertise in environmental policy, transportation/mobility, energy
efficiency, consumption and waste, food and agriculture, land use planning and building,
government operations, climate change preparation (adaptation), advocacy and public
outreach/ community engagement. The Green Team would be an active group that would
create its own action plan and meet regularly to implement, oversee, and report out on
City implementation efforts. The Green Team would be led by the Sustainability
Coordinator, and would be accountable and specifically tasked with carrying out
implementation of the CAP, as well updating and maintaining the City’s CAP.
Packet Pg. 10
1
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources from each department, and may
require some resources from other organizations and/or consultant services to develop
the operational framework for the Green Team.
Timing: 6-9 months to initiate, then ongoing until CAP implementation is complete.
3. Establish and support a “Climate Action Coalition” to enhance community education,
participation, and advocacy in city and regional climate change and GHG emissions
reduction efforts.
Resources: Strategy GO 10 of the CAP says that the Sustainability Coordinator will act
as the City’s representative in regional sustainability efforts.
Timing: The Sustainability Coordinator would work with regional partners to develop
and strengthen the Coalition over time. This work would be ongoing until CAP
implementation is complete.
City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report Recommendations
The Baseline Report identified several recommendations to further the City’s efforts to address
climate change and to mitigate GHG emissions as they relate to energy management. Those
recommendations included the following:
4. Performance of energy assessments on all City owned facilities.
Resources: Can be completed by temporarily allocating existing staff resources, and may
require some consultant services to prepare the energy assessments, if County and/or
CivicSpark staffing resources are no longer available.
Timing: 6 months to initiate, and then ongoing work effort depending on how often the
assessments are updated.
5. Implementation of energy and cost saving measures and projects identified in the energy
assessments.
Resources: Will vary depending on the type of measures and scope of the projects
identified.
Timing: Will vary depending on the type of measures and scope of the projects identified.
6. Annual monitoring and measuring of facility and infrastructure performance.
Resources: Can be completed by allocating existing staff resources.
Timing: 3-6 months annually until the CAP implementation is complete.
7. Annual preparation of an Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis.
Resources: Can be completed by temporarily allocating existing staff resources, and may
require some consultant services to prepare the rate analysis, if County and/or
CivicSpark staffing resources are no longer available.
Timing: 3 months annually if updated on an annual basis.
Additional Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations highlighted in the Progress Report and the Energy Baseline
Report, there are several recommendations that have been identified by the community and City
staff. Those recommendations include the following:
Packet Pg. 11
1
8. Establishment of a “Sustainability Coordinator” who will be directly responsible for the
following tasks; securing grant funding; coordinating the efforts of the Green Team;
providing assistance and support to the community “Climate Action Coalition”;
overseeing the update and maintenance of the City’s Climate Action Plan web page and
resources; overseeing the update of the City’s GHG emissions inventory and CAP;
development and monitoring of incentive programs; and supporting energy efficiency
programs (such as PACE and CCA).
Resources: As previously discussed, requires allocation of existing staff or creation of a
new FTE position to be considered as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan process.
Timing: Ongoing for the duration of the CAP implementation.
9. Updating the City’s GHG emissions inventory. The existing GHG emissions inventory
has a baseline of 2005 and was completed in 2008. The field of Climate Change and
Adaptation has changed substantively, and the new standard is to update the GHG
emission inventory every 5 years.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources from each department, and may
require some resources from other organizations and/or consultant services.
Management of this task would be assigned to the Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 9-12 months every 5 years until CAP implementation is complete.
10. Update the Climate Action Plan to reflect the legislative changes associated with the AB
32 Climate Change Scoping Plan that address implementation scope and the
establishment of the 2030 GHG emissions reduction targets, and the Sustainable
Communities Strategy for the San Luis Obispo Region (SB 375). The City was a pioneer
when it adopted its CAP in 2012, however, since that time there have been numerous
regional, state and global protocols established that are not reflected in the existing CAP
rendering the CAP out of date.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources, and may require some
resources from other organizations and/or consultant services. Management of this task
would be assigned to the Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 12-18 months initially, and 6-12 months every 5 years to coincide with GHG
emissions inventory updates until CAP implementation is complete.
11. Better accountability and monitoring of the CAP implementation strategy and measures.
The Central Coast Collaborative recently completed the development of a Climate Action
Plan Monitoring and Report tools for the City of San Luis Obispo and other local
jurisdictions, which will help the City measure and track the actual impact of
implemented CAP measures and to compare our progress regionally. These tools will
streamline annual reporting of the effectiveness of individual measures and will provide
an indication of how the overall emissions levels have changed over time relative the
reduction targets identified in the CAP.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources. Oversight of this task would
ideally be assigned to the Sustainability Coordinator and Green Team.
Timing: 3-6 months annually until the CAP implementation is complete.
Packet Pg. 12
1
12. Annual reporting of the effectiveness of individual measures to provide the City Council
with an indication of how overall emissions levels have changed over time relative the
reduction targets identified in the CAP. It is anticipated that this reporting would occur at
the beginning of each new fiscal year, beginning with FY 2017-2018 to allow for
completion of the General Plan Annual Report and to fully evaluate the effectiveness of
any resources that were allocated to CAP implementation efforts.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff. This task would be assigned to the
Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 3-6 months annually until the CAP implementation is complete.
13. Development of enhanced incentive programs to encourage energy efficiency and GHG
emissions reduction, such as exceeding Title 24 energy efficiency, LEED certification,
photovoltaic system, use of clean air vehicles (AKA “Green vehicles”) or shared vehicle
services installations, and water efficiency.
Resources: Can be completed by temporarily allocating existing staff. This task would
ideally be assigned to the to the “Sustainability Coordinator.”
Timing: 12 months to initiate, and then ongoing to coincide with GHG emissions
inventory updates until CAP implementation is complete.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development, Administration, Public Works, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, and
Finance all concur and believe that the information provided will assist the City Council to
navigate the 2017-19 Financial Plan and goal setting process. Once staff has a better
understanding of the outcome of the Financial Plan goal-setting process, staff will develop a
cohesive strategy and work program to complete the appropriate near-term GHG reduction
strategy implementation measures and monitoring, as well as set the stage for the implementation
of the mid-term GHG reduction strategies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration of environmental impacts, in accordance with CEQA, was approved
when the CAP was adopted in July 2012. Subsequently the GHG reduction strategy
implementation measures identified in the CAP were evaluated and considered in the
Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the update of the General Plan for the Land
Use and Circulation Elements in December 2014.
Updating the CAP to reflect the legislative changes associated with regional, state, federal and
global protocols, and the update of the GHG emissions inventory and implementation measures
will require environmental review, and would be completed prior to Council’s consideration of
such amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no budget or fiscal impacts of conducting this study session. Any and all fiscal impacts
Packet Pg. 13
1
will be assessed as part of the Financial Plan process. That being said, when the CAP was
adopted, it included the following overview and estimate of fiscal impacts. These are general
estimates that will be updated as part of any budget proposal put forward through the 2017-19
Financial Plan process.
Implementation Time
Frame
Estimated Staff Hours Estimated Additional
Service and Supply Costs
Near-Term Strategies
(0 – 5 years)
1,480 – 4,800 $50,000 - $200,000
Mid-Term Strategies
(5 – 10 years)
3,400 – 5,500 $150,000 - $275,000
Long-Term Strategies
(10+ years)
3,080 – 3,500 $160,000 - $175,000
Total 7,960 – 13,800 $360,000 – $650,000
Currently the implementation of CAP strategies is funded through existing enterprise funds and
General Fund allocations as part of larger work efforts. Staff continues to seek grants and other
sources of funding to accelerate the existing efforts. It is important to note that whether from
reallocating existing resources or dedicating one-time funds, some budget allocation is
anticipated to initiate and expedite the recommended thirteen near-term CAP implementation
strategies. The size and scale of any annual or ongoing costs allocations would be dependent on a
variety of factors including the following:
funding needed for the Sustainability Coordinator;
the amount of grant funding that can be secured for future updates of the GHG emissions
inventory and the CAP implementation measures;
the energy cost saving measures and projects that are identified; and
the type of enhanced incentive programs that are developed to encourage energy
efficiency and GHG emissions reduction.
ALTERNATIVES
Request additional information and continue to a future meeting. The Council could request
additional information from staff and request that time be set aside on the agenda at an upcoming
meeting for further discussion.
Attachments:
a - 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report
b - City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report
Packet Pg. 14
1
2016
Climate Action Plan
Progress Report
Sydnie Margallo
College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences
Natural Resources Management & Environmental
Sciences Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, California
August 2016
Packet Pg. 15
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Near Term GHG Reduction Strategies 4
Implementation Measures and Progress 5
Buildings 6
Renewable Energy 8
Transportation and Land Use 9
Water 13
Solid Waste 16
Parks and Open Space 18
Governmental Options 20
General Recommendations 22
Acknowledgements 23
List of Acronyms 23
Appendix A 24
Appendix B 26
Appendix C 28
Appendix D 29
Appendix E 30
Appendix F 32
Appendix G 33
2
Packet Pg. 16
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Introduction
The 2012 San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) educates the public on the most
significant causes of climate change and outlines critical steps towards reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next 20 years. Using the CAP, the City of San
Luis Obispo can directly implement GHG reduction strategies through local government
operations, as well as through engagement with the community. As a result, CAP
implementation allows the City to bring communities together to create a safer, cleaner,
and healthier environment.
Since the adoption of the CAP in 2012, little work has been done to educate City
employees on its goals and objectives. While City employees seem to be unfamiliar with
the CAP’s GHG reduction strategies, many of these strategies are being pursued through
daily City operations anyways. Consequently, implementation of the CAP is not far off
track. This report explains which actions are in progress and which are on hold in order
to aid awareness of the City’s advancement in CAP implementation. From here, the City
can identify barriers to implementation and update the CAP accordingly.
Using the Local GHG Reductions Matrix on page 59 and 60 of the CAP (See Appendix
C), I determined the near term (0 to 5 years) GHG reduction strategies and which
departments were responsible for each. I then contacted City employees from these
responsible departments for updates on current progress of implementation and
barriers to completion. Any details that I was unable to collect via City contacts, was
found by researching within City documents and contacting other agencies. With this
information I created a progress report, outlining what the City has accomplished and
proposing solutions to help overcome obstacles to implementation of the GHG
reduction strategies.
The first section of this report identifies the near term GHG reduction strategies as well
as the departments responsible for implementing them. The next portion states the
implementation measures under each GHG reduction strategy, and notes the status and
progress of each. Also included in this section are recommendations on more effectively
implementing and monitoring the measure. Following this is a section of general
recommendations proposed to optimize CAP implementation. Lastly, evidence of the
City’s progress is included in the appendices.
3
Packet Pg. 17
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Near Term GHG Reduction Strategies
Table 1. The table below organizes the near term GHG reduction strategies addressed in this
report by the department that is responsible for implementation. On the left side of the table is
the chapter and strategy number, as established in the CAP.
Department
# Community
Development
Utilities Parking Public Works Parks & Rec
RE 3
TLU 9
WTR 3
WST 2
GO 11
Public Outreach and
Education
BLD 3 Public Outreach
and Education
PKS 5 Public Outreach
and Education
BLD 2 New Construction
Energy
Conservation
TLU 2 Alternative Vehicles
TLU 6 Parking
Management
Parking
Management
TLU 7 Shared Parking
TLU 8 Reduce the Need for
Commuting
WTR 1 Water
Conservation:
Existing
Development
WTR 2 Water Conservation:
New Development
PKS 3 Green Waste
Recycling
GO 1 City Energy
Conservation
City Energy
Conservation
GO 9 Employee
Commute
GO 10 Sustainability
Coordinator
Sustainability
Coordinator
4
Packet Pg. 18
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Implementation Measures and Progress
The CAP outlines actions, or implementation measures, that shall be completed in order
to execute each of the GHG reduction strategies shown in Table 1. The following section
is a list of these GHG-reducing implementation measures for near term CAP
implementation. These measures are organized by the six chapters, or focus areas, of the
plan, and correspond to the GHG reduction strategy numbers laid out in Table 1. For
example, New Construction Energy Conservation is listed as “BLD 2” in Table 1. This
refers to strategy 2 in the Buildings section of the CAP. The four implementation
measures for this strategy are listed as BLD 2.1, BLD 2.2, and so on.
To the left of the listed implementation measures there are notes on the City’s
progression of completing the action. The four progress levels of implementation are
Complete, In Progress, Ongoing, and No Progress.
Complete: the measure is complete and does not require any additional action
In Progress: the measure is currently in the process of completion
Ongoing: the measure has been initiated and requires ongoing implementation
No Progress: no action has been taken to implement the measure
Under each implementation measure are bullet point notes on what the City has done to
accomplish the measure. Following these progress notes, there are recommendations on
implementation efforts and monitoring for incomplete implementation measures.
5
Packet Pg. 19
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Buildings (BLD)
BLD 2 New Construction Energy Conservation
In Progress BLD 2.1 Expand incentive program for projects that exceed Title 24 energy
efficiency standards.
• The City provides incentives for projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, however, these incentives are rarely used
• The City partnered with County EnergyWatch to maintain energy audit resources for all municipal buildings Recommendation: While there are incentive programs to encourage projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, they are rarely used. The City should revise these incentive programs to make them easier to apply to and more desirable. Monitoring: The City should then monitor the number of projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards and include the data in the CAP annual report.
Complete BLD 2.2 Require new development to install energy efficient appliances.
• The state already mandates the installation of energy efficient appliances through Title 20 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
° Both titles are regulated by the California Energy Commission
No Progress BLD 2.3 Amend design guidelines and other documents to promote low impact
development strategies such as cool roofs and cool paving surfaces.
• The City created brochures promoting low impact development strategies, but these strategies are not included in City documents
• The Community Development Department may consider this action in the upcoming update of the Design Guidelines Recommendation: Without a law or ordinance requiring the encouragement of low impact development strategies, like cool roofs, this is not a priority for the City at this time. Also, the SLO Design Guidelines have not been updated since the adoption of the SLO CAP. This issue shall be considered in the upcoming update of the Design Guidelines.
BLD 3 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing BLD 3.1 Promote energy efficiency programs and available financing options
including energy-efficiency mortgages, State energy programs, Energy
Upgrade California, utility company upgrade programs, and local rebates.
• The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility recently partnered with PG&E to complete an energy efficiency design build project
° Energy audit in 2011
° New cogeneration system uses digesters’ biogas as a fuel source to provide about 20% of the electricity needed for the facility
° Exterior lighting replaced with night sky friendly LED lighting
° Aging equipment replaced and upgraded
6
Packet Pg. 20
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
♦ Now less equipment and motors are used, at a fraction of the horsepower
° These actions resulted in rebates from PG&E
Ongoing BLD 3.2 Collaborate with the County, State, and energy providers to develop a
central website for streamlined access to energy efficiency resources, including
a database of certified energy raters and recommended upgrades.
• CivicSpark is a statewide AmeriCorps program that the City works with to help implement components of the CAP
° Created handouts to inform homeowners, renters, and business owners on how to low-to-no cost actions to reduce their energy usage and save money
° Provided information through outreach and online on emPower’s free home energy coach visits and energy audits, and information on commercial audits, retrofits, and available financing options and incentives for PG&E and SoCal Gas Company
• Slocool.org is a climate action planning website for the City that has not been updated since 2013 Recommendation: The City should hire a Green Team, dedicated to implementing the CAP, including activities like updating and maintaining the City’s climate action planning website.
In Progress BLD 3.3 Work with local green building organizations on education and
outreach programs.
• The City has not made significant progress for public outreach and education on green building
• The City asks other agencies, like CivicSpark, to work on outreach
° Presented energy efficiency efforts throughout the County at Green Building Alliance meetings
° Held block party highlighting companies focused on green building (i.e. BuildSMART sustainable building materials resource trailer, Semmes & Co Builders, and SLO Sustainability Group Architects) Recommendation: This is not a priority for the City at this time. This measure is especially difficult with the lack of employees dedicated to creating and maintaining climate action outreach and education programs, and would be more efficiently implemented through the work of the Green Team.
No Progress BLD 3.4 Work with the business community to establish a green business
certification program. Recommendation: This is not a priority for the City at this time and there are no City employees currently assigned to this task of establishing a green business certification program. A Green Team dedicated to implementing the CAP would be able to work on completing this measure. Monitoring: Once the program is established, the City should monitor the number of certified green business in San Luis Obispo and include this information in the CAP annual report.
7
Packet Pg. 21
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Renewable Energy (RE)
RE 3 Public Outreach and Education
In Progress RE 3.1 Educate the community about renewable energy programs using
various methods, such as the City's website, TV channel, flyers in reception
areas, and public events.
• The City’s Climate Action Planning website (slocool.org) has not been updated since 2013
• The City coordinates with the County and other agencies to use and distribute flyers they created for renewable energy programs Recommendation: See Recommendation BLD 3.3
No Progress RE 3.2 Consider results of the SLO-RESCO project. Recommendation: Since the City no longer participates in the SLO-RESCO project, the CAP should be updated with this measure eliminated.
Ongoing RE 3.3 Encourage the use of photovoltaic installations whenever possible
during design review process.
• The City encourages the use of photovoltaic installations with a streamlined process for approval Recommendation: The City should create an incentive program to encourage the use of photovoltaic systems. The City should then monitor the number of photovoltaic installations and include this information in the CAP annual report.
8
Packet Pg. 22
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Transportation and Land Use (TLU)
TLU 2 Alternative Vehicles
No Progress TLU 2.1 Require all new development with 50 or more parking spaces to
designate a minimum 8% of parking spaces for clean air vehicles.
• The designation of clean air vehicle parking spaces is currently only conditioned through EIRs Recommendation: The Community Development Department should develop a streamlined process of requiring clean air vehicle parking spaces for all new development within the development review process.
No Progress TLU 2.2 Require all new development with 50 or more parking spaces to pre-
wire for electric vehicle charging stations, and provide a minimum 2 percent
charging spaces.
• The City currently conditions EV charging stations and clean vehicle parking spaces through EIRs
• The Target parking lot is included in the few that currently provide EV charging stations Recommendation: Parking structures should be planned in advance for the wiring of EV charging stations because they are more expensive to install later on. This consideration should be added to development review.
Ongoing TLU 2.3 Work with the APCD on the EV Community Readiness Plan for the
Central Coast.
• The City attended workshops and provided the APCD with input and information during their development of the EV Community Readiness Plan for the Central Coast
° The plan is now finished
° The APCD continues to reach out to the City whenever more funding is available for further implementation of the plan
No Progress TLU 2.4 Identify a network of streets appropriate for Neighborhood EV use in
the SLO 2035 General Plan update. Recommendation: This measure is somewhat unrealistic and irrelevant with the lack of current Neighborhood EV use. The use of these low-speed vehicles is prohibited on most streets because of their maximum capable speed of approximately 25 mph.
No Progress TLU 2.5 Allow car-sharing companies to designate spaces in public parking
areas and multifamily housing projects. Recommendation: Without a law or ordinance requiring the designation of parking spaces for clean air vehicles or EV charging stations, the enforcement of this is not a priority for the City at this time. This issue shall be considered with the upcoming construction of the parking structure at Palm and Nipomo Streets.
9
Packet Pg. 23
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
TLU 6 Parking Management
In Progress TLU 6.1 Make Downtown parking structures an attractive alternative to meter
parking by making on-street meter fees more expensive than structure
parking.
• The parking meters in the Downtown Area currently cost more than in the downtown parking structures, which are also free for the first hour
• The parking structure on Palm and Morro Streets now accepts credit cards to encourage more parking in the structure
• There are plans to construct a new parking structure on Palm and Nipomo Streets
• The SLO Downtown Association encourages customers to park in structures for special events
• (See Parking Structure Revenue in Appendix D)
• (See Parking Structure Occupancy Rates in Appendix E)
In Progress TLU 6.2 Locate transit stops and bicycle racks near parking structures to
make alternative transportation choices Downtown more convenient.
• The 2016 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan
° Reconfigured routes to connect the downtown with other areas, including the San Luis Obispo High School campus
° Created additional transit stops located in the downtown area
° Plans for a new Downtown Transit Center
° Plans for bus stop improvements, including 10 supplementary bicycle racks
TLU 7 Shared Parking
No Progress TLU 7.1 Amend the Zoning Regulations to increase the potential shared
parking reduction from 10% to 30%.
• This measure shall be considered during the upcoming Zoning Regulations update in the fiscal years 2016-2018 Recommendation: Reduction strategies for shared parking reduction must be more specific to be added to the Zoning Regulations. This measure should be revised and considered in the upcoming Zoning Regulations for the fiscal years 2016-2018.
TLU 8 Reduce the Need for Commuting
In Progress TLU 8.1 Improve the City’s jobs-housing balance to reduce VMT from
commuting.
• The City’s jobs-housing balance has continued at a constant of approximately 1.6:1 since 2012, when the CAP was adopted
• There are several City policies aimed at improving the jobs-housing balance
° Land Use Element Policy 1.5 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element Policies 10.1 and 10.2 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element Program 10.3 (See Appendix B)
• The General Plan build out period plans for the construction of more than 4,300 new units by the year 2035 to provide housing for the City’s workforce
10
Packet Pg. 24
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Ongoing TLU 8.2 Support infill housing projects that implement General Plan policies,
especially BMR housing close to job opportunities.
• The City continues to promote housing near employment centers
• Over 100 new affordable units (moderate income and below) have been built since 2012
° A majority of these units were built near employment centers and transportation.
• The City continues to implement Inclusionary Housing requirements for all new developments in the City
° 3-5% of units deed restricted for in-fill projects
° 15% of units deed restricted for expansion area sites (specific plan areas)
• The City enforces policies to support infill housing
° Housing Element policy 6.2 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element policy 6.8 (See Appendix B)
Ongoing TLU 8.3 Continue to allow SDU construction and look for opportunities to
reduce barriers to their production.
• The City continues to allow SDU development
• The City also encourages the production of SDUs with the reduction of impact fees and cheaper fees than SFRs
° Water for SDU at $3,307 vs. SFR at $11,023
° Wastewater for SDU at $1,144 vs. SFR at $3,815
° Studio fees: area calculated at ⅓ rate of a tradition SFR
° Flexible parking requirements
• The City has permitted approximately 10 SDUs since 2012
• Housing Element Program 6.29 promotes the SDU construction by allowing flexible development standards and other incentives (See Appendix B)
• The City’s Zoning Regulations are consistent with AB 1866 (Section 65852.2 of State Housing Element law)
° Allow SDU construction in R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and O zones with ministerial approvals when the primary use of the site is a single-family dwelling
TLU 9 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing TLU 9.1 Distribute informational transportation welcome packets and bus
passes to new residents and businesses.
• Welcome packets with information on alternative transportation and ridesharing opportunities are distributed to new businesses through Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club program
• SLOCOG is starting the Residential Transportation Demand Program in the fiscal year 2016-17
° The program works with realtors to distribute informational packets (included with a letter from the mayor) that encourage new residents to use alternative transportation options
11
Packet Pg. 25
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
In Progress TLU 9.2 Install additional informational bike signage.
• This action is included in the City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, but has not yet been initiated Recommendation: The City Council should identify this task as a priority for the City. Since this task is not a capital project, there is currently no funding to complete it.
Ongoing TLU 9.3 Continue partnership with regional organizations, including
SLOCOG’s Regional Rideshare and SLO County’s Bicycle Coalition, on
outreach and education events.
• The City still has strong partnerships with these regional organizations and participates in many of their programs
° Rideshare’s Bike Month and Rideshare Month
° The City contributes to programs such as Bike Education and Bike Valet put on by Bike SLO County
No Progress TLU 9.4 Market incentive programs in the Bicycle Commuter Act to employers
and workers in the community. Recommendation: Paperwork for participation in the Act is confusing and time consuming, and the incentive is not great enough to encourage participation. The incentive program and application should be revised to make participation in the Act more desirable.
12
Packet Pg. 26
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Water (WTR)
WTR 1 Water Conservation: Existing Development
Complete WTR 1.1 Require landscape projects that trigger building permit review to
incorporate native and drought tolerant plant materials and minimize
irrigated turf areas.
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: The City should incentivize landscape projects that incorporate native and drought tolerant plant materials and use the applications to monitor the number of these projects.
Complete WTR 1.2 Require landscape projects that trigger building permit review to
incorporate irrigation system designs that avoid runoff, low-head drainage,
and overspray.
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A)
• Water Conservation Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: The City should monitor the number of water efficient irrigation systems installed and include this information in the CAP annual report.
Ongoing WTR 1.3 Encourage the use of recycled water, greywater or rainwater-
harvesting systems.
• The Utilities department encourages the use of greywater and rainwater harvesting systems through
° A construction water program that uses exclusively recycled water
° Recycled Water Service Ordinance requires the use of recycled water where feasible (See Appendix A)
• Outreach includes
° Handouts at the farmer’s market booth
° Online outreach on their Facebook page
° Links provided in the Utilities Department section of the city’s website
° Time spent with customers interested in these resources Recommendation: The City should create an incentive or water rebate program to encourage the installation of recycled water, greywater, or rainwater-harvesting systems. The City could then organize home installation workshops with home improvement stores and monitor the number of attendees as well as the number of installations made.
13
Packet Pg. 27
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
WTR 2 Water Conservation: New Development
Ongoing WTR 2.1 Review new development projects for consistency with CALGreen
water efficiency standards.
• The CALGreen water efficiency standards require the installation of compliant plumbing fixtures for all development built prior to 1994
° For smaller projects with work being done only to the exterior, the City cannot gain access to the interior of the house to check plumbing fixtures. In this case, a self-certification form is sent (See Appendix G)
° Any additions or remodels will not be approved until required plan check comments are made, including
♦ Outlining the scope of work
♦ Listing the 2013 CALGreen compliance code
♦ Verifying that all plumbing fixtures included in the project are in compliance with CALGreen standards
• The City’s development review process encourages new development to comply with these standards (while not required by law)
In progress WTR 2.2 Expand recycled water infrastructure to encourage use of greywater
in new construction and landscape projects.
• The City has expanded infrastructure for water recycling, with a steady increase of recycled water use since 2010 (AF= acre feet):
° 2010 = 152.62 AF 2011 = 159.85 AF 2012 = 165.11 AF 2013 = 176.65 AF 2014 = 185.77 AF 2015 = 187.41 AF
• The Public Works Department used recycled water to irrigate several City parks in 2015
° This minimized potable water use at City parks by 26% and conserved almost 8 million gallons of water
• There is currently no city-owned infrastructure for greywater
° Any existing infrastructure is for homeowners only Recommendation: If this is still an important issue, it should be identified by the City as a higher priority for the Public Utilities Department to implement. Monitoring: The City should also monitor the number of new construction and landscape projects using greywater and include this information in the CAP annual report.
Ongoing WTR 2.3 Require use of native and non-invasive drought tolerant plant
materials combined with conservative use of water and landscape designs that
prevent run-off.
• The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan outlines steps the City takes to identify species of local concern and maintain these native species
• City staff continue to restore native vegetation in place of areas invaded with non-native vegetation
14
Packet Pg. 28
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A)
• Water Conservation Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: This measure is difficult to implement because it is unclear whether the action should be focused on municipal buildings only or on all new development. Monitoring: The City should monitor the number of projects with landscape designs incorporating native and non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials and include this information in the CAP annual report.
WTR 3 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing and
In Progress
WTR 3.1 Provide a graphical history of household water usage on utility bills,
and a comparison to average water usage for similar types of homes in the
community.
• The Utilities department does provide a graph of household water use on utility water bills (See graph in Appendix F)
• The Utilities department does not currently provide data showing a comparison to other types of homes in the community, but this is a goal for individual mailings for high use customers
Ongoing WTR 3.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and outreach
materials for water saving tips, planting guides and available rebates.
• These resources and outreach materials are available online at www.slowater.org/drought
• Planting guides are available through www.slowaterwiselandscaping.com
• Joe Little currently mans a bimonthly farmers market booth to educate the public on the Utilities Department services
15
Packet Pg. 29
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Solid Waste (WST)
WST 2 Public Outreach and Education
Complete WST 2.1 Provide the option for home and commercial waste audits to identify
and educate consumers where waste production can be reduced.
• The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) is an agency formed by the County and the cities within it to develop and implement regional programs to reduce solid and hazardous waste
• The IWMA will perform commercial and residential waste audits
° The IWMA will take calls about disposing of anything from needles to beached whales
° They enforce county-wide ordinances to discourage the disposal of paints, needles, pharmaceuticals, batteries, fluorescent lights, and mercury thermostats
♦ Retailers selling any of these products are required to take them back from the public for free, reducing the amount of hazardous waste in landfills
• The IWMA is also implementing a program called Love Food Not Waste to reduce GHG emissions by adding food scraps to our greenwaste bins
° Small food waste bins with educational flyers are being distributed to all residential areas in the county that currently have green waste bins
° They are also being distributed to businesses one by one
° Food scraps will be taken to an aerobic digestor in the County for collection of methane gas which will then be redistributed to PG&E and used for energy production
° This will reduce a large amount of GHG emissions from shipping the food waste down to a landfill in Santa Maria as well as from releasing the methane gas produced from the food waste
Complete WST 2.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and outreach
materials for recycling.
• This material is generally issued by the IWMA on a regional level
• This information and more can be found online at http://www.iwma.com/guide/
In Progress WST 2.3 Host interactive workshops on home composting.
• With the upcoming distribution of food waste collection bins from the County, the City plans to coordinate with local home improvement stores to host workshops on home composting and food waste collection Recommendation: With the upcoming distribution of food waste bins, the City should include informational pamphlets on the proper use of these with household utility bills. The City can also support the use of these bins by working with home
16
Packet Pg. 30
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016 improvement stores to provide in-store food composting workshops for the public. These workshops would be effectively advertised on social media and City websites and easily monitored with the number of attendees.
Ongoing WST 2.4 Explore options for landfill and Water Reclamation Facility site visits
open to the public and school groups.
• College and community tours are conducted, as well as annual grade school tours brought by the Science Discovery program for a total of about 50 tours per year
• Water Resource Recovery Facility site visits are available through either calling the Utilities Department, via the web at http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment/sign-up-for-a-tour or on the Water Resource Recovery Facility website at http://slowrrfproject.org/join-the-conversation/visit-the-wrrf/
17
Packet Pg. 31
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Parks and Open Space (PKS)
PKS 3 Green Waste Recycling
Ongoing PKS 3.1 Store green waste from park maintenance at established composting
facilities or other park properties.
• Green waste from park maintenance is used for
° City landscape planters and beds
° Restoration plantings by the Natural Resources Department
° Tree plantings by the Urban Forest Service
° Certain CIPs
• 200 yards or more of woodchips serve City uses
Ongoing PKS 3.2 Continue to chip larger green waste at the City’s Corporation Yard
and redistribute for public and private use.
• All green waste produced from tree pruning, removals, or stump grinding is distributed and used for wood chips
• The Parks & Recreation Department sends loads to the community gardens
• Usable wood is sent to local mill (at the end of Prado) for conversion into furniture or lumber product
° Usable logs from 20-200 dead, dying, or storm damaged trees are given to the local mill or Central Coast Woodturners of California annually
• Excess green waste is advertised for Woodchip and Firewood Giveaway
° 120 yards of woodchips and about 5 cords of firewood are given away to citizens annually
• None is sent to the landfill
PKS 5 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing PKS 5.1 Continue tree planting and maintenance education programs such as
Arbor Day and Downtown Foresters.
• The City continues to host the Annual Arbor Day Celebration, which is now held in the fall to provide less harsh weather conditions for the newly planted trees
° Attendees are invited to plant trees
° Students learn about urban ecology
° City staff is expected to attend to help plant trees and educate attendees on plant techniques
• The City Arborist reports to the Public Works Department on trees in the Downtown Area and is head of the Downtown Foresters volunteer program, in which the City Arborist trains volunteers to plant, prune, water and fertilize plants to maintain the urban ecology Recommendation: The City should monitor the attendance of these tree planting and maintenance education programs.
18
Packet Pg. 32
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Ongoing PKS 5.2 Partner with regional organizations to create volunteer opportunities
for trail work, habitat restoration and open space maintenance.
• The City partners with several regional organizations, including Environmental Center San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers (CCCMB), CivicSpark, Central Coast Grown, and Leadership SLO
° ECOSLO: The City collaborates with ECOSLO to create a program called SLO Stewards, which heads docent-led hikes and performs trail maintenance twice a month, each time with 10 to 20 volunteers
° CCCMB: The organization builds trails with City Rangers every Wednesday with about 10 volunteers and a few Saturdays out of the year, usually with 100 volunteers
° CivicSpark: The program led about 10 volunteers to do trail maintenance in the Cerro San Luis Nature Reserve
° Central Coast Grown: The City owns City Farm property on the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Preserve and has a 20 year lease with this group so they can do maintenance and farm sustainably everyday
° Leadership SLO: This is a program through the Chamber of Commerce that led a group of 40-50 volunteers on two different occasions to reestablish the historic Lemon Grove hiking loop at Cerro San Luis
Ongoing PKS 5.3 Advertise availability of composted green waste, wood chips and
firewood.
• As indicated under PKS 3.2, all excess green waste is advertised as available at the Woodchip and Firewood Giveaway
19
Packet Pg. 33
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Government Options (GO)
GO 1 City Energy Conservation
In Progress
and Ongoing
GO 1.1 Create and implement a City Building Retrofit Program.
• There is no single retrofit plan or program, but there are several City employees and departments enacting building retrofit
• The City’s building retrofit is ongoing through CIPs, light replacements, and energy audits
• An energy use inventory was done via CivicSpark to alert the City of buildings using high amounts of energy or where energy use is increasing
° The preliminary report created via CivicSpark shall be used by the City to target specific sites for future CIPs
• The City also partners with the County, SoCal Gas Company, and PG&E to work to improve energy efficiency throughout the city
• The City recently received a proposal from ZeroCity, LLC (a company dedicated to helping municipalities, school districts, and universities reach zero net greenhouse gas emissions) to help identify, fund, and implement energy use reduction projects
° The legal team is currently researching the legality of ZeroCity’s special funding approach Recommendation: The City should monitor all building retrofits and include the number of buildings retrofitted as well as the amount of energy saved in the CAP annual report.
GO 9 Employee Commute
Ongoing GO 9.1 Continue to reduce single-occupant employee commuting through trip
reduction incentives.
• The Public Works Department currently encourages businesses to have (or to work with the City to create) a Trip Reduction Plan with trip reduction incentives
• The City also has a Trip Reduction Plan for all City employees
• SLO Regional Rideshare started the Back ‘N’ Forth Club program that includes
° A Commute Survey and Trip Reduction Plan tailored to each business involved
° Other ridesharing tools and incentives for the business’s employees
Recommendation: The City should monitor trip reduction rates with the
Commute Surveys distributed by Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club program and
include this data in the CAP annual report.
GO 10 Sustainability Coordinator
No Progress GO 10.1 Allocate or hire staff to implement CAP and energy programs. Recommendation: See Local Government Operations (#9) on page 23
20
Packet Pg. 34
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
GO 11 Public Outreach and Education
No Progress GO 11.1 Publish information on the City’s climate action planning website
about successful programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Recommendation: See Recommendation BLD 3.2
No Progress GO 11.2 Participate in Earth Day activities, the County’s Energy-Efficiency
Month, and other regional events to educate the community about City climate
action planning. Recommendation: Funding should be provided for participation in Earth Day activities, the County’s Energy-Efficiency Month, and/or other regional events for public outreach and education on City climate action planning.
21
Packet Pg. 35
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
General Recommendations
CAP Amendments
1. Revise the responsible departments assigned to GHG reduction strategies
2. Create a list of implementation measures to be completed by each department
separately so they know what goals to focus on
3. Exclude unrealistic or irrelevant GHG reduction implementation measures
4. Update the language used to differentiate between strategies for municipal
buildings or actions only or community wide
5. List existing policies and potential funding sources for implementation
6. Show calculations or short descriptions of what was included in calculations for
GHG reduction goals
7. Start out with easier tasks so employees feel more empowered to take on future,
more challenging tasks
8. All implementation measures for the near term GHG reduction strategies that
have not been started by August 2017 should be included with the
implementation measures for the mid-term GHG reduction strategies.
Local Government Operations
9. Create a “Green Team” to implement the CAP
● Comprised of representatives from each department and should include
individuals with expertise in environmental policy, transportation, energy
efficiency, planning, and public outreach, for efficient City involvement in
CAP objectives
● Communicate and coordinate with the City departments involved in CAP
implementation to monitor implementation actions
● Provide annual progress reports
● Develop CAP updates and amendments
● Update the CAP website (slocool.org) and tie it to the City website
(slocity.org)
● Advertise CAP objectives through outreach (i.e. informational booth at the
farmers’ market, with flyers at City Hall and local businesses, etc.)
10. More extensive monitoring should be done for all CAP strategies in order to know
what progress has been made and what still needs to be done
11. Organize a Green Team presentation on CAP objectives for new employees
during Day of Welcome
12. Coordinate with PACE to create outreach events and marketing of CAP
implementation actions
Community Involvement
13. Develop a San Luis Obispo Climate Action Coalition to involve the community in
learning about and participating in climate action efforts
14. Allow credit card acceptance at all downtown public parking structures
22
Packet Pg. 36
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Acknowledgements
Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development
Doug Davidson, Community Development
Brian Leveille, Community Development
Mark Sadowski, Community Development
Rebecca Gershow, Community Development
Jenny Wiseman, Community Development
Steven Orozco, Community Development
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Community Development
Andrew Collins, Public Works
Alex Fuchs, Public Works
Daryl Grigsby, Public Works
Barbara Lynch, Public Works
Jennifer Rice, Public Works
Adam Fukushima, Public Works
Mychal Boerman, Public Utilities
Judy Buonaguidi, Public Utilities
Pam Ouellette, Public Utilities
Robert Hill, Administration
Katelynn Webster, CivicSpark
Melissa Guise, Air Pollution Control District
Jesse Carpentier, Cal Poly MCRP Program
List of Acronyms
APCD…………………………………………………………………………...Air Pollution Control District
BMR……………………………………………………………………………………………Below Market Rate
CAP……………………………………………………………………………………………Climate Action Plan
CAV……………………………………………………………………………………………….Clean Air Vehicle
CIP……………………………………………………………………………..Capital Improvement Projects
EIR…………………………………..…...…………………………………..Environmental Impact Report
EV……………………………………………………………………………………………………Electric Vehicle
GHG……………………………………………………………………………………………….Greenhouse Gas
PACE……………………………………………………….Professional Association of City Employees
SDU………………………………………………………………………………………….Single Dwelling Unit
SFR……………………………………………………………………………………..Single Family Residence
SLOCOG……………………………………………………..San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
VMT………………………………………………………………………………………Vehicle Miles Traveled
23
Packet Pg. 37
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix A
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections
Title 17 Zoning
Chapter 87 Water Efficiency Landscape Standards
Section 040 Implementation Procedures
A. Development Review. For projects that require development review (tentative parcel
map, tentative tract, development plan or conditional use permit), project applicants
shall submit the following documentation:
1. A completed maximum applied water allowance for the conceptual landscape
design.
2. A conceptual landscape design plan which demonstrates that the landscape will
meet the landscape design specifications of the city engineering standards uniform
design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A conceptual irrigation design plan which notes the irrigation methods and
design actions that will be employed to meet the irrigation specifications of the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
4. A grading plan which demonstrates the landscape will meet the specifications of
the city engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and
irrigation.
B. Building Application. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, project applicants
shall submit the following:
1. A completed maximum applied water allowance form (appendices, city
engineering standards) based on the final landscape design plan.
2. A final landscape design plan that includes all the criteria required in the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A final irrigation plan that includes all the criteria required in the city engineering
standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
4. A soils management report that includes at a minimum the criteria required in
the city engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and
irrigation.
5. A final grading plan that includes all the criteria required in the city engineering
standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
6. A hydrozone table (appendices, city engineering standards).
C. Project Completion. Upon completion of the installation of the landscape and
irrigation system and prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project
applicant shall submit the following:
24
Packet Pg. 38
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
1. A certification of completion (appendices, city engineering standards) signed by
the professional of record for the landscape and irrigation design certifying that the
project was installed per the city-approved landscape design, irrigation and grading
plans and meets or exceeds an average landscape irrigation efficiency of 0.71. The
city reserves the right to inspect and audit any irrigation system which has received
an approval through the provisions of this chapter.
2. A project applicant shall develop and provide to the owner or owner
representative and the city an irrigation schedule that assists in the water
management of the project and utilizes the minimum amount of water required to
maintain plant health. Irrigation schedules shall meet the criteria in the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A regular maintenance schedule shall be submitted by the project applicant with
the certificate of completion that includes: routine inspections, adjustment and
repairs to the irrigation system, aerating and dethatching turf areas, replenishing
mulch, fertilizing, pruning and weeding. The maintenance schedule will be provided
to the owner or owner representative. (Ord. 1547 § 2 (part), 2010)
Title 13 Public Services
Chapter 07 Water Conservation
Section 010 Substandard water fixtures prohibited.
No person shall cause or allow any water received by such person from the city water
system to be wasted due to substandard, leaky or faulty water fixtures or water-using or
distributing devices. (Ord. 1089 § 1 (part), 1987)
Section 020 Water runoff prohibited.
A. No person shall cause any water delivered by the city water system to flow away from
property owned, occupied or controlled by such person in any gutter, ditch or in any
other manner over the surface of the ground, so as to constitute water waste runoff.
B. “Water waste runoff” means water flowing away from property and which is caused
by excessive application(s) of water beyond reasonable or practical flow rates, water
volumes or duration of application. (Ord. 1089 § 1 (part), 1987)
Chapter 24 Recycled Water Service
Section 010 Statement of policy.
When in the judgment of the city, reclaimed water service can be feasibly provided to a
particular parcel for particular uses, the utilities director shall require the use of
reclaimed water in lieu of potable water for those uses. As used herein, the term
“feasible” means reclaimed water is available for delivery to the property in compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations and such
reclaimed water can be delivered to the property at an overall cost to the user which
does not exceed the overall cost of potable water service. (Ord. 1403 § 1, 2001)
25
Packet Pg. 39
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix B
San Luis Obispo General Plan Element Policies and Programs
Chapter 1 Land Use
Goal 1 Growth Management
Policy 5 Jobs/Housing Relationship
The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply
should not increase.
Chapter 3 Housing
Goal 6 Housing Production
Policy 2
New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Sone) shall include
housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings:
A) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or
employees; or
B) The property’s shape, size, topography, or other physical factor makes
construction of new dwellings infeasible.
Policy 8
Consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate higher density infill where appropriate in the
Downtown Core (C-D Zone), the City shall consider changes to the Zoning Regulations
that would allow for the development of smaller apartments and efficiency units.
Program 29
Continue to pursue incentives to encourage development of Secondary Dwelling Units
(SDUs). Possible incentives to include SDU design templates, flexible development
standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures to encourage the construction
of SDUs where allowed by zoning.
Goal 10 Local Preference
Policy 1
Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer
Assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to: 1) persons living or
working in the City or within the City’s Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in San Luis
Obispo County
26
Packet Pg. 40
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Policy 2
Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College should actively work with the City and
community organizations to create positive environment around the Cal Poly Campus
by:
A) Establishing standards for appropriate student densities in neighborhoods
near campus;
B) Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low-Density
Residential neighborhoods in the northern part of the City; and
C) Encouraging and participating in the revitalization of degraded
neighborhoods.
Program 3
Continue to work with the County of San Luis Obispo for any land use decisions that
create significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the
City to mitigate housing impacts on the City.
27
Packet Pg. 41
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix C
Local GHG Reductions Matrix
28
Packet Pg. 42
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix D
City Parking Structure Revenue
29
Packet Pg. 43
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix E
City Parking Structure Occupancy Rates
30
Packet Pg. 44
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
31
Packet Pg. 45
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix F
Water Utility Bill
32
Packet Pg. 46
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix G
Water Fixture Retrofit Self-Certification Form
33
Packet Pg. 47
1
City of San Luis Obispo
Energy Baseline Report
August 2, 2016
Packet Pg. 48
1
Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Energy Use and Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Energy Use Intensity Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6 IV. Next Steps in Municipal Energy Management Program ................................................................................ 8 V. Contact Information ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 VI. Portfolio Manager Login Credentials ..................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix A- Table of Property Information ................................................................................................................ 9 Appendix B - Definitions of Primary Function Types ............................................................................................. 10
Packet Pg. 49
1
1
I. Introduction San Luis Obispo County’s Energy Watch 1 (Energy Watch) is a partnership between the County of San Luis Obispo, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and participating cities and special districts. As part of a comprehensive program, Energy Watch provides information to local governments regarding energy use and costs in their facilities and infrastructure. This information is used to identify opportunities for energy and cost savings, to help participants finance and implement energy saving measures and projects, and to track building performance. This report was made possible by collaboration between CivicSpark and Energy Watch. CivicSpark is a governor’s initiative AmeriCorps program designed to help local governments build capacity. In the County of San Luis Obispo, CivicSpark’s mission is to provide support for the implementation of the Climate Action Plans for the seven incorporated Cities and County. The dual purpose of this report is to (1) analyze San Luis Obispo’s energy use and cost from June 2013 to May 2016 and to (2) serve as a baseline and guiding document for future energy efficiency efforts. San Luis Obispo authorized Energy Watch to collect utility data from PG&E and SoCalGas to produce this report. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager, a free online benchmarking tool, was used, in part, to track and monitor energy use and cost, as well as building performance in facilities over time.
II. Energy Use and Cost Analysis This report highlights 18 buildings and three types of utility infrastructure owned and operated by the City of San Luis Obispo. The energy analysis below describes the electricity and natural gas use and costs for each facility, the percent change between June 2013 and May 2016, and overall energy trend analysis. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 below include a detailed year by year breakdown of electricity and natural gas use and costs for all San Luis Obispo buildings and infrastructure types.
1 This program is funded by California utility customers and administered by PG&E and SoCalGas under the
auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Packet Pg. 50
1
2
Table 1.1 Electricity Usage and Cost, 2013 to 2016
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
836 Pacific Street Parking Garage 39,047.72$ 258660 44,632.11$ 275604 47,044.29$ 283307 17%9%
842 Palm Street Parking Structure 18,879.37$ 136847 20,219.28$ 135312 20,466.63$ 132716 8%-3%
871 Marsh Street Office and Parking Garage 21,475.90$ 144291 18,284.54$ 103777 18,325.58$ 95651 -17%-51%
919 Palm Parking Garage 23,187.85$ 153329 24,621.15$ 151848 25,485.73$ 154853 9%1%
City Hall 49,793.96$ 296246 52,461.53$ 287061 54,398.38$ 279226 8%-6%
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department 3,115.98$ 17436 4,406.28$ 22289 5,124.43$ 24123 39%28%
Corporation Yard 44,850.97$ 275748 47,516.64$ 278315 48,282.75$ 270262 7%-2%
Fire Station #1 25,614.76$ 155099 29,986.83$ 166450 30,366.07$ 162046 16%4%
Fire Station #2 7,785.63$ 42104 7,906.90$ 41262 9,579.11$ 45368 19%7%
Fire Station #3 7,558.63$ 40661 7,937.65$ 41009 8,552.46$ 40249 12%-1%
Fire Station #4 6,190.98$ 33487 6,824.90$ 35287 7,288.38$ 34276 15%2%
Ludwick Community Center 8,470.70$ 39053 7,209.64$ 36755 6,871.85$ 32492 -23%-20%
Parks and Recreation Department Offices 8,650.54$ 45520 8,984.38$ 44320 8,487.45$ 38429 -2%-18%
Police Department Building 59,412.91$ 344392 51,829.87$ 285541 45,685.88$ 245472 -30%-40%
Public Works and Community Development Offices 38,815.68$ 213480 38,965.67$ 197640 40,202.06$ 206636 3%-3%
Safety Dispatch Center 49,677.37$ 368946 53,698.03$ 381307 54,858.08$ 367054 9%-1%
Senior Citizens Center 6,151.52$ 27652 6,824.05$ 30156 7,021.44$ 30125 12%8%
Sinsheimer Park 34,534.24$ 209795 13,431.26$ 15486 25,166.58$ 109398 -37%-92%
Buildings Total 453,214.71$ 2802746 445,740.71$ 2529419 463,207.15$ 2551683 2%-10%
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations 549,612.55$ 4498218 591,134.56$ 4524723 523,594.67$ 3818560 -5%-18%
WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System 46,706.52$ 247506 50,448.05$ 249637 56,852.32$ 270451 18%8%
Waste Water Total 596,319.07$ 4745724 641,582.61$ 4774360 580,446.99$ 4089011 -3%-16%
Water Treatment Plant 303,754.27$ 2097600 326,650.82$ 2059200 311,232.87$ 1885200 2%-11%
All Facilities Total 1,353,288.05$ 9646070 1,413,974.14$ 9362979 1,354,887.01$ 8525894 0%-13%
Building
Utility Infrastructure Waste Water
Utility Infrastructure Fresh Water
Electricity Usage
(kWh) % Change
June '13 -
May '16
Facility Name
June '13 - May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Electricity Cost
($) % Change
June '13 -
May '16
Packet Pg. 51
1
3
Table 1.2 Natural Gas Usage and Cost, 2013 to 2016
Energy usage throughout the next section of the report is expressed in British Thermal Units (BTUs) – a standard unit for energy use. Energy usage of any kind can be expressed in BTUs, including electricity and natural gas, making it an effective metric to show total energy usage. The energy usage in the tables above have been converted into kBTUs in the graphs below using the standard conversion of 1 kWh = 3.412 kBTUs and 1 Therm = 100 kBTUs. For the purpose of this baseline report and to help determine potential opportunities for future energy and cost savings, threshold criteria were developed to help identify facilities for further analysis. These criteria, highlighted below, emphasize facilities with energy use that is high and increased over the analysis period. Please note there are other facilities with significant energy use and cost that should be considered for future assessment.
Facilities highlighted in this report have EITHER electrical consumption greater than 20,000 kWh (68,240 kBTUs) annually OR gas use greater
than 1,000 therms (100,000 kBTUs) annually, AND experienced BOTH an increase in energy use greater than 3% and an increase in energy
cost greater than $500 between 2013 and 2016.
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
City Hall 3,959.95$ 3907 3,224.17$ 3159 3,414.63$ 3728 -16%-5%
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department 694.42$ 484 549.51$ 370 539.04$ 384 -29%-26%
Fire Station #1 2,759.01$ 2642 2,023.52$ 1945 2,023.52$ 1945 -36%-36%
Fire Station #2 1,153.87$ 940 859.06$ 682 971.20$ 860 -19%-9%
Fire Station #3 1,610.51$ 1381 1,200.08$ 1024 1,519.86$ 1495 -6%8%
Fire Station #4 1,185.66$ 994 708.67$ 524 974.13$ 858 -22%-16%
Ludwick Community Center 1,079.57$ 872 770.99$ 600 1,057.08$ 936 -2%7%
Parks and Recreation Department Offices 639.79$ 445 559.28$ 383 653.88$ 505 2%12%
Police Department Building 6,913.41$ 7643 4,525.19$ 4741 4,238.03$ 4796 -63%-59%
Public Works and Community Development Offices 272.94$ 78 266.08$ 72 253.80$ 66 -8%-18%
Senior Citizens Center 1,191.65$ 980 997.33$ 818 1,078.51$ 957 -10%-2%
Sinsheimer Park 73,296.94$ 104235 88,219.62$ 136534 47,647.96$ 76984 -54%-35%
Buildings Total 94,757.72$ 124601 103,903.50$ 150852 64,371.64$ 93514 -47%-33%
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations 24,532.32$ 30264 21,623.59$ 27036 13,660.50$ 18528 -80%-63%
All Facilities Total 119,290.04$ 154865 125,527.09$ 177888 78,032.14$ 112042 -53%-38%
Utility Infrastructure Waste Water
Building
Facility Name
June '13 - May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Natural Gas Cost
($) % Change
June '13 - May
'16
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm) %
Change
June '13 - May
'16
Packet Pg. 52
1
4
Graphs 1.1 - 4 depict the total energy cost ($) over total energy use (kBTUs) for San Luis Obispo’s 4 facilities with the highest energy use and costs, in accordance with the above threshold.
Graph 1.1 836 Pacific Street Parking Garage Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 - May 2016
Graph 1.2 City of San Luis Utilities Department Combined Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 - May 2016
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) 836 Pacific Street Parking Garage
Electricity Usage Total Cost
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department
Electricity Usage Natural Gas Usage Total Cost
Packet Pg. 53
1
5
Graph 1.3 Fire Station No. 3 Combined Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 to May 2016
Graph 1.4 WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 to May 2016
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) Fire Station #3
Electricity Usage Natural Gas Usage Total Cost
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
$9,000.00
$10,000.00
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System
Electricity Usage Total Cost
Packet Pg. 54
1
6
III. Energy Use Intensity Analysis Energy Use Intensity (EUI) is a unit of measurement that represents the energy consumed by a building relative to its size and property type. This is calculated by dividing the total amount of energy consumed (kBTU) by a building in one year by the building’s total floor area (square feet). The following analysis includes all of San Luis Obispo’s facilities that were eligible for calculating EUI. See Appendix B for property type definitions. High or low EUI values do not necessarily describe a facility’s energy efficiency. EUI numbers are relative and are compared to other similar facilities. For the purpose of this report, we have decided to compare the EUI of San Luis Obispo’s facilities to a national median of similar property types. Facilities with EUIs that are higher than the national median are considered less efficient, while facilities with EUIs lower than the national median are more efficient. These comparisons are portrayed below in Graph 2.1. Table 2.1 lists the EUI of San Luis Obispo’s facilities as calculated by the Portfolio Manager tool.
Table 2.1 Site EUI for 2013 to 2016
Facility Name Property Type
Gross
Floor
Area
(ft2)
Site EUI (kBTU/ft2) National
Median
Site EUI June '13
- May '14
June '14
- May '15
June '15
- May '16
Building City Hall Office 22971 61 56 58 52 City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Office 3810 28 30 32 59 Corporation Yard Other - Public Services 36000 26 26 26 39 Fire Station #1 Fire Station 20398 39 37 37 60 Fire Station #2 Fire Station 3000 79 70 80 63 Fire Station #3 Fire Station 3726 74 65 77 72 Fire Station #4 Fire Station 3130 68 55 65 64 Ludwick Community Center Social/Meeting Hall 15000 15 12 14 30 Parks and Recreation Department Offices Office 4200 48 45 43 56 Police Department Building Police Station 25152 77 58 52 64 Public Works and Community Development Offices Office 17000 43 40 42 63 Safety Dispatch Center Police Station 6044 208 215 207 49 Senior Citizens Center Social/Meeting Hall 5766 33 32 34 32 Sinsheimer Park Fitness Center/Health Club/Gym 8288 1344 1654 974 85
Packet Pg. 55
1
7
Graph 2.1 depicts how the energy use intensity of San Luis Obispo facilities compares to a national median of facilities with the same property type. According to Portfolio Manager, the national median EUI is the recommended benchmark metric for all buildings. The median value is the middle of the national population – half of the buildings use more energy and the other half use less. A complete listing of all national median EUI values can be found at https://portfoliomanager.energystar.gov/pdf/reference/US%20National%20Median%20Table.pdf
Graph 2.1 Site EUI vs. National Median
*Sinsheimer Park has an EUI value of 979 kBTU/ft2, which exceeds the maximum value shown on the vertical axis of Graph 2.1.
979
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Site EUI (kBTU/ft2) 2016 Site EUI vs. National Median Site EUI
Site EUI National Median Site EUI
Packet Pg. 56
1
8
IV. Next Steps in Municipal Energy Management Program
Perform energy assessments on priority or all facilities
o Energy Watch will coordinate with the utilities and each of the 3rd party service providers conducting energy assessments to provide a single report identifying the best opportunities for energy and cost savings, as well as the information necessary for financing and moving forward with project implementation.
Implement Energy and Cost Saving Measures and Projects
o Energy Watch will help select, plan, and manage cost-effective energy saving projects. This includes leveraging technical and engineering resources, navigating rebate and incentive procurement, and securing no or low interest financing.
Monitor and measure facility and infrastructure performance and provide an annual Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis
o Energy Watch and CivicSpark will assist in the continual monitoring of energy use for your City and provide annual baseline reports and rate analyses to City staff.
V. Contact Information Jordan Garbayo jgarbayo@co.slo.ca.us Katie Webster kwebster@civicspark.lgc.org
VI. Portfolio Manager Login Credentials User Name: SanLuisObispoCity Password: EnergyWatch1 http://Portfoliomanager.energystar.gov Energy Watch staff is available to help train San Luis Obispo staff how to use Portfolio Manager as a means to easily track and measure energy use, costs, and performance over time.
Packet Pg. 57
1
9
Appendix A - Table of Property Information
Facility Name Address SAID # (PG&E) BAID # (SCG)Meter # (SCG)
Property
Floor Area
(ft^2)
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’13 - May ‘14
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’14 - May ‘15
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’15 - May ‘16
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’13 - May ‘14
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’14 - May ‘15
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’15 - May ‘16
836 Pacific Street Parking Garage 836 Pacific Street 7212993421 1350 $ 39,047.72 $ 44,632.11 $ 47,044.29 882548 940361 966643
842 Palm Street Parking Structure 842 Palm Street 7212993880 92212 $ 18,879.37 $ 20,219.28 $ 20,466.63 466922 461685 452827
871 Marsh Street Office and Parking Garage 871 Marsh Street 7212993138 104862 $ 21,475.90 $ 18,284.54 $ 18,325.58 492321 354087 326361
919 Palm Parking Garage 919 Palm Street 7212993548 86000 $ 23,187.85 $ 24,621.15 $ 25,485.73 523159 518105 528358
2473387193 $ 49,793.96 $ 52,461.53 $ 54,398.38 1010791 979452 952719
969151300 13235835 $ 3,959.95 $ 3,224.17 $ 3,414.63 390700 315900 372800
5519318748 $ 3,115.98 $ 4,406.28 $ 5,124.43 59492 76050 82308
1494151193 3608214 $ 694.42 $ 549.51 $ 539.04 48400 37000 38400
0978936811 $ 1,056.67 $ 1,314.77 $ 703.69 14344 17022 6851
2473387022 43,794.30$ 46,201.87$ 47,579.06$ 926508 932588 915283
965296595 $ 25,614.76 $ 29,986.83 $ 30,366.07 530594 569425 554359
1221152027 13264921 $ 2,759.01 $ 2,023.52 $ 2,023.52 264200 194500 194500
965296872 $ 7,785.63 $ 7,906.90 $ 9,579.11 144038 141157 155204
1442169800 10280293 $ 1,153.87 $ 859.06 $ 971.20 94000 68200 86000
965296588 $ 7,558.63 $ 7,937.65 $ 8,552.46 139101 140292 137692
90152900 6434889 $ 1,610.51 $ 1,200.08 $ 1,519.86 138100 102400 149500
965296943 $ 6,190.98 $ 6,824.90 $ 7,288.38 114559 120717 117258
1409149100 13234391 $ 1,185.66 $ 708.67 $ 974.13 99400 52400 85800
2473387325 $ 8,470.70 $ 7,209.64 $ 6,871.85 133600 125739 111155
976157300 13473354 $ 1,079.57 $ 770.99 $ 1,057.08 87200 60000 93600
5845533555 $ 8,650.54 $ 8,984.38 $ 8,487.45 155724 151619 131466
1746150427 12743068 $ 639.79 $ 559.28 $ 653.88 44500 38300 50500
1152896225 $ 59,412.91 $ 51,829.87 $ 45,685.88 1178165 976836 839760
1389151200 13617407 $ 6,913.41 $ 4,525.19 $ 4,238.03 764300 474100 479600
5845533756 $ 38,815.68 $ 38,965.67 $ 40,202.06 730315 676126 706902
1200616737 12172910 $ 272.94 $ 266.08 $ 253.80 7800 7200 6600
Safety Dispatch Center 1135 Roundhouse Ave 1152896248 6044 $ 49,677.37 $ 53,698.03 $ 54,858.08 1258844 1301019 1252388
2473387050 $ 6,151.52 $ 6,824.05 $ 7,021.44 94597 103164 103058
1143161600 3021736 $ 1,191.65 $ 997.33 $ 1,078.51 98000 81800 95700
5845533948 $ 34,534.24 $ 13,431.26 $ 25,166.58 717709 52978 374251
1959152600 11122666 $ 73,296.94 $ 88,219.62 $ 47,647.96 10423500 13653400 7698400
Buildings Total $ 547,972.43 $ 549,644.21 $ 527,578.79 22033431 23723623 18066243
5845533029 $ 549,612.55 $ 591,134.56 $ 523,594.67 15388404 15479077 13063294
317150100 14988716 $ 24,532.32 $ 21,623.59 $ 13,660.50 3026400 2703600 1852800
WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System 35 Prado Road 6348223153 8508 $ 46,706.52 $ 50,448.05 $ 56,852.32 844490 851761 922779
Waste Water Total $ 620,851.39 $ 663,206.20 $ 594,107.49 19259294 19034439 15838873
Water Treatment Plant Stenner Creek Road 5845533075 8508 $ 303,754.27 $ 326,650.82 $ 311,232.87 7157011 7025990 6432302
All Facilities Total 1,472,578.09$ 1,539,501.23$ 1,432,919.15$ 48449736 49784052 40337418
35 Prado Road
900 Southwood Drive
1445 Santa Rosa Road
25152
17000
5766
8288
14492
3000
3726
3130
15000
4200
Utility Infrastructure Fresh Water
City Hall
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department
Fire Station #1
Fire Station #2
Fire Station #3
Fire Station #4
Ludwick Community Center
Parks and Recreation Department Offices
Police Department Building
Public Works and Community Development Offfices
Senior Citizens Center
1395 Madonna Road
864 Santa Rosa Street
1341 Nipomo Street
1042 Walnut Street
Sinsheimer Park
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations
136 N. Chorro Street
1280 Laurel Lane
Building
Utilty Infrastructure Waste Water
919 Palm St #1
Corporation Yard 25 Prado Rd
990 Palm Street
879 Morro St
2160 Santa Barbara Street
22971
3810
36000
20398
Packet Pg. 58
1
10
Appendix B - Definitions of Primary Function Types Primary Function Definition Office Office refers to buildings used for the conduct of commercial or governmental business activities. This includes administrative and professional offices. Non-Refrigerated Warehouse Non-Refrigerated Warehouse refers to unrefrigerated buildings that are used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise or raw materials. Fire Station Fire Station refers to buildings used to provide emergency response services associated with fires. Fire stations may be staffed by either volunteer or full-time paid firemen. Library Library refers to buildings used to store and manage collections of literary and artistic materials such as books, periodicals, newspapers, films, etc. that can be used for reference or lending. Police Station Police Station applies to buildings used for federal, state, or local police forces and their associated office space. Social/Meeting Hall Social/Meeting hall refers to buildings primarily used for public or private gatherings. This may include community group meetings, seminars, workshops, or performances. Please note that there is another property use available, Convention Center, for large exhibition and conference facilities. Swimming Pool Swimming Pool refers to any heated swimming pools located either inside or outside. To enter a swimming pool, a specific pool size must be selected. In order to enter buildings associated with a Swimming Pool, the main property use must be entered (e.g., K-12 School, Hotel, Fitness Center/Health Club/Gym, etc.). Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant refers to facilities designed to treat municipal wastewater. The level of treatment at a plant will vary based on the BOD limits and the specific processes involved. This property use is intended for primary, secondary, and advanced treatment facilities with or without nutrient removal. Treatment processes may include biological, chemical, and physical treatment. This property use does not apply to drinking water treatment and distribution facilities. Other - Public Services Other – Public Services refers to buildings used by public-sector organizations to provide public services other than those described in the available property uses in Portfolio Manager (i.e. services other than offices, courthouses, drinking water treatment and distribution plants, fire stations, libraries, mailing centers or post offices, police stations, prisons or incarceration facilities, social or meeting halls, transportation terminals or stations, or wastewater treatment plants). Drinking Water Treatment & Distribution Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution refers to facilities designed to pump and distribute drinking water through a network of pipes. Depending on the water source (groundwater, surface water, purchased water), a water utility may or may not contain a treatment process. This property use applies to any/all water sources and any/all levels of treatment. Courthouse Courthouse refers to buildings used for federal, state, or local courts, and associated administrative office space.
Packet Pg. 59
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 60
1
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, November 1, 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,
November 1, 2016 at 4:30 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, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and
Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: Council Member Carlyn Christianson
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Kevin Rice, San Luis Obispo resident encouraged Council to consider repealing the Rental
Housing Inspection Ordinance.
---End of Public Comment---
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9
Name of case: Kevin Waddell vs. City of San Luis Obispo; San Luis Obispo County
Superior Court Case No. 16CV-0491
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9
Name of case: San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owners Association, Stephen and
Janine Barasch, The Barasch Revocable Family Trust, Matthew and Jean Kokkonen, and
Packet Pg. 61
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 1, 2016 Page 2
The Kokkonen Family Trust vs. City of San Luis Obispo; San Luis Obispo County
Superior Court Case No. 16CV-0493
RECESS TO REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 2016 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M.
Packet Pg. 62
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 1, 2016 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
November 1, 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 John Ashbaugh, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and
Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: Council Member Carlyn Christianson
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, 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 John Ashbaugh led the pledge of allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that Council met in Closed Session on two matters of existing
litigation.
A. Regarding Case No. 16CV-0491, Kevin Waddell versus the City of San Luis Obispo,
Council voted 4-0 (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to authorize the defensive litigation,
authorize the retention of David Fleishman to assist in defense of the City and authorize the
City Manager to allocate funding for the defense; and
B. Regarding Case No. 16CV-0493, San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owners
Association, Stephen and Janine Barasch, The Barasch Revocable Family Trust, Matthew
and Jean Kokkonen, and The Kokkonen Family Trust and Kevin Rice versus the City of San
Luis Obispo; Council voted 3-1 (CARPENTER VOTING NO, CHRISTIANSON
ABSENT) to authorize the defense of the action, authorize the retention of Adamski,
Moroski, Madden, Cumberland and Green with Josh George and David Cumberland to
represent the City and authorize the City Manager to allocate funding for defense.
PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION - ARBOR DAY
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to City Arborist Ron Combs proclaiming November
5, 2016 as "Arbor Day in the City of San Luis Obispo."
Packet Pg. 63
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 1, 2016 Page 4
2. PROCLAMATION - TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF SLO GREENBELT
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill honoring the
Twentieth Anniversary of the City of San Luis Obispo's Greenbelt Protection Program.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Georgina Bailey, Cal Poly student spoke regarding the possibility of better City promotion of the
cow parade; she suggested user friendly maps be added to the City Website.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo resident spoke regarding AB 2584, land use and housing
development bill, and its possible effects of the City.
Andrew Harris, Cal Poly student, spoke regarding parent visitation, and suggested an outreach
such as a City Website map or tour program to help visitors find points of interest to assist them
in having a better experience while at the University and in the City.
Kayla Granados, Cal Poly student, spoke regarding a lack of street lighting in the residential area
of the campus.
Sean Cuccia, Cal Poly Student, spoke regarding the Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance, stated
that landlords are demanding too much with too little given in return; he provided examples of
problems he and his roommates face when dealing with their local rental management company.
Katherine Walker, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance, she
encouraged the prior speaker to report his housing issues to City Code Enforcement and added
that the key to solving these problems is educating tenants of their rights and possible fines for
landlords who abuse their tenants.
In response to public comment, Tourism Manager Molly Cano outlined the City’s efforts to
promote the Cow Parade event as well as provided a brief description of Cal Poly’s partnership
with the City, and spoke about tourism efforts to help better connect parents of local and future
students.
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-0, (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to approve the Consent
Calendar Items 3-6.
3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 4-0, (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to waive reading of all resolutions and
ordinances as appropriate.
Packet Pg. 64
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 1, 2016 Page 5
4. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
CARRIED 4-0, (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to approve the Minutes of the City Council
meeting of September 20, 2016.
5. TRANSIT FACILITY CLASSROOM REMODEL, SPECIFICATION NO. 91384
CARRIED 4-0 (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the “Transit Facility Classroom Remodel,
Specification No. 91384”; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract to the lowest responsible
bidder if the bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $130,000.
6. RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL CLASS I CONNECTION – LAUREL & ORCUTT
SPECIFICATION NO. 91373
CARRIED 4-0 (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Railroad Safety Trail Class I Connection -
Laurel & Orcutt project, Specification No. 91373; and
2. Authorize staff to formally advertise for bids; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract if the lowest bid is within
the Engineer’s Estimate of $159,000.
PUBLIC HEARING
7. ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
Tourism Manager Cano provided a staff report and responded to Council inquiries.
City Clerk Gallagher stated that there were two written protests received and validated in
advance of the Public Hearing, in addition there was one un-validated protest received
during the Public Hearing and based on the total percentage needed, this does not amount to
a legally sufficient protest.
Public Comments:
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding limited water availability and asked
Council to consider this when making any decisions.
---End of Public Comment ---
Packet Pg. 65
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 1, 2016 Page 6
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 4-0, (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to: adopt
Resolution No. 10751 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring the basis for and the levy of the assessment for the
San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District, and affirming the establishment
of the district” for fiscal year 2016-17.
8. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE 2016
CALIFORNIA BUILDING AND FIRE CODES WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS
Chief Building Official Schneider, and Fire Marshall Maggio provided an in-depth staff
report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council inquiries.
Public Comments:
Katherine Walker, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding issues she had with the current staff
report; she noted the current cost of a building permit and felt there was a problem with the
length of time a permit is valid; she questioned a special investigation fee added into this
ordinance.
---End of Public Comment ---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-0, (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to introduce
Ordinance No. 1630 (2016 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 15 of the Municipal Code to adopt by reference
and amend the latest editions of the California Building Standards Codes and adopting
findings of fact to support the amendments.”
BUSINESS ITEM
9. ADOPTION OF 2020 PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Parks and Recreation Director Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Manager Mudgett, Facilities
and Special Events Permit Supervisor Hyfield and Ranger Services Supervisor Carscaden
provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Council inquiries.
Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill responded to Council questions and questions received
in advance of the meeting by email correspondence from the public
Public Comments:
Andy Pease, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding the need of a dog park.
Courtney Kienow, San Luis Obispo resident speaking in her capacity as an employee of Cal
Poly, cautioned the Council that the University is not currently able to meet their demands
of the student body for field use and are currently at a deficit with more demand than they
can meet.
Packet Pg. 66
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 1, 2016 Page 7
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding maximizing the use of parks 24 hours a day.
Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo requested that the North Broad area park be included in the
Strategic Plan
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo stated the need for another senior center and for a place
for residents to gather.
Mila Vuyovich – La Barre, San Luis Obispo expressed appreciation for the 2020 Parks and
Recreation Strategic Plan update and voiced concerns that certain people and organizations
were not polled regarding the proposed plan.
---End of Public Comment ---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 4-0, (CHRISTIANSON ABSENT) to: adopt the 2020
Parks and Recreation Department’s Strategic Plan.
Mayor Marx direct staff to gather additional implementation impute from the Natural
Resources Round Table.
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT
Public Works Director Grigsby and Administrative Analyst Betz provided an in-depth staff
report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment ---
By consensus, the City Council receive and filed the Public Works Department’s Annual
Report.
LIAISON REPORTS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Marx noted that Election Day is November 8, 2016.
Vice Mayor Carpenter noted his scheduled absence from the next regular scheduled City Council
Meeting of November 15, 2016.
Packet Pg. 67
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 1, 2016 Page 8
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: X/XX/2017
Packet Pg. 68
5
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, November 15, 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,
November 15, 2016 at 4:00 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 John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire,
and Mayor Jan Marx
Council Members
Absent: Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. UPDATE FOR THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (OASP) PUBLIC
FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN (PFFP)
Community Development Director Codron, Public Works Deputy Director Bochum, and
Contract Planner provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation
and responded to Council inquires.
David Watson, Project Consultant, David Watson provided an overview of the financial
plan project costs including added contingencies, updated project costs, and the reduction of
impact fees.
Public Comment:
Aaryn Abbot, San Luis Obispo, representing Robbins Reed and representing West Creek,
spoke regarding the increase in fees due to added project improvements requested by the
City; he encouraged a solid system be put into place to keep fees down and asked the City to
take a larger participation roll in order to keep costs down.
Packet Pg. 69
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 2
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER ASHBAUGH CARRIED 4-0, (CARPENTER ABSENT) to adopt Resolution No.
10752 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, approving an update to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan – Public Facilities Financing
Plan.” As amended to reflect the corrected amount for OASP Single Family Unit (SFU) fee as
was shown on table 2.
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
(SLOCEA) FOR THE PERIOD OF 07/01/2016–06/30/2018
Human Resources Director Irons and Human Resources Analyst Sutter provided an in-depth
staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council inquires.
Public Comment:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH CARRIED 4-0, (CARPENTER ABSENT) to adopt
Resolution No. 10753 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting and ratifying the Memorandum of Agreement
between the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association
for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018.”
City Manager Lichtig acknowledged Council Member Ashbaugh’s service to the
community, she stated that tonight is his final Council meeting and thanked him for his
support of staff.
City Attorney Dietrick read closed session items into record.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
RECESS AT 4:53 PM TO CLOSED SESSION TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL
HEARING ROOM
Packet Pg. 70
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 3
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL –EXISTING LITIGATION Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association v. City of San Luis Obispo; State of California Public Employment Relations Board Case No. LA-CE-729-M
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of the Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Implementation of the Joint Proposal, And Recovery of Associated Costs Through Proposed Ratemaking Mechanisms (U39E) A: 16-08-006
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Authority, Among Other Things, to Increase Rates and Charges for Electric and Gas Service Effective on January 1, 2017 A: 15-09-001 RECESS AT 5:38 P.M. TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2016 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M.
Packet Pg. 71
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 4
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
November 15, 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 John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire,
Mayor Jan Marx
Council Members
Absent: Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, 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 Dan Rivoire led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick announced that there were no reportable actions from the Closed Session.
INTRODUCTIONS
3. RICO PARDO - ACCOUNTING MANAGER/CONTROLLER, COURTNEY STECK
- BUDGET MANAGER, AND VINAY JATHANNA - TECHNICAL PROJECTS
MANAGER
Interim Finance Director Bradford introduced Accounting Manager/Controller Rico Pardo,
Budget Manager Courtney Steck, and Technical Projects Manger Vinay Jathanna as new
hires.
PRESENTATIONS
4. PROCLAMATION - TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to Doug Heumann, Secretary of Tranz Central Coast
proclaiming November 20, 2016 as "Transgender Day of Remembrance."
Packet Pg. 72
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 5
5. PROCLAMATION - ASSEMBLY MEMBER KHATCHIK “KATCHO”
ACHADJIAN
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to Assembly Member Khatchik “Katcho” Achadjian,
expressing gratitude for his outstanding service to the people of San Luis Obispo.
APPOINTMENTS
6. APPOINTMENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC),
MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (MTC) AND PLANNING
COMMISSION (PC)
City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report.
Recommendation No.1 was pulled for further consideration and action was taken separately:
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
MAYOR MARX CARRIED 3-1, (ASHBAUGH NO) (CARPENTER ABSENT) to:
2. Confirm the appointment of David Figueroa to the Mass Transportation Committee
(alternate representative) to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2018; and
3. Confirm the appointment of Kim Bisheff to the Planning Commission to complete an
unexpired term through March 31, 2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECONDED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE FAILED 2-2, (CHRISTIANSON NO) (MAYOR MARX
NO) (CARPENTER ABSENT) to;
1. Confirm the appointment of Lydia Mourenza to the Architectural Review
Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2018.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Marissa McCullough, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Student, spoke regarding inadequate street
lighting in the student residence area.
Noah Letuiligasenoa, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Student, referenced a recent survey of Cal Poly
students regarding lighting issues in the student residence area and surrounding areas.
Cannon Wong, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Student, spoke regarding street lighting survey
findings specific to concerns for public safety.
Summer Atwood, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Student, spoke regarding inadequate lighting in the
student resident area; she requested a collaborative effort between students and City officials to
combat the students lighting and safety concerns.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding projected rainfall totals and voiced concern for a
lack of water for City residents.
Packet Pg. 73
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 6
Mandy Davis & Karen Hamon, speaking together requested that City Council agendize the
Dakota Pipeline.
Roberto Monge, with use of a PowerPoint presentation spoke regarding water related issues
facing Standing Rock, he asked that this issue be agendized in the future.
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE CARRIED 4-0, (CARPENTER ABSENT) to approve the consent
Calendar Items 7 thru 11.
7. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 4-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
8. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
NOVEMBER 1, 2016, TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE 2016 CALIFORNIA
BUILDING AND FIRE CODES WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS
CARRIED 4-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1630 (2016 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending title 15 of the municipal
code to adopt by reference and amend the latest editions of the California Building
Standards Codes and adopting findings of fact to support the amendments.”
9. WATER SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM
UPGRADE, SPECIFICATION NO. 91062
CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Water Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrade, Specification No. 91062 and authorize staff to
advertise for bids; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder in an
amount not to exceed $1,225,500.
10. CORRECTION TO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL
3523 (FIRE) FOR THE PERIOD OF 01/01/2016 – 12/31/2017
CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve inclusion of provision for Fire Vehicle Mechanic Tool Allowance, inadvertently
left out of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Fire and the City when
previously adopted by the City Council; and
Packet Pg. 74
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 7
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10764 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting and ratifying the corrected
Memorandum of Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis
Obispo Firefighters Local 3523 for the period of January 1, 2016 through December 31,
2017.
11. SINSHEIMER PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION, SPECIFICATION NO.
90650
CARRIED 4-0, to award a contract to JJ Fisher in the amount of $623,424 for the Sinsheimer
Park Playground Renovation project, Specification No. 90650A
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY RAY RIGHETTI) OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE
REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE SUNNY ACRES BUILDING
FOR 13 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A COMMUNITY ROOM AND OFFICE AS PART
OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THREE NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT
CONTAIN AN ADDITIONAL 21 UNITS (AS PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY), AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
City Manager Lichtig announced that she is recusing herself because she owns property
within 500’ of the subject property; left the Chamber at 6:55 p.m.
Council Members Rivoire, Ashbaugh, Christianson, and Mayor Marx noted their Ex Parte
Communication regarding the project.
Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Cohen provided an in-
depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council
inquires.
Appellant: Ray Righetti stated the goal of his appeal is to present what he feels is a broader
vision on how to better apply natural and financial resources. With the use of a PowerPoint
presentation he provided reasons for rejecting the proposed project including his vision for a
SLO Center for the Arts project to be built on the proposed location; he provided reasons
why he feels the current proposed mental health housing model is the wrong housing
approach.
Applicant: Jill Bolster-White provided a PowerPoint presentation and short video
showcasing the proposed project design; she shared benefits of mental health recovery
programs and noted the large community support for the project.
Scott Smith, Project Partner, Executive Director of HASLO, Housing Authority San Luis
Obispo, speaking on behalf of the applicant noted that most resources for the project were
to be paid from Non-Governmental funds and urged the Council to deny the appeal.
Packet Pg. 75
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 8
Public Comment:
Speaking in support of the project and against the appeal:
Patrick Saldana, San Luis Obispo, Attorney for California Rural League Assistance San
Luis Obispo Office.
Pam Zweifel, San Luis Obispo Vice President of the National Alliance on Mental Illness in
San Luis Obispo County representing 350 members who are all in favor of the project.
Deborah Linden, San Luis Obispo and longtime Board Member of Transitions Mental
Health Association.
Erica Flores Baltodano, San Luis Obispo, Employment Law Attorney and local business
owner.
Grace McIntosh, Deputy Director at Community Action Partnership in San Luis Obispo.
David Booker, Chairman of the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo.
Jeff Foster, San Luis Obispo.
Peter K. Kardul, San Luis Obispo and local business owner.
Shauna Dragomir Atascadero resident, Real Property Manager for County of San Luis
Obispo.
JT Haas, Board President for Transitions Mental Health Association.
Elie Alexroth, San Luis Obispo.
Pete Pepper, San Luis Obispo, Co-Coordinator of the mentoring program for the Veterans
Treatment Court.
Fr. Ian Delinger of St. Steven’s Church.
Joel Diringer, San Luis Obispo, neighbor to the project, long time heath advocate and
Attorney.
Wendy Brown, San Luis Obispo.
Robert Clayton, local psychologist and Vice Chair of Human Relation Commission.
Marguerite Bader, Avila Beach resident and President to League of Women Voters of San
Luis Obispo County.
Jim Grant, San Luis Obispo.
Heather Billing, San Luis and neighbor to the project.
Packet Pg. 76
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 9
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, Chair of the Human Relation Commission and Code
Enforcement Officer.
John Fowler, San Luis Obispo, People Self Help Housing CEO and Executive Director and
City Planning Commission Member.
Michael Kaplan, San Luis Obispo and employee for Transition Mental Health
Organization.
Brian Asher Alhadeff, Conductor of Opera San Luis Obispo.
John Belsher, San Luis Obispo.
Anne Wyatt, San Luis Obispo, Housing Policy Planner.
Dr. Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo.
Speaking neither in support or against the project:
Rich Vorie, Avila Beach resident, speaking neither for or against the project, spoke
regarding the management of project resources and on cost perspective.
Appellant: Lanny Hernandez, believes Transitions has made a poor decision for a good
cause and believes his alternative vision is a broader vision.
---End of Public Comment---
Mayor Marx re-opened Public Comment:
Applicant: Jill Bolster-White corrected incorrect cost estimates provided earlier by the
appellant and noted that the forefront of their mission is the elimination of stigma.
Applicant: Scott Smith reiterated the corrected numbers provided by Jill Bolster-White
adding that most of it is paid for by private investors.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE CARRIED 4-0, (CARPENTER ABSENT) to adopt Resolution No.
10754 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval
of the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Sunny Acres building for 13 residential units,
a community room and office as part of an affordable housing residential care facility, the
construction of three new residential structures that contain an additional 21 units (as part
of the residential care facility), and a mitigated negative declaration of environmental
impact as represented in the City Council Agenda Report and attachments dated November
15, 2016 (1600 Bishop Street, ARCH-3336-2016/EID-3562-2016).”
Mayor Marx called for a recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:45 p.m.
Packet Pg. 77
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 10
13. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY CAMILLE SMALL) OF THE
ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A
REMODEL OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 1144
CHORRO STREET, WHICH INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A MARQUEE SIGN
AND OTHER EXCEPTIONS FROM THE SIGN REGULATIONS (ARCH-3773-
2016)
No Council Member Ex Parte Communications were reported.
Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Bell provided an in-depth
staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council inquires.
Appellant: Camille Small, San Luis Obispo referenced a letter she previously sent to
Council, she stated she believes Council should weigh in on ARC decisions noting size and
bright lights approved in the design; she stated her disagreement with ARC statement that
the design is consistent with other Downtown buildings.
Applicant: Jeremy Pemberton, San Luis Obispo and Managing Partner of Discovery San
Luis Obispo stated that the marquee has a direct effect on his ability to generate enough
business to properly service the use of capital; through use of a PowerPoint presentation he
provided a slide show of images showing the proposed design of the project. He requested
the denial of the appeal and asked that Council permit the marquee as recommended by City
Staff.
Scott Martin, Design Director with RRM Design Group, speaking on behalf of applicant,
stated they are asking for what is allowed within the sign regulations which requires an
ARC approval.
Public Comment:
Stan Carpenter, owner and trustee of a commercial business in the immediate area of the
proposed project, spoke in support of the project and requested denial of the appeal.
Jeanne Kinney, San Luis Obispo noted that the location is the entry way of the City and
asked Council to keep this in mind when making a decision tonight.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo spoke against the project and noted being in favor of the
appeal.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo resident, speaking on behalf of Save Our Downtown spoke
against the project and noted being in favor of the appeal.
Farid Shahid, San Luis Obispo resident, spoke in support of the project and requested denial
of the appeal.
Elisabeth Abrahams, San Luis Obispo resident, speaking on behalf of Save Our Downtown
spoke against the project and in favor of the appeal.
Andy Pease, San Luis Obispo resident, stated that the logo does not support the residents
Packet Pg. 78
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 11
desire of a family friendly establishment.
Applicant: Jeremy Pemberton reminded Council that tonight’s decision should be in regards
to the sign placement and not whether this is a family friendly establishment or not,
although he contends that is such.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH CARRIED 4-0, (CARPENTER ABSENT) to adopt
Resolution No. 10755 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, denying the appeal of the Architecture Review
Commission’s decision to approve a remodel of an existing commercial structure, located
at 1144 Chorro Street, which includes a request for a marquee sign and other exceptions
from the sign regulations, with a categorical exemption from environmental review as
represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated November 15, 2016
(1144 Chorro, arch-3773-2016).”
14. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING SECTION 13.07.030 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON OUTDOOR IRRIGATION OF PUBLIC
FACILITY TURF WITH POTABLE WATER
Public Works Director Grigsby, and Public Works Deputy Director/City Engineer Horn
provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Council inquires.
Public Comment:
Heather Billing, San Luis Obispo and Assistant Regional Commissioner for the American
Youth Soccer Association San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the size of the organization and
asked that Council adopt the Ordinance tonight in order to keep the facilities safe for all
youth sports organizations.
Jeff Whitener, San Luis Obispo speaking on behalf of the Park and Recreation Commission
spoke regarding the current weather pattern and the poor conditions of the fields.
---End of Public Comment---
Water Resources Program Manager Boerman responded to Council inquiries.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH CARRIED 4-0, (CARPENTER ABSENT) to
Introduce Ordinance No. 1631 (2016 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Section 13.07.030 of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code regarding restrictions on outdoor irrigation of public facility turf
with potable water.”
Packet Pg. 79
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 12
BUSINESS ITEMS
15. SETTING THE STAGE: BACKGROUND MATERIALS FOR 2017-19 GOAL-
SETTING AND FINANCIAL PLAN PROCESS
Interim Finance Director Bradford introduced the General Plan Update; Assistant City
Manager Johnson presented Major City Goals, Public Works Director Grigsby, presented
Current and Long Term CIP and Community Development Director, Codron provided the
General Plan Update with the use of a PowerPoint presentation as well as responded to
Council inquires.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
Following discussion, the City Council received and filed the background materials for the
2017-19 Goal Setting and Financial Plan process, including the following:
1. Status of 2015-17 Goals and Objectives; and
2. Status of General Plan Implementation Programs; and
3. Status of Current Capital Improvement Plan Projects; and
4. Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Written Council Liaison Reports were received from Council Member Ashbaugh and Mayor
Marx.
Council Member Ashbaugh reported out on City efforts to submit an application for State
Department of Water Resources (DWR) funding under the integrated Water Resources
Management process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m. Adjourn to a Special City Council Meeting to be held
on Friday, December 9, 2016 at 12:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California for the purposes of certifying the results of the General Municipal Election of
November 8, 2016.
The Regular City Council Meeting of December 6, 2016 was previously cancelled.
Consequently, the next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, December 13,
2016 at 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Packet Pg. 80
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of November 15, 2016 Page 13
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg. 81
5
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Friday, December 9, 2016
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Friday, December
9, 2016 at 12:00 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 John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
Steven Martin, Paso Robles Mayor and Tom O’Malley, Atascadero Mayor, read a proclamation
presented to Mayor Marx on December 7, 2017 from the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority
(SLORTA).
Adam Hill, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, expressed gratitude to outgoing Mayor Marx
for her years of service to the community.
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Pg. 82
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of Friday, December 9, 2016 Page 2
PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION - OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN ASHBAUGH
Mayor Marx presented a proclamation and artwork to outgoing Council Member John
Ashbaugh for his dedicated public service and commitment to the community as a Council
Member.
2. PROCLAMATION - OUTGOING VICE MAYOR DAN CARPENTER
Mayor Marx presented a proclamation and artwork to outgoing Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter
for his dedicated public service and commitment to the community as a Council Member.
3. PRESENTATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO OUTGOING
VICE MAYOR DAN CARPENTER
Mayor Marx presented a Certificate of Recognition and token of appreciation to outgoing
Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter.
4. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATION - OUTGOING MAYOR JAN MARX
Vice Mayor Carpenter presented a proclamation artwork to outgoing Mayor Jan Marx for
her dedicated public service and commitment to the community as Mayor of the City of San
Luis Obispo.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, approve Consent Calendar Item 5.
5. RESULTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 2016
City Clerk Gallagher presented the report and responded to Council Inquiries.
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10756 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, reciting the fact of the General
Municipal Election held on November 8, 2016, declaring the results and such other matters
as provided by law.”
APPOINTMENTS
6. OATHS OF OFFICE FOR NEWLY-ELECTED MAYOR HEIDI HARMON AND
COUNCIL MEMBERS AARON GOMEZ AND ANDY PEASE
City Clerk Gallagher administered the Oath of Office for newly-elected Mayor Heidi
Harmon and Council Members Aaron Gomez and Andy Pease.
Packet Pg. 83
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of Friday, December 9, 2016 Page 3
7. VICE MAYOR APPOINTMENT FOR 2017
City Clerk Gallagher reviewed the contents of the Council Agenda Report.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0, to appoint Council Member Dan Rivoire as
Vice Mayor to serve a one-year term commencing upon appointment.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:07 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled on
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room and
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg. 84
5
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRACT 2560-PHASE 2, 215 BRIDGE STREET (TR 64-03)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution partially accepting the public improvements, certifying partial completion of the
required private subdivision improvements, and authorizing release of the remainder of the
securities once improvements are complete for Tract 2560-Phase 2 at 215 Bridge Street (TR 64-03).
DISCUSSION
Background
Tract 2560 (TR 64-03) is located at 215 Bridge Street (Attachment A). The vesting tentative map
for Tract 2560 was approved by City Council on December 7, 2004, by Resolution No. 9638
(2004 Series). The Phase 1 final map was approved by Council on May 1, 2007, by Resolution
No. 9895 (2007 Series). The Phase 1 map created two lots, a Remainder lot for the existing
homestead and a second lot intended for the Phase 2 subdivision. There were no subdivision
improvements associated with the Phase 1 map. The Phase 2 final map (Attachment B) and
Subdivision Agreement for Tract 2560-Phase 2 were approved by Council on October 21, 2014,
by Resolution No. 10571 (2014 Series) (Attachment C). The Phase 2 final map created 18 single
family residential lots and one condominium lot for the purposes of creating up to eight
live/work condominium units.
Subdivision Improvements
The subdivision improvements for Tract 2560-Phase 2 consist of both public improvements to be
maintained by the City and private improvements to be maintained by the homeowner’s
association. The public improvements include frontage improvements along Bridge Street and
the on-site water line and fire hydrant serving the lots. The remainder of the subdivision
improvements including the on-site driveway, bridge, storm drain lines, drainage infrastructure,
sewer main and laterals, and on-site lighting are all private improvements.
Improvement Securities
As specified in the Tract 2560-Phase 2 Subdivision Agreement, California’s Subdivision Map
Act and the City’s Municipal Code, the Subdivider was required to submit a faithful performance
security to guarantee completion of the subdivision improvements along with a labor and
materials security to guarantee payments to contractors and suppliers. In lieu of providing a
typical bond to guarantee faithful performance of the subdivision improvements and labor and
materials, the Subdivider elected to submit multiple Certificates of Deposit in favor of the City in
the total security amount. Because the Certificates of Deposit would tie up a substantial amount
of the Subdivider’s cash reserves, the City Council resolution approving the final map authorized
the Public Works Director to make partial releases of the faithful performance Certificates of
Packet Pg. 85
6
Deposit as the work progressed, as allowed in Section 66499.7 of the Subdivision Map Act. The
status of the bonds is shown in Attachment D.
It was noted in the resolution approving the final map that any partial releases authorized by the
Public Works Director would not constitute acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
Acceptance of the subdivision improvements remained the authority of the City Council.
Accepting the Public Improvements and Certifying Completion of Private Improvements
With the exception of the minor items listed in the Punch List (see Exhibit 1 of Attachment E),
the subdivision improvements, as required in the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 2560 -Phase 2,
have been completed and inspected to the satisfaction of the Cit y. The subdivider and their
contractors are diligently working to complete the items on the Punch List, but have requested
that the City Council approve a partial acceptance of improvements so that they can free up some
of the labor and materials securities being held by the City to guarantee payment to the
contractors and material suppliers.
Section 66499.7(h) of the Subdivision Map Act, states: “Security securing the payment to the
contractor, his or her subcontractors and to persons furnishing labor, materials, or equipment
shall, after passage of the time within which claims of lien are required to be recorded pursuant
to Article 2 (commencing with Section 8410) of Chapter 4 of Title 2 of Part 6 of Division 4 of
the Civil code AND after acceptance of the work, be reduced to an amount equal to the total
claimed by all claimants for whom claims of lien have been recorded and notice thereof given in
writing to the legislative body, and if no claims have been recorded, the security shall be released
in full.” [emphasis to the “and” added]
Acceptance of the subdivision improvements by Council removes the barrier preventing release
of the labor and materials securities once the appropriate period of time has passed for
contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers to file claims pursuant to the Civil Code.
Release of Remaining Securities and Acceptance of Remaining Improvements
The only faithful performance security that is being held by the City is in the amount of $85,700.
This amount will continue to be held by the City to ensure completion of the remaining items on
the Punch List and to guarantee that the subdivider will remedy any defects in the improvements
arising from faulty workmanship or materials or defective construction of said improvements for
a period of one year following final completion of all subdivision improvements.
A draft resolution Accepting and Certifying Completion of the Subdivision Improvements is
attached (Attachment E). This resolution authorizes the Public Works Director to accept and
certify the completion of the remaining subdivision improvements once they are completed to
the satisfaction of the City, release the remaining securities once the requirement for release are
met, and to release the warranty security upon satisfactory completion of the one-year warranty
period.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department and Utilities Department concur with the recommended action.
Packet Pg. 86
6
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The necessary findings and environmental review requirements related to the development of
Tract 2560 were made with the tentative map approval. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The public improvements constructed with Tract 2560-Phase 2 will result in an increase in
maintenance costs for the water mains and water services serving the lots. A financial analysis of
the City’s 2014 General Plan concluded that the cumulative demand for new services would be
covered with the incremental increase in revenue.
At this time, the Utilities Department Water and Wastewater Divisions will not need additional
resources to maintain this new public infrastructure. However, cumulative increases in infrastructure
eventually require additional resources to maintain. When required, these additional resources
would be requested as part of the Financial Plan process, consistent with City financial policies.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not accept the public improvements or certify completion of the private improvements for
Tract 2560-Phase 2. If some of the required subdivision improvements for Tract 2560-Phase 2
have not been completed, then Council can continue this item until such time as the
improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the City. Staff does not recommend this
alternative because a majority of the subdivision improvements for Tract 2560-Phase 2 have
been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and modifications
thereof, and only minor improvements remain to be completed, which are not being accepted at
this time.
Attachments:
a - Vicinity Map
b - Phase 2 Final Map
c - Resolution Approving Final Map
d - Bond Release Status
e - Draft Resolution Accepting Subdivision Improvements
Packet Pg. 87
6
Packet Pg. 88
6
Packet Pg. 896
Packet Pg. 906
Packet Pg. 916
Packet Pg. 926
Packet Pg. 936
RESOLUTION NO. 10571 (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL tNIAP FOR TRACT
2560-PHASE 2 (215 BRIDGE STREET,TR 64-03)
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning the vesting tentative
map for Tract 2560, as prescribed in Resolution No. 9638 (2004 Series); and
WHEREAS; the subdivider has completed all required subdivision improvements or will
submit appropriate securities to guarantee installation of the required subdivision improvements
as shown on the approved plans prior to map recordation, and all fees have been received or will
be received prior to map recordation; as prescribed in the Subdivision Agreement; and
WHEREAS, all conditions required per Resolution No. 9638 (2004 Series) will be met
prior to final recordation of the map; and
WHEREAS, approval of a final map is statutorily exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(6)( 3) Ministerial Projects
approval of final subdivision maps); of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State
CEQA Guidelines).
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The final map for Tract 2560-Phase 2 as shown on the attached Exhibit is
found to be in substantial compliance with the tentative map.
SECTION 2. The Subdivision Agreement and Biological Open Space Easement
Agreement for Tract 2560-Phase 2 are hereby approved.
SECTION 3. Approval of the final map for Tract 2560-Phase 2 is hereby granted.
SECTION 4. The Mayor and City staff are hereby authorized to take action necessary to
cam out the intent of this resolution.
SECTION 5. In accordance with Government Code section 66499.7 et seq, the Public
Works Director is authorized to perform partial releases of the improvement securities as the work
progresses, provided that sufficient securities are retained to guarantee completion of any remaining
improvements, payment to contractors, and warranty of work. Any partial releases authorized by the
Public Works Director do not constitute acceptance of the subdivision improvements; which
remains the authority of the City Council.
R 10571
Packet Pg. 94
6
Resolution No. 10571 (2014 Series)
Page 2
Upon motion of Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Vice Mayor Christianson, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh, Carpenter and Smith,
Vice Mayor Christianson and Mayor Marx
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2151 day of October 2014.
TIA"" Jam'
MayorJan/Marx
on. J.'Mej' . MA
Git-Cl'e i
PP VED AS 0 1.0 M:
Christinejck
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 95
6
TRACT 2560-PHASE 2 - BOND LIST
215 BRIDGE STREET
Amount Form Date Received Bond Release Status
Bonds and Guarantees:
Total Faithful Performance = $857,000
Partial guarantee $175,000 CD #5026508951 10/10/14 Released on 11/14/14
Partial guarantee $100,000 CD #5026508969 10/10/14 Released on 10/13/15
Partial guarantee $200,000 CD #5026508977 10/10/14 Released on 5/20/15
Partial guarantee $200,000 CD #5026508985 10/10/14 Released on 7/20/15
Partial guarantee $ 96,300 CD #5026508993 10/10/14 Released on 8/3/16
Partial guarantee (10% of total) $ 85,700 CD #5026509009 10/10/14 Hold for 10% warranty.
Total Labor & Materials = $428,500
Partial guarantee $ 87,500 CD #5026509017 10/10/14 Released on 5/20/15
Partial guarantee $ 50,000 CD #5026509025 10/10/14
Partial guarantee $100,000 CD #5026509041 10/10/14
Partial guarantee $100,000 CD #5026509033 10/10/14
Partial guarantee $ 91,000 CD #5026509058 10/10/14
Monument Guarantee $2,000 CD #5026509066 10/10/14
10% Warranty $85,700 Retain the last
$85,700
Faithful
Performance
CD for this
Packet Pg. 96
6
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, PARTIALLY ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS, CERTIFYING PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE
REMAINDER OF THE SECURITIES ONCE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
COMPLETE FOR TRACT 2560-PHASE 2 (215 BRIDGE STREET, TR 64-03)
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning Tract 2560, as prescribed
in Resolution No. 9638 (2004 Series); and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2560-Phase 1 per Resolution
No. 9895 (2007 Series); and
WHEREAS, all subdivision improvement for Tract 2560 were deferred to the Phase 2 final
map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2560-Phase 2 per
Resolution No. 10571 (2014 Series); and
WHEREAS, with the exception of certain minor improvements, the subdivider has
satisfactorily completed the public improvements for Tract 2560-Phase 2, in accordance with City
standards and specifications and has requested acceptance of the public improvements for
maintenance and operation by the City; and
WHEREAS, with the exception of certain minor improvements, the subdivider has
satisfactorily completed the private improvements for Tract 2560-Phase 2, in accordance with City
standards, specifications and the approved plans, and has requested that the City certify completion
of these private improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has provided the subdivider with a list of the minor
subdivision improvement items remaining to be completed. See attached Exhibit 1 (Punch List);
and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 10571 (2014 Series) authorized the Public Works Director to
make partial releases of the faithful performance securities as the work progressed, as allowed in
Section 66499.7 of the Subdivision Map Act; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has released all of the faithful performance
securities for the project except one security in the amount of 10% of the estimated construction
costs, which amount is sufficient to guarantee the completion of the remaining improvements and
to warrant the work for one year following completion of all the improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Packet Pg. 97
6
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby accepts the public improvements for
Tract 2560-Phase 2, except for the minor items listed in the attached Exhibit 1.
SECTION 3. The Public Works Director is authorized to accept the remaining public
improvements on behalf of the City once completed in accordance with City standards and
specifications and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby certifies completion of the private improvements
for Tract 2560-Phase 2, except for the minor items listed in the attached Exhibit 1.
SECTION 5. The Public Works Director is authorized to certify completion the remaining
private subdivision improvements once completed in accordance with City standards and
specifications and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
SECTION 6. The Public Works Director is authorized to release the remaining
securities once the requirement for release are met and to release the warranty security upon
satisfactory completion of the one-year warranty period. The one-year warranty period will not
begin until all subdivision improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the City.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to take action
necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2017.
________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 98
6
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
Punch List of Items Remaining to Be Completed
as of December 23, 2016
Tract 2560-Phase 2, 215 Bridge Street
As-built drawings.
Complete pertinent “Bluecard” Checklist items prior to partial occupancy.
Verify property corner markers, bench marks and monuments.
Adjust all water meter angle stops and boxes.
Install final BMP’s on all slopes.
Address slope on upper driveway on John’s property.
Install adapters and screw caps on all sewer laterals.
Install clean out boxes for sewer laterals.
Finish trash enclosures.
Complete bio-swales/basins.
Replace broken concrete.
Install address sign.
Complete onsite lighting.
Seal asphalt concrete.
Remove all temporary lines across creek.
Clean up all trash.
All sewer laterals and cleanouts to be operational.
All work within Bridge Street will be complete.
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 99
6
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 4
R ______
Signed Engineer of Work interim certification of the drainage system and LID features. A
final certification will be required when all the storm drain system w/drainage swales are
completed. The certification will need to include an inspection report(s) for the critical
dimensions of the LID features.
Provide a copy of the final LOMR Case from the engineer of record.
Letter with intent to serve from all utility companies.
Clean pavers using the procedure in the O&M Manual.
Perform a water test on the pavers to ensure infiltration.
Ensure final map recorded all public easements identified on the plans.
Provide copy of final soils report.
Provide bike racks noted on plans.
Provide Bridge Street trees, finish grading and landscaping.
Investigate and install; steps and path with D.G. and identify where/what it ties into. Site
walk forthcoming from Natural Resources Manager and Ranger Services
Provide all final BMP’s (pg 16 – General Notes #11 & pg 22 – General Notes #C);
hydroseeding and netting where required and establishment of BMP’s.
Provide Street Signage.
Address inconsistent paver transitions; ensure trip hazards are not present.
Repair wall caps on head walls.
Clean gravel in parking areas.
EXHIBIT 1
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 100
6
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
Jennifer Rice, Transportation Planner/Engineer
SUBJECT: GRANT FUNDED CALLE JOAQUIN PARK & RIDE, SPECIFICATION NO.
91288
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a contract and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with RDZ
Contractors in the amount of $500,000 for the Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot,
Specification No. 91288; and
2. Appropriate $75,000 from Fund 460 – The Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Fund for
use on the project; and
3. Approve the transfer of $158,251.41 from Account No. 99821.953 - the Los Osos Valley
Road Interchange Project.
DISCUSSION
On November 16, 2016, bids were opened for the Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot project. Of the
seven bids received, none were under the Engineer’s Estimate of $324,466. The low bid was
received from RDZ Contractors of Nipomo in the amount of $500,000.
Engineer’s
Estimate
RDZ
Contractors
JJ Fisher
Construction
R. Burke
Corporation
Raminha
Construction
John
Madonna
Construction
Souza
Construction
Whitaker
Construction
Group
$324,466 $500,000.00 $544,600.00 $572,529.00 $596,567.00 $601,027.40 $614,460.00 $648,462.00
While this is $175,534 over the Engineer’s Estimate, staff recommends approval to award a
contract for this amount. In the time since this CIP project was funded in the 2013-15 Financial
Plan, the economy has improved and construction costs have increased. Because of the volume
of amount of work available and the high demand for contractors, contractors have the ability to
select what projects they want to construct. The second, third and fourth bids submitted reflect
the current economic climate as well as cost increases for materials and labor.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project has received a categorical exemption under CEQA section 15311, Accessory
Structures. The project has also received categorical exemption under NEPA, 23 CFR 771.117(c)
(13_).
Packet Pg. 101
7
CONCURRENCES
Caltrans & SLOCOG are a part of the project team and concur with this recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Council accepted and appropriated $365,000 for this project at its February 18th, 2014
meeting. Currently, there is $316,748.59 to fund this project.
Overall Project Fiscal Summary
Total Project Budget (15-16 CIP Carry Forward)318,778$
Tree Removal 1,750$
Advertising 134.56$
Printing 144.85$
Available 316,748.59$
Construction 500,000$
Contingency 50,000$
Total for Construction 550,000$
Additional Funding Needed:233,251.41$
Along with the increase to fully fund the construction contract amount, additional funds are
necessary to maintain a 10% construction contingency amount for unforeseen conditions.
Staff is proposing to fund the project shortfall from two sources. First, as part of the Hampton
Inn project, the project paid Los Osos valley Road Interchange Impact fees that have been held
in case the park and ride facility needed additional funds. Staff is recommending that $75,000
from these funds that have been collected be appropriated for use on the project.
Additionally, the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 project is nearing completion and there are
sufficient funds remaining in the debt fund account for the project that can be used for public
improvements being constructed by the Park and Ride project. These improvements include the
completion of the road terminus along old Calle Joaquin, storm drain tie ins, and work
reconstructing the Park and Ride/Hampton Inn driveway to the realigned new Calle Joaquin.
Because the work on Calle Joaquin is an overlapping component of both this project and the
LOVR Interchange a proportion of the LOVR Interchange funding is eligible for use on this
project. Staff is recommending that $158,251.41 of these funds be transferred from the LOVR
Interchange budget for use in completing the park and ride project. There is approximately $1.5
million remaining in Los Osos Valley Road Interchange debt funding for the project. These
funds are restricted in use and can only be used for work associated with the interchange itself.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny approval to award. The City Council could choose to deny or defer the approval to award
Packet Pg. 102
7
this project. Staff does not recommend this option. The grant money has been programmed for
this fiscal year and should be used accordingly. Additionally, construction, material and labor
costs may continue to rise and additional funds will be required.
Attachments:
a - 91288 Bid Results
b - Contract
Packet Pg. 103
7
Item # Item DescriptionQuantityUnit of MeasureUnit PriceItem Total Unit PriceItem Total Unit PriceItem Total Unit PriceItem Total Unit PriceItem Total Unit PriceItem Total Unit PriceItem Total Unit PriceItem Total1 MOBILIZATION1 LS$0.00 $0.00 $31,393.91 $31,393.91 $31,553.00 $31,553.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $15,700.00 $15,700.00 $15,946.50 $15,946.50 $63,000.00 $63,000.00 2 CLEARING & GRUBBING1 LS$0.00 $0.00 $14,175.40 $14,175.40 $5,513.00 $5,513.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 3 REMOVE CONC. (CURB & GUTTER)66 LF$0.00 $0.00 $16.28 $1,074.48 $11.00 $726.00 $30.00 $1,980.00 $15.00 $990.00 $13.00 $858.00 $16.00 $1,056.00 $13.00 $858.00 4 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK1730 SF$0.00 $0.00 $3.94 $6,816.20 $2.15 $3,719.50 $1.50 $2,595.00 $2.00 $3,460.00 $2.00 $3,460.00 $2.50 $4,325.00 $4.00 $6,920.00 5 REMOVE CONCRETE (MOW STRIP)204 LF$0.00 $0.00 $12.60 $2,570.40 $5.00 $1,020.00 $5.00 $1,020.00 $6.00 $1,224.00 $9.00 $1,836.00 $6.00 $1,224.00 $8.00 $1,632.00 6 REMOVE IRRIGATION1 LS$0.00 $0.00 $2,625.00 $2,625.00 $3,360.00 $3,360.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $800.00 $800.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 7 EXCAVATION 1000 CY$0.00 $0.00 $44.10 $44,100.00 $65.15 $65,150.00 $62.00 $62,000.00 $52.00 $52,000.00 $36.00 $36,000.00 $60.00 $60,000.00 $48.00 $48,000.00 8 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE560 CY$0.00 $0.00 $63.79 $35,722.40 $61.40 $34,384.00 $66.00 $36,960.00 $70.00 $39,200.00 $64.00 $35,840.00 $90.00 $50,400.00 $80.00 $44,800.00 9 CLASS 3 AGGREGATE BASE69 CY$0.00 $0.00 $37.57 $2,592.33 $65.00 $4,485.00 $75.00 $5,175.00 $70.00 $4,830.00 $90.00 $6,210.00 $102.00 $7,038.00 $224.00 $15,456.00 10 CLASS 4 AGGREGATE BASE461 CY$0.00 $0.00 $90.38 $41,665.18 $73.00 $33,653.00 $75.00 $34,575.00 $55.00 $25,355.00 $65.00 $29,965.00 $102.00 $47,022.00 $116.00 $53,476.00 11 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC4680 SF$0.00 $0.00 $0.77 $3,603.60 $0.25 $1,170.00 $1.00 $4,680.00 $0.50 $2,340.00 $0.50 $2,340.00 $0.75 $3,510.00 $1.00 $4,680.00 12 HOT MIX ASPHALT, TYPE A309 TN$0.00 $0.00 $120.00 $37,080.00 $129.00 $39,861.00 $115.00 $35,535.00 $124.00 $38,316.00 $164.00 $50,676.00 $132.00 $40,788.00 $118.00 $36,462.00 13 PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE 4680 SF$0.00 $0.00 $8.40 $39,312.00 $11.75 $54,990.00 $9.50 $44,460.00 $10.00 $46,800.00 $17.50 $81,900.00 $9.50 $44,460.00 $12.00 $56,160.00 14 OBSERVATION WELL2 EA$0.00 $0.00 $525.00 $1,050.00 $1,715.00 $3,430.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $350.00 $700.00 $350.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 $2,800.00 $120.00 $240.00 15 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB)950 LF$0.00 $0.00 $32.55 $30,922.50 $24.60 $23,370.00 $30.00 $28,500.00 $33.00 $31,350.00 $44.00 $41,800.00 $35.00 $33,250.00 $40.00 $38,000.00 16 MINOR CONCRETE (RETAINING CURB)17 LF$0.00 $0.00 $30.45 $517.65 $33.50 $569.50 $40.00 $680.00 $70.00 $1,190.00 $52.00 $884.00 $62.00 $1,054.00 $40.00 $680.00 17 MINOR CONCRETE (BARRIER CURB)295 LF$0.00 $0.00 $28.35 $8,363.25 $24.60 $7,257.00 $45.00 $13,275.00 $75.00 $22,125.00 $40.00 $11,800.00 $79.00 $23,305.00 $35.00 $10,325.00 18 HDPE PLASTIC EDGING330 LF$0.00 $0.00 $9.98 $3,293.40 $10.60 $3,498.00 $8.00 $2,640.00 $4.00 $1,320.00 $11.00 $3,630.00 $3.60 $1,188.00 $5.00 $1,650.00 19 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB & GUTTER)162 LF$0.00 $0.00 $26.25 $4,252.50 $25.75 $4,171.50 $50.00 $8,100.00 $66.00 $10,692.00 $49.00 $7,938.00 $76.00 $12,312.00 $44.00 $7,128.00 20 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK)3200 SF$0.00 $0.00 $4.99 $15,968.00 $6.70 $21,440.00 $8.00 $25,600.00 $14.00 $44,800.00 $9.70 $31,040.00 $9.25 $29,600.00 $10.00 $32,000.00 21 MINOR CONCRETE (DRIVEWAY)400 SF$0.00 $0.00 $7.35 $2,940.00 $11.20 $4,480.00 $15.00 $6,000.00 $16.00 $6,400.00 $15.20 $6,080.00 $22.00 $8,800.00 $14.00 $5,600.00 22 MINOR CONCRETE (BUS PAD)1030 SF$0.00 $0.00 $11.81 $12,164.30 $8.40 $8,652.00 $17.00 $17,510.00 $20.00 $20,600.00 $17.50 $18,025.00 $18.00 $18,540.00 $16.00 $16,480.00 23 MINOR CONCRETE (MOTORCYCLE PARKING) 62 SF$0.00 $0.00 $11.03 $683.86 $6.00 $372.00 $50.00 $3,100.00 $34.00 $2,108.00 $29.00 $1,798.00 $51.00 $3,162.00 $19.00 $1,178.00 24 WHEEL STOP2 EA$0.00 $0.00 $150.00 $300.00 $356.50 $713.00 $300.00 $600.00 $110.00 $220.00 $356.00 $712.00 $230.00 $460.00 $110.00 $220.00 25 AREA DRAIN INLET6 EA$0.00 $0.00 $1,050.00 $6,300.00 $1,057.00 $6,342.00 $700.00 $4,200.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $700.00 $4,200.00 $1,350.00 $8,100.00 $1,875.00 $11,250.00 26 CURB DRAIN INLET1 EA$0.00 $0.00 $5,880.00 $5,880.00 $11,550.00 $11,550.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $5,450.00 $5,450.00 27 STORM DRAIN PIPE (12" HDPE)362 LF$0.00 $0.00 $58.80 $21,285.60 $54.00 $19,548.00 $30.00 $10,860.00 $41.00 $14,842.00 $39.00 $14,118.00 $37.00 $13,394.00 $44.00 $15,928.00 28 STORM DRAIN PIPE (18" RCP)98 LF$0.00 $0.00 $99.75 $9,775.50 $76.00 $7,448.00 $90.00 $8,820.00 $70.00 $6,860.00 $64.00 $6,272.00 $120.00 $11,760.00 $95.00 $9,310.00 29STORM DRAIN MANHOLE1EA$0.00 $0.00 $8,925.00 $8,925.00 $8,281.00 $8,281.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $8,800.00 $8,800.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $4,100.00 $4,100.00 30BUS STOP SHELTER WITH METAL BENCH (5 1EA$0.00 $0.00 $11,167.26 $11,167.26 $11,727.00 $11,727.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $19,500.00 $19,500.00 $16,500.00 $16,500.00 31 PAVEMENT MARKINGS610 SQFT$0.00 $0.00 $6.83 $4,166.30 $4.55 $2,775.50 $4.00 $2,440.00 $6.00 $3,660.00 $4.50 $2,745.00 $10.00 $6,100.00 $6.00 $3,660.00 32 SIGN, SINGLE POST9EA$0.00 $0.00 $340.00 $3,060.00 $437.00 $3,933.00 $400.00 $3,600.00 $400.00 $3,600.00 $437.00 $3,933.00 $350.00 $3,150.00 $425.00 $3,825.00 33 LIGHTING 1 LS$0.00 $0.00 $35,731.73 $35,731.73 $32,237.00 $32,237.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 $40,900.00 $40,900.00 $42,500.00 $42,500.00 $44,270.00 $44,270.00 34 LANDSCAPING 1 LS$0.00 $0.00 $20,667.15 $20,667.15 $36,658.00 $36,658.00 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 $27,500.00 $27,500.00 $36,600.00 $36,600.00 $22,600.00 $22,600.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 35 IRRIGATION 5478 SF$0.00 $0.00 $5.45 $29,855.10 $8.50 $46,563.00 $8.00 $43,824.00 $7.50 $41,085.00 $8.30 $45,467.40 $7.25 $39,715.50 $8.00 $43,824.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 $544,600.00 $572,529.00 $596,567.00 $601,027.40 $614,460.00 $648,462.00 Total Bid AmountSouza Construction Whitaker Construction Calle Joaquin Park and Ride Project, Specification No. 91288Bid Opening: 11/16/16* marks an allowanceEngineer's Estimate Rdz Contractors JJ Fisher Construction inc. R. Burke Corporation Raminha Construction John Madonna Packet Pg. 1047
Packet Pg. 105
7
Packet Pg. 106
7
Packet Pg. 107
7
Packet Pg. 108
7
Packet Pg. 109
7
Packet Pg. 110
7
Packet Pg. 111
7
Packet Pg. 112
7
Packet Pg. 113
7
Packet Pg. 114
7
Packet Pg. 115
7
Packet Pg. 116
7
Packet Pg. 117
7
Packet Pg. 118
7
Packet Pg. 119
7
Packet Pg. 120
7
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Police Chief
Prepared By: Melissa Ellsworth, Senior Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: FY 2017-18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic Safety for
a FY 2017-18 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) not to exceed $125,000; and
2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the City Manager to execute all grant related documents and
authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the award of the
grant.
DISCUSSION
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides grant funding to agencies annually.
Programs are aimed at preventing deaths and injuries on our roadways through special enforcement
and public awareness efforts. Grant funding will help the City’s ongoing effort to improve traffic
safety and quality of life.
The grant application is due on January 30, 2017. The department will be requesting the following
in the application: 1) overtime to fund department participation in DUI checkpoints, 2) saturation
patrols, and 3) distracted driving enforcement operations. Equipment requests will include; 1) a
speed data and reporting mobile radar unit and 2) hardware/software to process crime and traffic
accident scenes.
Financial Management Manual Policy 740 requires the City Council to approve all grant
applications in excess of $5,000 and delegates receipt and contract execution to the City
Manager if delegation is allowed by the grantor agency. This grant program meets both of these
requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
City matching funds are not required by the grant. Although grant funding is already secured for
FY 2016-17; funding in subsequent years is requested through the grant application process on an
annual basis.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council may direct staff not to submit an application. Staff does not recommend this
alternative as funding will aid in the City’s ongoing effort to improve traffic safety and quality of
life. The grant objectives are aimed at preventing deaths and injuries on our roadways through
special enforcement and public awareness efforts.
Packet Pg. 121
8
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 122
8
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Brian Amoroso, Police Lieutenant
SUBJECT: SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA)
GRANT APPLICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to pursue a grant application submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice,
California Sex Offender Registry, for a total amount not to exceed $25,000 for equipment and
training that will enhance our ability to manage our local sex offender population; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents, and appropriate the grant
amount into the Police Department’s budget upon grant award.
DISCUSSION
Financial Management Manual Policy 740 requires the City Council to authorize the submittal o f
grant applications that are $5,000 or greater. The purpose of this item is to seek the City Councils
approval of the application and to authorize the City Manager to execute documents should the
grant be awarded to the City.
The San Luis Obispo Police Department is required to register and manage all registered sex
offenders that reside in the City of San Luis Obispo. We currently have approximately 59
registrants, with almost half listing ‘transient’ as their address. All registrants are required to
report to the Police Department and register in scheduled intervals. In addition, pro-active
compliance checks are conducted to ensure registrants are living at the locations they claim.
With many of our registrants listing areas of public open space, bridges and creeks as their
residence, Officers are required to search these out of the way areas in an attempt to make
contact at these locations.
GRANT DETAILS
In late October of 2016, staff received notification of the availability of a federal grant to fund the
purchase of equipment and training to enhance the management and notification process of sex
offenders in our community. Funds for the expansion of existing registration and notification
programs will be used for computers, cameras and training related to sex offender registration
and notification.
The grant application deadline was November 10, 2016. Due to the delayed awareness of the
grant and timeliness considerations, staff timely submitted the application prior to receiving City
Council approval. This has been a historic practice when Staff becomes aware of grant
opportunities and there is not sufficient time to obtain City Council approval as required by
Financial Management Policy 740. Should Council not support the submittal of the effort, staff
will withdraw the application.
Packet Pg. 123
9
FISCAL IMPACT
The grant specifically requires that approved expenditures be funded initially by the agency, then
reimbursed by the grant after invoicing. All grant expenditures must be expended, invoiced, and
reported to the California Department of Justice prior to May 15, 2017. Additionally, purchased
items cannot be removed from an existing budget and purchased with Grant funds. The San Luis
Obispo Police Department will be required to comply with grant reporting and auditing
requirements on funding usage.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council may direct staff to withdraw the application for federal grant funding. Staff does
not recommend this alternative, as the funding will enhance the Police Department’s ability to meet
registration and notification requirements related to the local sex offender population.
Attachments:
a - SORNA Grant San Luis Obispo Police Department
Packet Pg. 124
9
Packet Pg. 125
9
Packet Pg. 126
9
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) GRANT
APPLICATION(S)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to annually apply for LCTOP funds on
behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo; and
2. Adopt a resolution applying for LCTOP funds for transit capital projects
DISCUSSION
Background
Financial Management Manual Policy 740 requires that the City Council approve grant
applications equal or greater than $5,000. The application will request $120,000 annually in
combined City allocated and discretionary competitive award amounts towards capital pursuing
capital purchases/leases with regard to transit fleet needs, such as pursuing alternative energy
vehicles.
The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of several programs that are part
of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the
California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862. The LCTOP was created to provide operating
and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve
mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Approved projects in LCTOP
will support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may
include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or
facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose service area
includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of the total moneys received shall be
expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. Senate Bill 862 continuously
appropriates five percent of the annual auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
(Fund) for LCTOP, beginning in 2015-16.
This program will be administered by Caltrans in coordination with Air Resource Board (ARB)
and the State Controller’s Office (SCO). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
is responsible to ensure that the statutory requirements of the program are met in terms of project
eligibility, greenhouse reduction, disadvantaged community benefit, and other requirements of
the law.
Per Public Resource Code 75230 (f) (1-3) funds shall be expended to provide transit operating or
capital assistance that meets any of the following three criteria:
Packet Pg. 127
10
Expenditures that directly enhance or expand transit service by supporting new or
expanded bus or rail services, new or expanded water-borne transit, or expanded
intermodal facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, and maintenance,
and other costs to operate those services or facilities.
Operational expenditures that increase transit mode share.
Expenditures related to the purchase of zero-emission buses, including electric buses, and
the installation of the necessary equipment and infrastructure to operate and support zero-
emission buses.
Caltrans and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will review Allocations Requests to
determine if the project supports at least one of the above listed criteria. Agencies have the
ability to fund “new or expanded services” with a single or multiple years of LCTOP funding as
long as the agency is not supplanting1 funds. Any request or expenditure identifying a phase
prior to construction will likely be ineligible for the program.
Each transit operator is entitled to a portion of LCTOP funds (derived from auction sales)
identified by a statewide formula, as well as a regional discretionary amount (~$291K shown
below in the table from last year).
All candidate projects submitted must be specifically endorsed by the agency’s respective board
(i.e. a general request for all the funds is not acceptable).
Capital Projects, New Vehicles
Access to LCTOP requires an annual grant application for both allocated and the competitive
discretionary amounts. Such grant applications also require board/council approval.
LCTOP funding is typically only sufficient for smaller projects to be funded. LCTOP allows for
annual roll-over and combining of multiple years, up to four years’ worth, in order to help
1 Supplanting occurs when a state, local, or Tribal Government reduces state, local, or tribal funds for an activity
specifically because federal or state funds are available (or expected to be available) to fund that same activity.
Packet Pg. 128
10
achieve a larger project. Staff recommends pursuing $120,000 annually, in combined City
allocated and discretionary competitive award amounts, towards pursuing capital
purchases/leases with regard to transit fleet needs, such as pursuing alternative energy vehicles.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the City’s General Fund as a result of applying or receiving these grants
funds. Rather securement of these funds will assist and supplement the Transit Enterprise fund
in achieving its capital projects of which; has no other identified funding source beyond federal
5307 funding and their local match requirements. While there are no defined match
requirements for the LCTOP program, grants applications which show a matching source of
funds tend to score higher in the evaluation process. Staff proposes to match grant amounts
similar to federal grant match amounts of 20% of the total cost of the project. This would equate
to approximately $24,000 for each successful $120,000 project. Funds would come out of the
Transit Enterprise annual fund balance which has come under budget the last three fiscal years.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Authorize the City Manager or their designee, apply for LCTOP funds on behalf of the
City of San Luis Obispo throughout the life of the LCTOP program. This would be an
expansion of the authority being requested.
2. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to annually apply for LCTOP funds on
behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo and request City Council authority for each year’s
grant application.
3. Deny grant application of these funds.
Attachments:
a - CAR LCTOP Resolution - Draft
Packet Pg. 129
10
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR
THEIR DESIGNEE, TO FILE, EXECUTE AND FULFILL ANY RELATED
LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS PROGRAM GRANT
APPLICATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, ASSURANCES, FORMS,
AGREEMENTS, AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY
WHEREAS, City of San Luis Obispo (City) operates the San Luis Obispo (SLO) Transit
system; and
WHEREAS, the City and SLO Transit are eligible applicants for the States Low Carbon
Transportation Operations Program (LCTOP) grant annually, throughout the life of the program;
and
WHEREAS, the City has determined to use the City apportionment and pursue
discretionary amounts to fund SLO Transit capital projects; and
WHEREAS, the City his requesting 100% of its annually allocated amount and additional
annually awarded discretionary amounts; and
WHEREAS, the filing and receipt of such LCTOP grant will impose certain reporting
obligations upon the City and will require the City to provide a local share of the project costs; and
WHEREAS, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in coordination with the
Air Resource Board (ARB) and the State Controller’s (SCO) office have been authorized to
administer the LCTOP program as defined in Senate Bill 862.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City if San Luis Obispo City Council
does hereby authorize the City Manager or their Designee, to file, execute and fulfill any related
Low Carbon Transportation Operations Program grant applications, certifications, assurances,
forms, agreements, and associated documents on behalf of the City.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
Packet Pg. 130
10
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
____________________________________
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. 131
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 132
10
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Julie Cox, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT VEHICLE FIRE PREVENTION
RECOMMENDATION
Approve purchase of one 2017 Ford F150 from Perry Ford San Luis Obispo in the amount of
$25,995 for Fire Prevention, Hazardous Materials Program with funding for this purchase coming
from a dedicated account (as described below), rather than the General Fund or the Fleet
replacement fund or CIP.
DISCUSSION
The San Luis Obispo Fire Department’s hazardous materials program is a Participating Agency
for the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department’s Certified Unified Program
Agency (CUPA) administers. Annual field inspections are a critical element of the Hazardous
Materials Coordinators job duties. These field inspections are performed by the Fire
Department’s Hazardous Materials Coordinator, a position and program that receives funding
from the County. In addition to $93,664 of County funds reimbursed to the City to support this
program in Fiscal year 2015-2016 (an equal amount is estimated for FY 2016-17) this program
also receives a portion of administrative penalties collected from an y action brought by a unified
program agency. Funds in the account can only be expended to fund the activities of the CUP A
and no other fire services. (California Health and Safety Code 25187(2)(k)).
The vehicle used by the Hazardous Material Coordinator, Unit 0724 (a 2007 Chevy Silverado) is
in need of replacement. The current City policy identifies a ten (10) year useful life for fire safety
medium sized trucks and that ten-year period for Vehicle 0724 will be in calendar 2017. The
vehicle was not included in the fleet replacement schedule in the current two-year Financial Plan
even though it is now at its replacement cycle. After assessing this vehicle, the City’s Fire
Mechanic recommends replacing it before more costly repairs are necessary to keep it
operational. There is available funding in the CUPA-designated funds account that can be used
to complete this replacement at this time.
The City’s Fire Mechanic received quotes from National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) and Perry
Ford San Luis Obispo. NJPA quote came in at $28,163.51 including sales tax. Perry Ford’s quote
was $25,994.52. This purchase price included sales tax, tire fees and delivery charges. The 2017
Ford F-150 has been selected as the replacement vehicle to provide for fleet congruency and net
cost saving of $2,168.99 compared to the Chevy Silverado quote from NJPA (National Joint Powers
Alliance).
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Fleet Division concurs with the request.
Packet Pg. 133
11
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact will be a cost of $25,994.52 including tax. Vehicle will be purchased from the
CUPA Fines fund (600-2479). The current balance in the CUPA Fine fund is $69,677. The funds
can only be used for CUPA-related expenses.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could deny the purchase. Staff does not recommend this option as the equipment
is critical to the support functions of Fire Prevention Staff and it is no longer financially
responsible to spend additional funds to maintain the existing fleet vehicle used by CUPA.
Packet Pg. 134
11
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY DONNA DUERK & URSULA
BISHOP) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION
TO APPROVE A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES 18
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A COMMERCIAL SPACE AND PARKING WITHIN
THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE (560 HIGUERA STREET).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission’s approval of the mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial
space within the Downtown Commercial zone.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant submitted a project for a new four-story mixed-use project that includes 18
residential units, a small 68 square-foot commercial space and 20 parking spaces, located within
the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone. The project also includes a request for a one space
parking reduction and tandem parking, as allowed with architectural review and approval.
New commercial projects within the City require review by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) (Community Design Guidelines Section 1.2). Staff provided early feedback
to the applicant during the initial staff review regarding architecture. The applicant responded to
the comments with revisions to the project design and the project proceeded to the ARC.
On August 15, 2016 the ARC reviewed the proposed project and voted 3:1 to continue review of
the project to a later date and provided specific changes they wanted to see made in the project
Applicant/
Representative
Creekside Lofts, LP / Damien Mavis
Appellants Donna Duerk / Ursula Bishop
Zoning C-D (Downtown Commercial)
General Plan General Retail
Site Area 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under Section
15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Packet Pg. 135
12
(Attachment F, ARC Minutes).
On October 17, 2016 the project returned to the ARC for review. The ARC reviewed the proje ct
based on the direction they had provided to the applicant and the ARC unanimously approved
the modified project design (Attachment H, ARC Minutes).
On October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to
approve the project (Attachment I, ARC Appeal). The appeal states that the ARC did not adhere
to the Community Design Guidelines for Downtown and that the project does not fit the
surrounding neighborhood.
The scope of this review is to provide an evaluation of the project in terms of its consistency with
the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines and other applicable City policies and
standards. The Council is being asked to review the proposed project, the concerns of the appeal
and provide a final determination on the proposed project.
Staff is recommending the Council deny the appeal and uphold the ARC’s approval of the
project (Attachment A, Resolution A). If the Council approves the project, the project will then
move on to be reviewed for the proposed airsp ace subdivision. If approved, 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 and the appeal.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres)
Present Use & Development Vacant
Land Use Designation Downtown Commercial (C-D)
Topography Relatively flat
Current Access From Higuera Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-3-H (Medium High Density Housing within the Downtown Historic
District) and San Luis Obispo Creek
East: C-D-H (Downtown Commercial within the Downtown Historic District)
West: C-R/C-D (Retail Commercial and Downtown Commercial)
South: C-D (Downtown Commercial)
Project Description
The project proposes to construct a new, four-story mixed-use project that includes:
18 residential units, ranging in size as follows: nine studios (428-450 s.f.), and six one-
bedroom (780-958 s.f.) and three two-bedroom (1,059-1,128 s.f.) multi-story townhouse
units. The applicant has not included affordable units as part of the project and will pay
the optional affordable housing in-lieu fees which will be used to fund affordable housing
elsewhere in the City consistent with Housing Element Appendix N, Table 2;
68 square feet of commercial space; and
A parking garage with 20 parking spaces (four spaces in tandem) (Attachment D, Project
Plans).
Packet Pg. 136
12
The project also includes a separate application for an airspace subdivision. The airspace
subdivision allows for the individual ownership of each of the residential and commercial units
and maintenance of the building and common shared spaces. As proposed, the project is
consistent with the City’s Subdivision Regulations which requires that each of the residential
units provide private open space, a common open space area, lockable storage areas for each unit
and an area in each unit for laundry facilities. The proposed subdivision will be reviewed at a
public hearing with the City’s Hearing Officer at a later date if the architectural component of the
project is approved.
Figure 1: Perspective view of the project from Higuera Street
Project Statistics
Item Proposed Zoning Standards
Setback
Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 5 feet 0 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 47 feet 50 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43.7% 100%
Density Units (DU) 11.46 14.04 (36 DU per acre)
Parking Spaces
Vehicle 20 12
Bicycle (long-term) 37 37
Bicycle (short-term) 1 1
DISCUSSION
Policy Guidance
The areas discussed below provide background information on the policy and regulatory
environment that shaped the review of the project. Although approval of the proposed project
would result in a building that is taller than adjacent development, staff’s analysis of the project
Packet Pg. 137
12
shows that it is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.
1. Downtown Development
The Land Use Element (LUE) has an entire chapter1 that discusses the vision and development
of Downtown. Part of the Downtown’s Role is described as the preferred location for retail uses
that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces.2 In regards
to design, projects in the downtown should have street level activities, contain upper floor
dwellings3, continuous storefronts, new buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing
development and not exceed 50 feet in height4, and have sidewalk appeal. This is a project that
does not have street frontage due to the configuration of the lots (a deep lot subdivision with an
existing parking lot at the front of the property, i.e a “flag lot”). As a result, some of these
policies can’t be applied without lot consolidation or other changes to property ownership and
configuration that have not been proposed or are within the scope of the City to require. Instead,
the developer configured the proposed development for the policies which are applicable to this
unique lot.
2. Housing
The Land Use Element (LUE) discusses that “Downtown is not only a commercial district, but
also a neighborhood. Its residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour
presence which enhances security and help the balance between jobs and h ousing in the
community.”5 As such, projects within the Downtown are encouraged and regulated to include
residential units. Housing Element Policy 6.2 states “New commercial developments in the
Downtown Core (C-D Zone) shall include housing, unless the City makes one of the following
findings: A) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or
employees; or B) The property’s shape, size, topography or other physical factor makes
construction of new dwellings infeasible.” Further “higher density housing should maintain high
quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private
open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in
special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the
1 General Plan, LUE Chapter 4.
2 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.1: Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social,
entertainment, and political center of the City for its residents, as well as home for those who live in its historic
neighborhoods. The City wants its urban core to be economi cally healthy, and realizes that private and public
investments in the Downtown support each other. Downtown should also provide a wide variety of professional and
government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is a preferred location for retail
uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and
commercial portions of Downtown should be a major tourist destination. Downtown's visitor appeal should be
based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, entertainment and numerous and varied visitor
accommodations.
3 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.20.2: Upper Floor Dwellings – existing residential uses shall be preserved and new
ones encouraged above the street level. This new housing will include a range of options and affordability levels.
4 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.20.4: Building Height. New buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing
development, shall respect views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and
should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic
pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height.
5 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.2.
Packet Pg. 138
12
Downtown Core.”6
The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects” which includes
mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses in which
nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of the
building. The project is a housing development project under the Act. Section 65589.5(j) of the
Act states that:
(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective
general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in
effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be
complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon
the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base
its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings
supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions
exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition
that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific,
adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based
on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions
as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.
3. Downtown Parking
The Zoning Regulations identify that the Downtown Core has different parking standards than
other areas of the City.7 The main difference is that a project and/or use located in the Downtown
can pay an in-lieu fee rather than provide parking on-site. LUE Policy 4.14 states that the City
shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments
in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core,
so people can walk rather than drive between points within the core. Additionally, the
Circulation Element (CE) includes goals and objectives to increase multi-modal transportation
within the City. The CE includes the following Transportation Goals (Section 1.6.1.):
1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while
reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of
achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality.
2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as
6 General Plan, HE Policy 7.2.
7 Zoning Regulations 17.16.060.H.
Packet Pg. 139
12
walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
The use of public transit, walking and biking are specifically supported by numerous policies in
Chapters 3 through 6 of the CE.
Project Review Background
The subject property is a
very unique situation in
the downtown. The site is
a legally subdivided L-
shaped flag lot that does
not have frontage along
Higuera Street and the
pole of the flag is subject
to an easement for parking
by the neighboring
property (see Figure 2).
The applicant submitted
their proposed project in
April of 2016. Staff
provided early feedback
to the applicant regarding
the architecture, colors
and use of materials. The applicant responded to the comments and resubmitted a modified
project in June 2016.
On August 15, 2016 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed
project and voted to continue review of the project to a later date and provided specific changes
they wanted to see made to the project. The direction included:
1) Reducing the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project,
2) Incorporating horizontal elements in the building facade, particularly on the vertical
towers,
3) Providing better transition between height of the project and The Creamery, and
4) Providing a holistic parking calculation for the project and the adjacent property
(Attachment G, 8-15-2016 ARC Staff Report).
On October 17, 2016 the ARC held a meeting to review the changes to the project. The ARC
considered the applicant’s responses to their direction and determined the project was consistent
with the direction provided, the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and
standards. The ARC unanimously approved the project 4:0 with a modified condition of approval
that requires the project to provide additional screening at the parking garage to reduce any
impacts of light trespass toward the residents (see below).
The final landscape building plans shall include additional shrubs and/or a low fence in
screening in front of the parking facing the creek to reduce the potential of light trespass
into the creek and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community
Figure 2: The subject site is outlined above; the crosshatched portion of the site
is under a parking easement for the property fronting Higuera Street.
Packet Pg. 140
12
Development Director.
Appeal
On October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to
approve the project (Attachment I, ARC Appeal). The appeal states that the ARC did not adhere
to the Community Design Guidelines for Downtown and that the project does not fit the
surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the appeal lists the following issues/concerns:
Overall Design
Scale/Height
Landscaping
Lighting and light trespass
Privacy and overlook
Noise
Parking not enclosed
Lack of Parking
Staff Analysis
Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning
Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines for Downtown (Chapter 4) and Multi -Family
Housing Design (Chapter 5, Section 5.4).
Overall Design
The Community Design Guidelines outline a series of characteristics that define downtown
materials and architecture details. 8 After review by staff and the ARC, the applicant modified the
design of the project to better complement the adjacent buildings which are composed of stucco
and tile roofing (to the west) and smooth stucco, corrugated metal roofing, wood siding and terra
cotta brick (to the east) (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A5.0). The project proposes to utilize
a smooth stucco finish, CMU, and terra cotta brick as exterior finishes. Terra cotta is one of the
original materials used on the Creamery (utilized on the east wall of Goshi’s restaurant). The
design was also modified to include more horizontal lines and variable roof heights to better
reflect architectural characteristics of Downtown.
Height and Scale:
The Community Design Guidelines state that multi-story buildings are desirable in the
downtown because they provide upper-floor residential units. Additionally, multi-story buildings
should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent
with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at
8 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 D.1 Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown
buildings involve several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as
smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are encouraged. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with
many design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple
(perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's
overall character. Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings…
Packet Pg. 141
12
the sidewalk edge.9 The Community Design Guidelines also state that new buildings that are
significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions10
and should provide upper story setbacks along the street.
As noted previously, the site is a very unusual property within the Downtown and does not face
any streets. The project site is set approximately 150 feet from the sidewalk along Higuera
Street, through a parking lot. As such, the overall form of the structure is unlike the traditional
historic façade of Downtown. The applicant has proposed a project that provides 18 upper -floor
residential units with parking and a small commercial space on the ground floor in place of
traditional storefronts (Attachment D, Project Plans, Sheets 3.0-3.4).
In addition to the unusual property location, the project is located in a neighborhood that varies
in form, scale and height. Along Higuera Street the neighborhood contains mainly single story
and two-story structures with three story structures located within 500 feet of the site (Patrick
James Building located at Higuera and Nipomo Streets and the Children’s Museum at the corner
of Nipomo and Monterey Streets). South of the site is the San Luis Obispo Creek and residential
neighborhood zoned medium-high density (R-3-H) which contains a variety of mostly one and
two-story residential units.
The proposed project is a four story building with a maximum height of 47 feet that steps down
eight feet along the east side of the structure to provide a transition into the adjacent structures at
the Creamery (Attachment D, Project Plans, Sheet A4.0). This is consistent with the Land Use
Element which states that generally, new buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height.11 The
design includes varying wall planes, articulation on all four sides, setbacks along portions of the
4th floor, and uses various materials and colors to complement the adjacent structures.
Consistent with infill development and multi-family design guidelines, the project includes
outdoor living space in the form of balconies and a landscaped common area along the creek side
of the project (Attachment D, Project Plans).12 Additionally, the project appears to be smaller in
scale from the street due to the large setback of the building from the street and location behind
existing structures. The closest adjacent structures are to east and west of the site and are each
two stories.
9 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B: Height, scale. Multi -story buildings are desirable because
they can provide opportunities for upper floor offices and residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential
customers for ground floor retail uses, which assists in maintaining their viability. Multi -story buildings should be
set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of
development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge.
10 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B.1b
11 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.20.4: Building Height. New buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing
development, shall respect views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and
should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic
pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height.
12 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.3 D: Outdoor living areas. The use of balconies, verandas,
porches and courtyards within the building form is strongly encouraged.
Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.4 C(3): Balconies, porches, and patios. The use of balconies,
porches, and patios as part of multi-family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These
elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures.
Packet Pg. 142
12
Privacy and Overlook
The Land Use Element states that new buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of
neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions
may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.13 The Housing Element and the Community
Design Guidelines encourage multi-family housing designs that include open space for the
residence such as patios, porches, and balconies.14 The proposed design includes several
balconies on the second and third floors that face towards San Luis Creek (Attachment D, Project
Plans). The proposed building minimum setback from the centerline of the creek is
approximately 50 feet and residential units along Dana street have a minimum setback of
approximately 25 feet. Combined, the proposed project will be at least 75 feet from the nearest
structure on Dana Street. Views towards these residences are largely blocked by trees located
within San Luis Creek (see Figure 3). The applicant has provided a shade analysis that shows the
project does not shade the adjacent properties during the hours of 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the
winter solstice which is consistent with Table 2 of the Conservation Open Space Element.15
Noise
All uses within the City are to comply with the City’s Noise Regulations found in Chapter 9.12
of the Municipal Code. The occupants of the proposed project are not anticipated to create
excessive noise as the project is designed as small residential units (studios, 1-bedrooms and 2-
13 General Plan, LUE Policy 2.3.9 (F) Compatible Development: Privacy and Solar Access - New buildings will
respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multi story
buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
14 General Plan, HE Policy 7.2: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design,
privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to
allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed -use developments or in housing
in the Downtown Core.
Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.4 C(3): Balconies, porches, and patios. The use of balconies,
porches, and patios as part of multi-family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These
elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to s tructures.
15 General Plan C/OS Element Solar Access Standards Table 2: Most roof areas and some south walls on upper
floors should be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice.
Figure 3: (Left) View from the site towards the residences on Dana Street; (Right) View from the second story
of the Creamery at the edge of the site facing northwest.
Packet Pg. 143
12
bedrooms) with the largest balcony of 176 square feet being attached to one of the studio units.
Noise from the parking garage shall be minimized with additional screening that is required as a
part of Condition No. 9. This condition is further discussed in the Lighting and Light Trespass
section below.
Landscaping
The Community Design Guidelines state that 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 if the
neighboring greenery is healthy and appropriate. The City encourages innovation in planting
design and choice of landscape materials.16 Conceptual landscaping plans are included in the
project proposal (Attachment D, Project Plans, Sheet L-1). The project proposes to plant a
drought tolerant landscape within the top of the creek bank that includes four large canopy shade
trees, smaller accent trees, shrubs and other perennials and groundcover. A path in decomposed
granite leads to outdoor seating areas within the plan. The remainder of the parcel will remain
natural with the existing species that grow within the San Luis Creek. The rendering in the
project plans also show the inclusion of climbing vines along the front façade and around the
walls of the parking area on the first floor to soften the impact of the building (Attachment D,
Project Plans, Sheets A5.0 to A5.3).
Lighting and Light Trespass
The City’s Zoning Regulations include Night Sky Preservation development standards. These
standards outline appropriate light fixtures, require that lighting shall be fully shielded, and
appropriate in height, intensity and scale for the project they are serving.17 Condition of approval
No. 5 states:
The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, 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 ensure 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.
This condition ensures that during the building plan review and final insp ection that all exterior
lighting, including landscape lighting, will match what is shown on plans and comply with the
City’s ordinance.
Concerns were raised during the ARC hearing and in the appeal regarding light trespass from
vehicles (as they enter and leave the parking area) and from security lighting since the parking
16 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6, Section 6.2 B(1).
17 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23 Night Sky Preservation. Section 17.23.050: New Development Standards.
Packet Pg. 144
12
garage is not fully enclosed. Staff identified this as an issue and recommended a condition that
required additional landscape screening along the north wall of the parking garage. The ARC
refined the condition to read as follows: The final building plans shall include additional
screening in front of the parking facing the creek to reduce the potential of light and noise
trespass into the creek and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director. This condition has been included as a part of draft resolution
to deny the appeal (Attachment A). As conditioned, the project complies with the City’s Night
Sky Preservation Ordinance.
Parking:
The Downtown-Commercial zone has its own parking standards that allow new development to
provide parking at a specific rate (based on the use) or pay in-lieu fees in place of providing
parking for a project on-site. These parking requirements are provided in Zoning Regulations
Section 17.16.060(H) (Attachment J). Based on these standards the project is required to have
twelve (12) parking spaces. The project provides twenty (20) parking spaces. The applicant is
requesting a reduction of one (1) parking space for the project consistent with Zoning
Regulations Section 17.16.060 H.7f (Attachment J). Staff is supportive of this reduction since the
site is located near public transportation and within walking distance to various services and
employment. With the reduction, the project has eleven (11) spaces for the residential and
commercial uses. Of these, the ARC also approved that four of the parking spaces could be
parked in tandem per Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060 L.1.18
The nine (9) additional parking spaces not used for the project will be used as off-site parking for
the Creamery. The proposed off-site parking allows for customer parking to be available for the
Creamery in a consolidated area and eliminates the need for a surface parking area which the
General Plan discourages in the Downtown. Parking off-site on a different parcel than the use is
allowed if the site that provides the parking is within 300 feet of the use and can be safely
accessed by the users.19 The ARC considered and approved this request on July 18, 2016 as part
of their review of the renovation and new construction at the Creamery that includes the removal
of an existing surface parking lot.
NOTICING
Various notices were provided for the project consistent with the City’s Municipal Code for each
ARC hearing (August 15, 2016 and October 17, 2016) and the City Council hearing (January 17,
2017). Notices for each of these hearings included a poster with the project description posted at
the site, a newspaper notice in the Tribune and postcards were sent to both tenants and owners of
property located within 300 feet of the site. The notices were provided ten days prior to the
scheduled hearing dates, including the City Council meeting.
18 Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060 L.1: When parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants
of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director
19 Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060 F: Such off-site parking shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or
conditionally allowed, or within an office, commercial or manufacturing zone. It shall be within 300 feet of the use
and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or
hazardous.
Packet Pg. 145
12
CONCURRENCES
The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their
conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project
if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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
on an existing developed property and is served by 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.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project, based on
findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City
regulations and policies (Attachment B, Resolution B).
Attachments:
a - Resolution A - Appeal denied
b - Resolution B - Appeal upheld
c - Vicinity Map
d - Project Plans
e - 8-15-2016 Staff Report & Continuance letter
f - 08-15-2016 ARC Minutes
g - 10-17-2016 Staff Report & Resolution
h - 10-17-2016 ARC Minutes
i - ARC Appeal
j - Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(H)
Packet Pg. 146
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY DONNA
DUERK & URSULA BISHOP) THEREBY APPROVING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING 18
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE, WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED
IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS
DATED JANUARY 17, 2017 (560 HIGUERA STREET, APPL-4063-2016)
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 August 15, 2016, with a three-one vote to continue the project, with
direction; and
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 17, 2016, with a four-zero vote approving the project, subject to
the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-3020-2016, Creekside Lofts, LP, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop, the appellants, filed
an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on October 17, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a pub lic hearing
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January
7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4063-2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula
Bishop, the appellants; 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-4063-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission
decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-3020-2016):
1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
Packet Pg. 147
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
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. That the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.2 (Downtown
Residential) because it provides new residential uses, allowing 24-hour presence and balance
between jobs and housing in the community.
3. That the project is consistent with the Housing Element Policy 5.3 and 5.4 because the project
provides housing above ground-level commercial, is located close to activity centers in the
downtown and provides variety of residential types, sizes, and styles of dwellings.
4. That the project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3
because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use
of public facilities and services and to improve the City’s jobs/housing balance.
5. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by
providing architectural interest and style which complements the character and scale of the
existing neighborhood.
6. That the 10% parking reduction is consistent with the Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060
H.7f because the project provides residential units within the Downtown Commercial District.
7. That, as conditioned, the tandem parking is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section
17.16.060 L.1 because the parking will be identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a
designated dwelling.
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 on an existing developed property.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project, thereby granting final approval of
the application APPL-4063-2016 for a new mixed-use project that includes 18 residential units, a
commercial space and parking within the Downtown Commercial zone, 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
Packet Pg. 148
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
(“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. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall note the use of smooth finished stucco on the
exterior of the building.
5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, 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 el evations 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 ensure 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.
6. 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 may be required to confirm that proposed screening will
be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building
modifications and improvements.
7. Tandem parking spaces shall be identified on plans submitted for a building permit as being
assigned to specific dwelling units within the project.
8. 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
Packet Pg. 149
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 4
R ______
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
9. The final building plans shall include additional screening in front of the parking facing the
creek to reduce the potential of light and noise trespass into the creek and residential areas
north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
10. 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.
11. 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.
Engineering Division – Public Works/ Community Development
12. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC
12.16.050
13. The project is located in the Mission Style Sidewalk District of downtown. Any replaced
sections of sidewalk or driveway approach shall be constructed in the Mission Style per city
standards #4220.
14. The building plan submittal shall show and note that any sections of damaged or displaced
curb, gutter, or sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced per City Engineering Standards and to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
15. The building plan submittal shall show the existing driveway approach to be upgraded or
replaced to comply with City and ADA standards. Current city and ADA standards require a
4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
Packet Pg. 150
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 5
R ______
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades.
Services to the new structures shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall
be shown or noted.
18. 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.
19. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan. The building plan
submittal shall include a final hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report in accordance with the
Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The report shall include,
as a minimum, a response or discussion of the bullet items in Section 2.3.1 of the Drainage
Design Manual.
20. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled
structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
requirements and the city’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter
17.84.
21. This property is located in an AE and AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone. The proposed structure is
located in the AE floodzone. The structure shall be floodproofed to an elevation that is at least
one foot above the BFE. Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional
structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged.
22. Any new building service equipment shall be protected or elevated above the BFE in
accordance with the Floodplain Management Regulations and adopted Building Code. The
elevator, design, and equipment room shall be designed in accordance with FEMA Technical
Bulletin 4 / November 2010.
23. 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 final Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the
City’s Website.
Packet Pg. 151
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 6
R ______
24. 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 building permit issuance
or final inspection approvals.
25. The building plan shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements
for reference.
26. A quit claim agreement or other acceptable documentation shall be recorded and/or provided
for the removal of the existing 6’ PG&E easement per PM 54-90 prior to building permit
issuance.
27. A new creek access easement shall be provided to the City the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, Community Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager prior to
building permit issuance. The easement shall provide for a reasonable staging area along the
creek.
28. The building plan submittal shall include final details of the creek patio area improvements
including the proposed landscaping. The final site improvement plan and landscape plan shall
honor the proposed new access, staging area, and creek easement to the satisfaction of the
City. The patio improvement shall be designed to accommodate maintenance vehicles and/or
shall include readily moveable patio furniture/fixtures. The final planting/tree placement plan
shall honor the access requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Community
Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager.
29. A creek maintenance agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City and
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the City’s Natural Resource
Manager prior to building permit issuance.
30. The developer shall exhaust reasonable efforts to eradicate and control the expansion of any
known non-native and invasive species within the creek corridor to the satisfaction of the
Natural Resources Manager. These plants may require treatment in advance and prior to
commencing with ground disturbing activities and grading.
31. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter
of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the creek corridor and 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. Tree removals and/or pruning may require approval by the City Arborist and/or
Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees.
Packet Pg. 152
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 7
R ______
Utilities Department
32. 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.
33. The project’s commercial and residential uses shall be metered separately. All residential units
are to be individually metered. Privately owned sub-meters may be provided for residential
condominiums upon approval of the Utilities Director or her/his designee. The CCR’s for the
property/homeowner association shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association
(or P/HOA contracted service) and each condominium billed according to water use.
Fire Department
34. Due to the lack of two Fire Department aerial fire apparatus access roads to the proposed
building (2013 California Fire Code, Appendix D), the project will require either Type V-A
or Type II-B construction throughout, along with a full NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
Code Requirements
Building Division
35. New buildings citywide shall incorporate the following construction methods and materials:
Ignition resistant exterior wall coverings; Fire sprinkler protection in attic areas (at least one
“pilot head”); Ember resistant vent systems for attics and under floor areas, protected eaves,
and Class ‘A’ roof coverings as identified in the California Building Code Chapter 7A.
Utilities Department
36. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors
and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided
with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats,
equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
Packet Pg. 153
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 8
R ______
37. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared
drought emergency estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum
applied water allowance (or MAWA) (Resolution 10628 (2015)). 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.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
________________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 154
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 9
R ______
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. 155
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AN APPEAL THEREBY
DENYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT
INCLUDING 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A COMMERCIAL SPACE
WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE, WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 17, 2017 (560 HIGUERA STREET,
APPL-4063-2016)
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 August 15, 2016, with a three-one vote to continue the project, with
direction; and
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 17, 2016, with a four-zero vote approving the project, subject to
the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-3020-2016, Creekside Lofts, LP, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop, the appellants, filed
an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on October 17, 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
7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4063-2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula
Bishop, the appellants; 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-4063-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission
decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-3020-2016), based on the
following findings [NOTE: THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
FINDINGS TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROJECT MUST BE
Packet Pg. 156
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT CODE § 65589.5(J)]:
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
because the project’s height and scale does not provide a smooth transition between the
immediate neighborhood of 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 uphold the appeal thereby denying the application of APPL-
4063-2016.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 157
12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM
________________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 158
12
C-R
C-D
C-D
R-3-H
O-HO-H
R-3-H
O-H-PD
C-R
R-3-S
R-3-H
PF-H
C-D
C-D-S-H
C-D-H
R-2-S
R-3
C-D-H-PDR-1-PD
DANAHIGUERANI
P
O
M
O
VICINITY MAP APPL-4278-2016560 Higuera St ¯
Packet Pg. 159
12
DateScaleSheetA0.008/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CACOVER SHEET(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEENSAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPacket Pg. 16012
Packet Pg. 16112
DateScaleSheet08/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)VICINITY MAPA1.0PROJECT STATISTICSCONTINUEDALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO: (A) THE MINIMUM STANDARDSOF THE LATEST EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODEAND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BY THE I.C.C. WHICHHAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCY; (B)ALL REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES OF ALL LOCALGOVERNING AGENCIES; (C) ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONSREQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCIES; AND (D) ALLCALIFORNIA STATE CODE AMENDMENTS (BUILDING STANDARDSCODE) TITLE 24.ALL CODES REFERENCED SHALL BE CALIFORNIA EDITIONS. THECODES REFERENCED IN THESE PLANS ARE AS FOLLOWS:1. 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC).2. 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC).3. 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC).4. 2013 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC).5. 2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC).6. 2013 CALIFORNIA STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION STDS.(TITLE 24).7. 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC).8. 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CGBC).9. 2013 BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.10. NATIONAL FIRE CODES (NFPA).11. SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE (SLOMC).MAXIMUM AREA OF OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION(CBC TABLE 705.8)FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE PROTECTED ALLOWABLEAREAO TO LESS THAN 3' YES/NO NOTPERMITTED3' TO LESS THAN 5'NO15%3' TO LESS THAN 5'YES15%5' TO LESS THAN 10'NO25%5' TO LESS THAN 10'YES25%10' TO LESS THAN 15'*NO45%10' TO LESS THAN 15'*YES45%15' TO LESS THAN 20'*NO75%15' TO LESS THAN 20'*YES75%20' OR GREATER YES/NO NO LIMIT* THE AREA OF OPENINGS IN AN OPEN PARKING STRUCTUREWITH A FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 10 FEET OR GREATERSHALL NOT BE LIMITED PER CBC TABLE 705.8, FOOTNOTE GBUILDING COMPONENT PROTECTIONNOTE: INCIDENTAL ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES PER CBC 508.2ARE MITIGATED BY PROPOSED AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHINGSYSTEM.EXTERIOR WALLS: NON-RATEDINTERIOR WALLS WITHIN A SINGLE OCCUPANCY: NON-RATEDINTERIOR WALLS BETWEENDWELLING UNITS: 1-HR FIRE PARTITIONINTERIOR WALLS BETWEENR-2 & S-2 OCCUPANCIES: 1-HR FIRE BARRIERSTAIR EXIT ENCLOSURE WALLS: 1-HR FIRE BARRIERFLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES WITHINA SINGLE DWELLING UNIT: NON-RATEDFLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES BETWEEN DWELLING UNITS: 1-HRNORTHSITEFLOOD GATE INFORMATIONTHIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AE FLOODZONE.THE GROUND FLOOR, CONSISTING OF PARKING, COMMERCIALSPACE, LOBBY AND EXIT STAIRWAY, SHALL BE A MIX OF "WET" AND"DRY" FLOODPROOFED. THE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND LOBBYSHALL BE DRY FLOODPROOFED WHILE THE GARAGE AND EXITSTAIR ENCLOSURE SHALL BE WET FLOODPROOF TO ALLOW FLOODWATERS TO CARRY TO THE CREEK.DETAILS FOR THESE ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OFBUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.Packet Pg. 16212
Packet Pg. 16312
DateScaleSheet08/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)A1.3GREENPOINT CHECKLISTGREENPOINT CHECKLISTPacket Pg. 16412
/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(7232)%$1.7232)%$1.'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6$5&+,7(&76-2+1621$9(18(6$1/8,62%,632&$ 3 ) 7+20$6(-(66$5&+, 7(&7&[ [ 55,678',2$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6,7($(5,$/9,(:+,*8(5$675((71,3202675((7'$1$675((7(;,67,1*02%,/(+20(7+(&5($0(5<
6287+72:1&5((.Packet Pg. 16512
AA6.0BA6.07+(&5($0(5<3$5.,1**$5$*($'-$&(17&200(5&,$/+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(63,.(6(;,67,1*02%,/(+20($'-$&(17&200(5&,$/ ( $'-$&(173$5.,1*
)/2:(56+23'225352326('6($7,1*$5($),5(5,6(5&/26(787,/,7<5220%,.(/2&.(5%,.(5$&.75$6+(1&/2685( ( 75$6+(1&/2685(
$332;/2&$7,212) ( ),5(+<'5$171A6.1'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$&21&(378$/6,7(3/$1 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 29(5$//$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
127( 1232/(02817('/,*+76$5(352326('$///,*+766+$//%(02817('72%8,/',1* 6+$//%('$5.6.<&203/,$17Packet Pg. 16612
3$5.,1**$5$*(AA6.0BA6.0/2%%<75$6+
3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(
67$,5
)/2:(56+23(/(&
/,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($%,.(5$&.%,.(/2&.(5
1A6.13523(57</,1(
02725&<&/(3$5.,1*'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 &21&(378$/),567)/2253/$1
Packet Pg. 16712
AA6.0BA6.01A6.1)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.
3523(57</,1(675*675*75$6+675*675*675*6)6)6)6) 6)6)6)6)6)6)6) 6)6)6) 6)6)6)6)
23(1,1*672%(3527(&7('/,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($
675*&29(5(':$/.:$<)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.)/$7678',2)/$7 678',2'(&.67$,5)/$7678',2/2%%<(/(9675*675*675*)/$7678',2'(&.'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76
%,.(5$&.6725$*(&21&(378$/6(&21')/2253/$1Packet Pg. 16812
AA6.07+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+BA6.0&29(5(':$/.:$</2%%<(/(9'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.
67$,56)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/ 6)%(' 6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%(' 6)67)/6)1')/6)%(' 6)67)/ 6)1')/ 6)%(' 6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/ 6)1')/6)%(' 6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)6) 6)6)6) 6) 6)
23(1,1*672%(3527(&7('1A6.1/,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($75$6+'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 &21&(378$/7+,5'3/$1
Packet Pg. 16912
AA6.0BA6.07+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+'(&.
5RRIEHORZ5RRIEHORZ2)),&('(&.6)6)67$,56/($',1*727+(522)1A6.1/,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($5RRIEHORZ'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 &21&(378$/)2857+)/2253/$1
Packet Pg. 17012
67$,56/($',1*727+(522)0(&+$1,&$/81,7667$,572:(5522)3$5$3(7:$// 7<3 (/(9$72572:(5522)6&5((1/2:(5522)'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$522)3/$1 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 &21&(378$/522)3/$1
Packet Pg. 17112
FIRST FLOOR0"LOWER ROOF43'-11"SECOND FLOOR12'-0"THIRD FLOOR23'-5"4TH FLOOR34'-10"DASH STUCCOFINISHTERRACOTTA BRICK TOCOMPLIMENT CREAMERYBRICK WALL NEARGOSHI'SDASH STUCCO FINISHCMU BLOCKALUMINUMWINDOWSPROPOSED HEIGHT47'-0"SCREENEDMECHANICAL UNITSWOOD GUARDRAILORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINECLIMBING VINEADJ. BLDGSHOWN TRANSPARENTFOR CLARITYGROWING BUSHESHEDGEREMOVED PERFORATEDCORTEN STEELREDUCEDPROPOSED HEIGHTREDUCEDHEIGHTVISIBILITYOBSTRUCTIONWINDOWSUBSTITUTIONMATERIAL COLORCHANGEREMOVEDTOWER ELEMENTSIGNAGEREMOVEDPROPOSED ELEVATIONPROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN - FOR REFERENCE ONLYORIGINAL SUBMITTALCREAMERY APPROX. HEIGHEXISTING CREAMERYBUILDING28'-5"8'-0"2'-2"METAL CANOPY5'-0"2'-2"HORIZONTAL BANDING AT FLOORLEVEL. CONTINUES THROUGH MULTIPLEMATERIALS TO ACCENTUATESHORIZONTAL ELEMENTS33'-5"APPROX. 42'-0"8'-1"STRGSTRGTRASHSTRGSTRGSTRGCOVEREDWALKWAYFLAT 9STUDIODECKSTRGSTAIR 2FLAT 1STUDIOLOBBYELEV.STRGSTRGDateScaleSheetA4.008/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN1/16" = 1'-0"560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAELEVATIONS(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)FRONT PRESENTATION ELEVATION0'4'8'16'32'ORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINEPacket Pg. 17212
FIRST FLOOR0"LOWER ROOF43'-11"SECOND FLOOR12'-0"THIRD FLOOR23'-5"4TH FLOOR34'-10"DASH STUCCO FINISH (TYP.)TERRACOTTA BRICK TOCOMPLIMENT CREAMERYBRICK WALL NEAR GOSHI'SWOODGUARDRAILALUMINUMWINDOWSPROPOSED HEIGHT47'-0"SCREENEDMECHANICAL UNITS3'-1"9'-1"11'-5"11'-5"12'-0"OPENINGS TO BEPROTECTEDADJ. BLDGSHOWN TRANSPARENTFOR CLARITYADJ. BLDGSHOWN TRANSPARENTFOR CLARITYREMOVED PERFORATEDCORTEN STEELREDUCEDPROPOSED HEIGHTMATERIALCHANGEMATERIAL COLORCHANGEREDUCEDHEIGHTFUTURE SIGNAGE TBD.METAL CANOPYADDITIONMETAL CANOPYPROPOSED ELEVATIONPROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN - FOR REFERENCE ONLYORIGINAL SUBMITTALEXISTING CREAMERYBUILDINGBUILDING SHOWNSEMI-OPAQUEFOR DEPTH CLARITY8'-0"ORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINEORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINE2'-2"REDUCEDELEMENT HEIGHTAPPROX. 28'-5"STEPPEDELEMENT BACKFLAT 1STUDIOCOVEREDWALKWAYELEV.FLAT 3STUDIOFLAT 2STUDIODECKDECKDECKLOBBYDateScaleSheetA4.108/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN1/16" = 1'-0"560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAELEVATIONS(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)EAST PRESENTATION ELEVATION0'4'8'16'32'Packet Pg. 17312
),567)/225/2:(5522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
7+)/225
352326('+(,*+7
'$6+678&&2'$6+678&&2),1,6+&08%/2&.$/80,180:,1'2:60(7$/&$123<*52:,1*%86+(6+('*(
6&5((1('0(&+$1,&$/81,76'$6+678&&2),1,6+7(55$&277$%5,&.72&203/,0(17&5($0(5<%5,&.:$//1($5*26+,
6:22'*8$5'5$,/5(029('3(5)25$7('&257(167((/5('8&('352326('+(,*+70$7(5,$/&+$1*(0$7(5,$/&+$1*(0$7(5,$/&2/25&+$1*(9,6,%,/,7<2%6758&7,210$7(5,$/&+$1*(5('8&('+(,*+7352326('(/(9$7,21352326('1')/2253/$1)255()(5(1&(21/<25,*,1$/68%0,77$/(;,67,1*&5($0(5<%8,/',1*$3352;
&/,0%,1*9,1(25,*,1$/68%0,77$/'(3,&7('%<%2/'5('/,1(%8,/',1*6+2:16(0,23$48()25'(37+&/$5,7<25,*,1$/68%0,77$/'(3,&7('%<%2/'5('/,1(
67(33('%$&.(/(0(17)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.'(&.)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.)/$7678',2&29(5(':$/.:$<675*'(&.675*'(&.'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$(/(9$7,216 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 1257+35(6(17$7,21(/(9$7,21
Packet Pg. 17412
),567)/225/2:(5522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
7+)/225
352326('+(,*+7
'$6+678&&2),1,6+ 7<3 :22'*8$5'5$,/$/80,180:,1'2:60(7$/&$123<)(1&(&/,0%,1*9,1(
$'-%/'*6+2:175$163$5(17)25&/$5,7<&08%/2&.7(55$&277$%5,&.72&203/,0(17&5($0(5<%5,&.:$//1($5*26+,
65(029('3(5)25$7('&257(167((/5('8&('352326('+(,*+75('8&('+(,*+70$7(5,$/&+$1*(0$7(5,$/&2/25&+$1*(352326('(/(9$7,21352326('1')/2253/$1)255()(5(1&(21/<25,*,1$/68%0,77$/25,*,1$/68%0,77$/'(3,&7('%<%2/'5('/,1(+25,=217$/%$1',1*$7)/225/(9(/&217,18(67+528*+08/7,3/(0$7(5,$/672$&&(178$7(6+25,=217$/(/(0(176
25,*,1$/68%0,77$/$3352;
)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7 678',2'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.67$,5675*675*675*&29(5(':$/.:$<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$(/(9$7,216 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 :(6735(6(17$7,21(/(9$7,21
Packet Pg. 17512
1DateScaleSheetA5.008/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEENNTS560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPERSPECTIVE 1(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PERSPECTIVE VIEW 1Packet Pg. 17612
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1176+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9( )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 3(563(&7,9(9,(:Packet Pg. 17712
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1176+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9( )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 3(563(&7,9(9,(:Packet Pg. 17812
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1176+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9( )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 3(563(&7,9(Packet Pg. 17912
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9( )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 3(563(&7,9(9,(:Packet Pg. 18012
DateScaleSheetA5.508/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPERSPECTIVE 6(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PERSPECTIVE - CREAMERY CORRIDOR VIEWPacket Pg. 18112
EXISTING PALM TREETO REMAIN6DateScaleSheetA5.608/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPHOTO VISUALIZATION(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PHOTO VISUALIZATION - FROM HIGUERA STREETPacket Pg. 18212
LINE OFPREVIOUSLY APPROVED2-STORY FARMERS BUILDINGDateScaleSheetA5.708/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPHOTO VISUALIZATION(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PHOTO VISUALIZATION - FROM CREAMERYPacket Pg. 18312
),567)/225/2:(5522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
7+)/225
)/$7678',27+7+3$5.,1**$5$*('(&.3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(7232)%$1.%8,/',1*6(7%$&.$'-$&(17&200(5&,$/352326('+(,*+7
6&5((1('0(&+$1,&$/81,76&5((.),567)/225/2:(5522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
7+)/225
7+7+)/$7678',23$5.,1**$5$*(7+7+7+7+7+7+)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',23523(57</,1(7+(&5($0(5<75$,/(53$5.352326('+(,*+7
2)),&(3523(57</,1(7+)/$7678',2675*675*6&5((1('0(&+$1,&$/81,76'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1
+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6(&7,216 )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76
&21&(378$/%8,/',1*6(&7,21$&21&(378$/%8,/',1*6(&7,21%
Packet Pg. 18412
),567)/225/2:(5522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
7+)/225
352326('+(,*+7
'$1$67
(67,0$7('&5((.'(37+
50$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7%8,/',1*/,0,7/,1(7232)%$1.72+,*8(5$67&85%
$3352;,0$7('
&'0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+73523(57</,1(
(67,0$7('75((+(,*+73523(57</,1(+,*8(5$67(67,0$7('+(,*+73(5&,7<67$1'$5'
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6$5&+,7(&76-2+1621$9(18(6$1/8,62%,632&$ 3 ) 7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&[ [ 55,678',2$ 6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6,7(6(&7,21$Packet Pg. 18512
7+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(307+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(307+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1( $0'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6+$',1*678'< )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 6800(562/67,&(6+$',1*678'<Packet Pg. 18612
7+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1( $07+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(307+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(30'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6+$',1*678'< )250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 :,17(562/67,&(6+$',1*678'<Packet Pg. 18712
Packet Pg. 18812
Packet Pg. 18912
Packet Pg. 19012
Packet Pg. 19112
Packet Pg. 19212
Packet Pg. 19312
Packet Pg. 19412
DateScaleSheet07/28/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAFORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTSL-1LANDSCAPE PLANWATER CONSERVATION NOTESLARGE CANOPY SHADE TREESarbutus 'marina' / 'MARINA' ARBUTUSLcassia leptophylla / GOLDEN MEDALLION TREELlagerstroemia indica 'nachez / CRAPE MYRTLE (WHITE)Lmagnolia grandiflora 'majestic beauty' / SOUTHERN MAGNOLIAMmaytenus boarla / MAYTEN TREEMmelaleuca quinquinervia / CAJEPUT TREELSMALL ACCENT TREESacer palmatum 'bloodgood' / 'BLOODGOOD' JAPANESE MAPLE Meriobotrya deflexa / BRONZE LOQUATLmagnolia soulangeana / SAUCER MAGNOLIA (MULTI)MSHRUBS PERENNIALScallistemon 'little john' / DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH Lchondropetalum tectorum / CAPE RUSH Lcordyline australis 'red sensation' / NEW ZEALAND CABBAGE TREE Lcuphea hyssopifolia / FALSE HEATHER Mescallonia 'newport dwarf' / NEWPORT DWARF ESCALLONIA Mliriope muscari / BIG BLUE LILY TURF Mliriope muscari 'evergreen giant' / 'EVERGREEN GIANT' LILY TURF Mliriope 'silvery sunproof' / VARIEGATED LILY TURFMnandina domestica 'fire power' / HEAVENLY BAMBOOMrumohra adiantiformis / LEATHERLEAF FERNMstrelitzia reginae / BIRD OF PARADISEMGROUNDCOVERcoprosma 'tequila sunrise' / MIRROR PLANT Ldianella revoluta 'little rev / BLUE FLAX LILY Lerigeron karvinskianus / FLEABANE Lfestuca malrei / ATLAS FESCUE Lheuchera 'electric lime' / FANCY-LEAF CORAL BELLSMheuchera 'southern comfort' / SOUTHERN COMFORT CORAL BELLSMhosta sp. / VARIEGATED PLAINTAIN LILYMlysimachia nummularia 'aurea' / CREEPING JENNY SHADE--thymus serpyllum / MOTHER-OF-THYMEMverbena tapien 'blue violet' / (NO COMMON NAME)--MULCHMULCH ALL GROUND COVER AND PLANTER AREAS WI TH 3" MINIMUM LAYER 'WALK-ON' BARK OR DECORATIVE BEACH PEBBLE.WATER-USE EVALUATION OF PLANT MATERIALSWATER USE OF PROPOSED PLANTS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED USING THE "WATER USECLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPETHE FOLLOWING WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THIS PROJECT:xWATER CONSERVING PLANTS, DEFINED AS "LOW" IN THE "WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OFLANDSCAPE SPECIES" (WUCOLS III, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION),SHALL BE UTILIZED IN 75% OF THE TOTAL PLANT AREA.xIRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE SEPARATED INTO DISTINCT HYDROZONES BASED ON PLANTMATERIAL TYPES, EXPOSURE AND ORIENTATION.xSOIL AMENDMENTS AND MULCH SHALL BE UTILIZED TO IMPROVE WATER HOLDINGCAPACITY OF SOIL.xAUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL UTILIZE "SMART CONTROLLER" TECHNOLOGY WITHWATER BUDGETING FEATURE TO ADJUST WATER APPLICATION BASED ON SOIL MOISTUREAND/OR LOCAL WEATHER DATA.xLAWN IS LIMITED TO ACTIVE-USE AREAS.STATEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING IRRIGATION DESIGNTHE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF IRRIGATION DESIGN UTILIZED ON THIS PROJECT ARE DIRECTEDSPECIFICALLY AS CONSERVING WATER AND IMPROVING THEEFFICIENCY OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM:xALL IRRIGATION SHALL BE DRIP OR DRIPLINE EMITTERS. NO OVERHEAD SPRAY HEADS WILLBE USED.xIRRIGATION HYDROZONES SHALL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO WATER NEEDS ANDWEATHER.xUTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM MASTER VALVE.xUTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM "SMART" CONTROLLER WITH WATER BUDGETINGFEATURE.xUTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM FLOW SENSOR.xUTILIZATION OF RAIN SHUT-OFF DEVICE CONNECTED TO IRRIGATION CONTROLLER.TO HELP MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY AS INTENDED IN THE DESIGN, IRRIGATIONSYSTEM SHALL BE TESTED AND MAINTAINED ON A REGULARBASIS BY THE MAINTENANCE STAFF.PLANT LISTLANDSCAPE WATER USE SUMMARYGROUND COVERDG PATHWAYSHRUBSSMALL ACCENT TREESLARGE CANOPY TREEOUTDOOR SEATING AREADG PATHWAY570 HIGUERASTAIRSTRASHLOBBYPARKING AREAREFER TO CIVIL PLANSFOR DRAINAGE INFO.20200100100611x17 SHEET SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"TRUENORTHSAN LUIS CREEKTHE CREAMERYFARMERS BLD GTHECREAMERYPacket Pg. 19512
Packet Pg. 19612
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: A mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial space with the
Downtown Commercial zone.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 560 Higuera BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3020-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) based on findings, and subject
to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Creekside Lofts, LP
Representative Steve Rigor, Architect
Submittal Date 4/8/2016
Complete Date 7/7/2016
Zoning C-D (Downtown Commercial)
General Plan General Retail
Site Area 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a new, four story mixed-use building with 68 square feet of
commercial/retail space, 18 residential units, and 20 parking spaces within the Downtown
Commercial Zone. The applicant is also requesting a 10% parking reduction and 4 tandem 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: August 15, 2016
Item Number: 2
ARC2 - 1Packet Pg. 197
12
ARCH-3020-2016
560 Higuera Street
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting:
Site Size 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres)
Present Use & Development Vacant
Land Use Designation Downtown Commercial (C-D)
Topography Relatively flat
Current Access From Higuera Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-3-H (Medium High Density Housing within the Downtown
Historic District) and San Luis Obispo Creek
East: C-D-H (Downtown Commercial within the Downtown Historic
District)
West: C-R/C-D (Retail Commercial and Downtown Commercial)
South: C-D (Downtown Commercial)
2.2 Project Description
The project proposes to construct a new, four-story mixed-use project that includes:
• 18 residential units: 9 studios, and 6 one-bedroom and 3 two-bedroom multi-story
townhouse units;
• 68 square feet of commercial space; and
• A parking garage with 20 parking spaces (four spaces in tandem) (Attachment 3, Project
Plans).
The project also includes a separate application for an airspace subdivision that will be reviewed
at a later date once the project has been approved by the ARC.
2.3 Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setback
Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 5 feet 0 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) ~49 feet 50 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43.7% 100%
Density Units (DU) 11.46 14.04 (36 DU per acre)
Parking Spaces
Vehicle 20 12
Bicycle (long-term) 37 37
Bicycle (short-term) 1 1
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 6/7/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning
Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Downtown (Chapter 4), Infill
Development and Multi-family Housing Design.
ARC2 - 2Packet Pg. 198
12
ARCH-3020-2016
560 Higuera Street
Page 3
3.1 Street Orientation 1: The subject property is a very unique situation in the downtown. The
site is an L-shaped flag lot that does not have frontage along Higuera Street. The pole of the flag
lot is utilized for parking by the neighboring property (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A2.0).
As such the proposed structure cannot be located at the back of sidewalk.
3.2 Height and Scale 2: The CDG state that multi-story buildings are desirable in the downtown
because they provide upper-floor residential units. Additionally multi-story buildings should be
set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the
historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the
sidewalk edge. The CDG also states that new buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than
adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions 3 and should provide upper story
setbacks along the street.
Consistent with the CDG, the project provides 18 upper-floor residential units, however due to
the location of the site, the applicant has located parking and a small commercial space on the
first floor of the structure in place of storefronts. The project site is set approximately 150 feet
from the sidewalk, through a parking lot, and providing a street façade is not practical for the
project. Instead the project takes advantage of its proximity to the Creamery and provides
pedestrian access to and from the proposed project and the Creamery (Attachment 3, Project
Plans, Sheet 2.0).
The surrounding development pattern varies in scale and height. Along Higuera Street the
neighborhood contains single story and two-story structures. The site is also located south of San
Luis Obispo Creek and a medium-high density residential zone (R-3-H) which contains a variety
of mostly one and two-story residential units. The applicant has provided a rendering that
illustrates the project as viewed from Higuera Street (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A5.5).
The closest adjacent structures are to east and west of the site and are each two stories.
The project is four-stories with a maximum height of 49 feet, 2 inches. The applicant has designed
the project with varying wall planes, articulation on all four sides, setbacks along portions of the
4th floor, and uses various materials and colors to complement the adjacent structures. The project
also includes outdoor living space in the form of balconies and a landscaped common area along
the creek side of the project.4 Additionally, the project appears to be diminished in scale due to
the large setback of the building from the street and location behind existing structures and trees.
ARC Discussion Item: As discussed above, the project includes many of the elements described
in the CDG related to scale and massing in the Downtown. Due to the site’s unique location and
the character of the surrounding neighborhood the ARC should discuss if the project provides
appropriate transition with the neighborhood and adjacent buildings.
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 A
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B.1b
4 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.3 D: Outdoor living areas. The use of balconies, verandas, porches
and courtyards within the building form is strongly encouraged.
ARC2 - 3Packet Pg. 199
12
ARCH-3020-2016
560 Higuera Street
Page 4
3.3 Façade Design 5: The CDG discusses that new structures should provide storefront windows,
doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that
complement existing structures. As noted in Section 3.2, the proposed structure is not located
along a street and does not provide storefronts as part of the project.
3.4 Materials and Architectural Details: The CDG outlines a series of characteristics that define
downtown materials and architecture details. The CDG also notes that materials should
complement those on significant adjacent buildings.6 After discussion with staff, the applicant
modified the materials and colors of the project to better complement the adjacent buildings which
are composed of stucco and tile roofing (to the west) and smooth stucco, corrugated metal roofing,
wood siding and terra cotta brick (to the east) (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A7.0). The
project proposes to utilize a dash stucco finish, CMU, and perforated corten metal panels as
exterior finishes. Staff recommends Condition No. 3 that states that the project shall use smooth
finished stucco.
ARC Discussion Item: The ARC should discuss the use of the perforated corten metal siding on
the project within the downtown. The CDG considers the use of corrugated sheet metal in the
downtown as inappropriate,7 however the project is adjacent to the Creamery that utilizes
corrugated metal roofing and proposes to include metal siding as part of the renovations of the
site.
Figure 1: View from Higuera Street towards the project
5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 C
6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 D.1 Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown
buildings involve several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as smooth
troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are encouraged. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many design
features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple (perhaps more
monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's overall character.
Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings…
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 D.1
ARC2 - 4Packet Pg. 200
12
ARCH-3020-2016
560 Higuera Street
Page 5
3.5 Parking: The project provides all the parking required for the project as well as additional
spaces. The applicant is requesting a reduction of 1 parking space for the project as described in
Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 H.7f; in order to facilitate housing development in the
downtown, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for any residential element of a
project in the CD district by 10% or one space. The project includes a total of 20 spaces with 11
spaces for residential use (1 less than required) and 9 spaces as off-site parking for the Creamery.
On July 18, 2016 the ARC approved off-site parking for the Creamery consistent with Section
17.16.060 F of the Zoning Regulations (off-site parking shall be within a zone where the use is
allowed or conditionally allowed, be within 300 feet of the use and shall not be separated from
the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous).
Four of the parking spaces will be provided in tandem. When parking spaces are identified for the
exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem
subject to the approval of the Community Development Director (Zoning Regulations, Section
17.16.060 L.1). Other downtown projects have been approved for residential tandem parking
including Pacific Courtyards. The majority of the parking is for residential use and staff
recommends the ARC support the tandem parking with Condition No. 7 that tandem spaces shall
be identified on plans submitted for a building permit as being assigned to specific dwelling units.
Staff also recommends Condition No. 9, which states that the final landscape plan shall include
additional shrubs and/or a low fence in front of the parking facing the creek to reduce the potential
of light trespass into the creek and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet L-1).
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 species as the site is located on an existing
developed property.
5.0 WATER AVAILABILITY
Since the adoption of the 2014 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), the City acquired an additional
annual allocation of 2,102 acre feet of water from Nacimiento Reservoir, bringing the total annual
available to 5,482 acre feet per year. This brings the City’s total annual availability to 12,109 acre
feet, previously 10,007. In addition to this, the City is currently expanding its groundwater program,
while concurrently designing the upgrade to the Water Resource Recovery Facility to allow highly
treated wastewater to become a potable water source.
The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projected that the City’s total annual residential and non-
residential water demand will be 7,496 acre feet at buildout (year 2035 with a population of 57,200)
as evaluated under the 2014 LUE. This estimation uses 117 gallons per capita day consumption
(gpcd), though the current usage is only 90 gpcd. As a baseline comparison, the total City annual
water demand in 2015 was approximately 4,772 acre feet; 40% of the available water supply.
ARC2 - 5Packet Pg. 201
12
ARCH-3020-2016
560 Higuera Street
Page 6
The available annual water supply (12,109 acre feet) far exceeds the LUE projected annual buildout
demand (7,496 acre feet). Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, water use
and demand associated with the development is anticipated and included with LUE buildout
projections.
6.0 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.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION
7.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
7.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced Project Plans
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
ARC2 - 6Packet Pg. 202
12
August 17, 2016 Sent via Email
Damien Mavis
Creekside Lofts, LP
P.O. Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Nancy Hubbard
Hubbard and Associates Development Consulting, LLC
www.hubbarddevelopmentconsulting.com
Subject: ARC Continuance with Direction regarding ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera) – a
mixed-use project including 18 residential units and commercial space within the
Downtown Commercial zone
Dear Ms. Hubbard:
On August 15, 2016, the ARC Advisory Body met to review the proposed mixed-use project at 560
Higuera Street. The ARC made a motion to continue the item to a date uncertain and return with a
project that includes a) additional horizontal elements as shown within the Downtown Design
Guidelines; and b) the plans for the Lofts at Nipomo project. Below is a list of directional items
provided by the Commission:
A. Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project
B. Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers
C. Provide a holistic parking calculation for The Creamery, Lofts at Nipomo & South Town
Eighteen
D. Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery
Once the project has been re-submitted in response to the direction provided, we will be able to
determine the next available date for ARC review. If you have any questions regarding this letter,
please contact me at (805) 781-7574.
Sincerely,
Rachel Cohen
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E rcohen@slocity.org
T 805.781.7574
slocity.org
Packet Pg. 203
12
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, August 15, 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,
August 15th, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Acting Chair Suzan Ehdaie.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, and Vice-
Chair Suzan Ehdaie
Absent: Chair Greg Wynn
Staff: Deputy Director of Development Review Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, Planning Technician Januar Saptono, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Consideration of Minutes for the ARC Re2ular Meeting of July 11, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SOLL, the ARC Minutes of July 11th, 2016 were approved as written, on the
following 3:0:2: 1 vote:
AYES: Andreen, Soll, Ehdaie
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Nemcik, Root
ABSENT: Wynn
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Sign ReguJations Update Study Session. OTHR-3466-2016: Discussion ofrecommendations
on issue areas which should be addressed in draft regulations and guidelines as part of the Sign
Packet Pg. 204
12
Regulations Update project; Discussion of this item is not subject to CEQA; Citywide;
Community Development Department, applicant.
Deputy Director Davidson introduced Vivian Kahn, F AICP, Associate Principal with Dyett &
Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, to conduct the Study Session.
Vivian Kahn provided Power Point presentation on the scoping and progress of the City's sign
regulations and requested Commission feedback on fourteen (14) distinct policy issues. Noted that
questions were raised through stakeholder meetings.
PUBLIC COMMENT
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, addressed sign issues, particularly as they apply to multi-tenant
properties such as sign spinners, roof and window signs, and digital signs.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson indicated that the 14 key issue areas are summarized in agenda report;
requested that Commission provide feedback toward specifically prompting further staff
exploration.
Commissioner Andreen suggested that comments by Commissioners be separated by each specific
issue.
Vivian Kahn led the input-gathering discussion by highlighting types, applicability, and purposes
of signage, noted that those types of signage could be considered for exclusion.
NO FORMAL ACTION TAKEN. The Commission provided feedback to Staff.
2. 560 Hi .guera Street. ARCH-3020-2016; Review of a mixed-use project including 18 residential
units and a commercial space within the Downtown Commercial zone, with a categorical exemption
from environmental review; C-D zone; Creekside Loft, LP, applicant.
Associate Planner Cohen provided the project description and analysis of the mixed-use project in
the downtown commercial zone.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Nancy Hubbard, Project Manager for the Applicant, showed an aerial photo of project's
neighborhood for the footprint perspective of the site's flag lot along the creek; discussed
neighbor's concerns. Steve Rigor, Principal at Arris Studio Architects, displayed Power Point
slides and discussed the project's exterior.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Andreen inquired whether steel in Creamery was visible from either Higuera or
Dana Street.
Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 205
12
Commissioner Root expressed concerns about adequate parking, inquired if it was under current
regulations. In response to Commissioner Root, Associate Planner Cohen discussed the proposed
parking structure at Nipomo & Palm.
Commissioner Root inquired about a repeated pattern of perforated corten steel on the circulation
towers and trash chute. In response, Commissioner Root and Applicant Damien Mavis stressed
that the corten steel would be a preferred option over the terra cotta brick tiles.
Commissioner Root inquired about the stair towers extending up above the third level;
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about Public Art requirements throughout City; Acting Chair
Ehdaie inquired about energy efficiency techniques or approaches on the project; Commissioner
Andreen inquired about the corten steel elements in relationship to building structure and the
guidelines that stipulate how they should appear as part of the structure.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Steve Snyder, San Luis Obispo, shared concerns concerning the project's size and height,
indicating that it is out of character with the neighborhood.
Mark Johnson, San Luis Obispo, encouraged tabling this item discussion until a simultaneous
review of the Nipomo Street four-story parking structure could be heard; urged downscaling the
project to two stories and the elimination of the balconies on the creekside.
Ursula Bishop, San Luis Obispo, expressed recollection that at a previous ARC Meeting, this item
was to be included along with Lofts at Nipomo; opined that hearing those items together would be
more prudent.
Dixie Cliff, San Luis Obispo, read a letter from an absent member of Save Our Downtown
regarding the non-functionality of fourth floor towers, stated that the letter urged the continuance
of the creek walk.
Farid Shahid, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project and the City's need to attract young
professionals with adequate housing.
Donna Duerk, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a longtime resident of Dana Street, expressed concerns
about a four-story building which is shading her fruit trees, corrupting her solar panels, and
invading in her privacy if future tenants were to live there.
Mary Mitchell, San Luis Obispo, owner of and businessperson in the Soda Water Works Building
on comer of Nipomo and Dana Streets, spoke in objection to the project due to its massing and
scale and its being situated on an infill flag lot abutted by low-impact homes.
Damien Mavis, San Luis Obispo, discussed the General Plan Policy Housing Element Goal,
Downtown Community Guidelines, and transitional zoning as addendum to the applicant
presentation.
Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 206
12
Angel Torres, San Luis Obispo, spoke as owner of a small business addressed at 560 Higuera,
urged support of the project.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, spoke in general support of infill housing.
Associate Planner Cohen responded to the public comment question about dedicated parking at
the existing commercial building in front of the flag lot.
COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION
Commissioner Root asked a clarification concerning in-lieu fees. Associate Planner Cohen
responded that the Downtown parking calculation does not differentiate between commercial and
residential in terms of fees, but the rates exacted are different.
Commissioner Nemcik commented on the parking calculation of twelve (12) required spaces for
eighteen ( 18) residential units.
Commissioner Andreen cited the project's stark and jarring incompatibility with the neighborhood;
indicated that the vertical elements accentuated by metal are troubling and that the exterior
elevation should be reduced.
Commissioner Nemcik clarified her preferences regarding materials and colors and the fa9ade's
non-symmetrical rhythm; inquired about the scale of the steel's perforations.
Commissioner Root opined that the project meets the majority of requirements in terms of both
setbacks and not requesting exceptions, stated that the Commission is tasked with adhering to
specific guidelines
In response to Commissioner Root's inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen clarified the current parking
scenario on the pending Creamery project that had been before ARC on July 1 gth_
Commissioner Soll commented on project being a creative concept on a problematic site; cited her
experience with City Neighborhood Compatibility workshops to express project's lack of harmony
with existing surroundings that would most likely set a negative precedent if approved.
Commissioner Andreen discussed compatibility issue in terms of the Downtown Guideline's
conceptualization of its buildings' horizontal elements which reinforce Downtown's traditional
pattern.
Acting Chair Ehdaie stated that the project meets all the requirements in the Community Design
Guidelines; opined that the underground parking could mitigate height issues; commented that the
project is a positive addition to the Downtown.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ROOT, requested that the Applicant modify the project and return it to
Commission for Review on a date uncertain with the following amendments: A.) Reduce the
Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 207
12
amount of corten steel used on the fa9ade of the project; B.) Incorporate horizontal elements,
particularly on the vertical towers as shown within the Downtown Design Guidelines; C.) Provide
a holistic parking calculation for the Creamery, Lofts at Nipomo & South Town Eighteen; D.)
Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery; on the following 4: 1:0:1
vote:
AYES: Andreen , Root, Nemcik, Soll
NOES: Ehdaie
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Wynn
Acting Chair Ehdaie called for and provided a short recess.
3. 1259 Laurel Lane. ARCH-2862-2016; Review of a mixed-use project including 18 residential
units and a commercial space, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-N zone;
Laurel Lane Investment, LLC, applicant.
Planning Technician Saptono provided the staff report on the three-story mixed-use project.
In regards to the rooftop deck, Commissioner Andreen inquired whether the rooftop deck was part
of a requirement for open space.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Joel Snyder, Vice-President of Ten Over Studios, discussed the infill project 's contextuality with
the neighborhood and the revised language on Condition No. 34 regarding the rooftop deck.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Andreen requested parking location and designation details; Commissioner Soll
inquired about location of trash enclosures; Commissioner Nemcik inquired about pathways to
residences from parking areas.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident adjacent to the project; noted the
improvement in the proposed plan from a prior proposal; stated that there is a lack of relationship
between the current project and the Laurel Lane neighborhood; spoke on privacy impacts and
regulations pertaining to the walls between the parking lots and off-site residences.
Dorothy Graves, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident who lives near the project; stated that there is
a potential capacity for 164 people on proposed square-footage of the rooftop deck.
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, distributed recent photos of the parking situation along Laurel
Lane and Southwood.
Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 208
12
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued review mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial space
within the Downtown Commercial zone.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 560 Higuera BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3020-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) based on findings, and subject
to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Creekside Lofts, LP
Representative Damien Mavis
Submittal Date 4/8/2016
Complete Date 7/7/2016
Zoning C-D (Downtown Commercial)
General Plan General Retail
Site Area 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a new, four story mixed-use building with 68 square feet of
commercial/retail space, 18 residential units, and 20 parking spaces within the Downtown
Commercial Zone. On August 15, 2016 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) continued the
project with direction to the applicant for project revisions. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s
resubmittal and finds the revisions consistent with ARC direction and the Community Design
Guidelines.
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 17, 2016
Item Number: 1
Packet Pg. 209
12
ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing)
560 Higuera Street
Page 2
2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
On August 15, 2016 the ARC reviewed the four story mixed-use building (Attachment 5, Draft ARC
Minutes) and continued the project with the following direction to the applicant for project revisions:
1. Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project
2. Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers
3. Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery
4. Provide a holistic parking calculation for the Creamery, South Town Eighteen, and the
Nipomo parking lot.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The applicant and staff’s responses to ARC direction are highlighted in the following paragraphs.
3.1 ARC Direction #1: Reduce the
amount of corten steel used on the
façade of the project.
Staff Response: The applicant has
removed the corten steel material from
the project and replaced it with terra
cotta brick. Terra cotta is one of the
original materials used on the Creamery
(utilized on the east wall of Goshi’s
restaurant). The applicant has noted that
the use of the material on South Town
Eighteen will create a bookend effect
with the Goshi’s wall on one side of the
Creamery and South Town Eighteen on
the other. The use of the terra cotta also
ties into the tile roofing and the color of
the commercial structure that is located
in front of the proposed project.
Although not a change in material, the
color pallet has been changed to better
complement the proposed brick. Colors
include muted greens and grays in place
of dark and light grays. The revised
change in material is consistent with ARC direction.
3.2 ARC Direction #2: Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers.
Staff Response: The applicant has modified the exterior of the project to have fewer vertical
elements and enhance the horizontal lines. The trash chute has been pushed into the building
eliminating the need for the central tower. Additionally, the remaining tower elements have been
lowered and enhanced with horizontal banding that continues the horizontal lines of the railings.
Figure 1: (Top) previous project proposal; (Bottom) Revised
project proposal
Packet Pg. 210
12
ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing)
560 Higuera Street
Page 3
The revised design is consistent with ARC direction.
3.4 Commission Direction #3: Provide better transition between height of the project and the
Creamery.
Staff Response: The revised project includes various modifications to reduce the height of the
structure in relation to the neighboring buildings (see Figure 2). The elevator and stair towers have
been lowered by eight feet (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A4.0-4.3). Additionally, the
parapets have either been eliminated or reduced by three feet to reduce the overall building height.
Units 1 (a studio) and 10 (a one-bedroom) have been slightly reduced in size creating an increased
setback of approximately 5 feet between the new structure and the existing Creamery building.
Staff is supportive of the reduced height of the towers. The lower tower element along the
southeast corner of the project is more in scale with the existing and proposed structures at the
Creamery. The reduction of the parapets slightly reduces the height of the structure, but without
the parapets, screened rooftop equipment will likely be visible from the street (Figure 2). The
ARC should discuss whether rooftop equipment is best screened individually or by a parapet.
3.3 Commission Direction #4: Provide a holistic parking calculation for the Creamery, South
Town Eighteen, and the Nipomo parking lot.
Staff Response: Table 1 provides a breakdown of the parking required for the three parcels.
Figure 2: The revised project includes lower tower and parapet heights. The red dashed line outlines where
changes have been made from the previous project. The black outline highlights proposed location of screened
rooftop equipment.
Packet Pg. 211
12
ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing)
560 Higuera Street
Page 4
Table 1: Parking calculation for the Creamery, South Town Eighteen and the Nipomo parking lot
Currently
on-site
Total required
with new project
In-lieu
fee
Providing with
new projects
Creamery 15 26 17 91 off-site
South Town 18 0 11 0 20 on-site
Nipomo Parking Lot 26 - - - -
The previous ARC staff report discussed that the South Town Eighteen would include 20 spaces
with 11 spaces for residential use and 9 spaces as off-site parking for the Creamery. These parking
calculations are consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(H) reprinted below. The
Downtown-Commercial zone has its own parking standards that allow new development to
provide parking at a specific rate (based on the use) or pay in-lieu fees in place of providing
parking for a project on-site.
These parking standards are also consistent with the Land Use Element Policy 4.1 which describes
the downtown’s role in part as the preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian
access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Policy 4.14 states that the City shall ensure
there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments in parking
supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people
can walk rather than drive between points within the core.
Downtown Core: Within the Downtown-Commercial (C-D) zone the following parking standards
and incentives shall apply:
1. Parking space reductions noted in items B through E above shall not be applicable in the C -
D zone, as the reduced parking rates established herein are intended to provide flexibility in
meeting parking requirements and rely on the consolidation of parking.
2. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night clubs, other food service or
entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention halls, and churches: One-
half that required in Table 6; provided, however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed
one space per three hundred fifty square feet gross floor area.
3. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that required in Table 6. In
order to support and encourage residential uses in the C-D zone, additional options for
meeting parking requirements for residential uses are available as listed in subsection 7
below.
4. All other uses: One space per five hundred square feet gross floor area.
5. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions shall be rounded to the
nearest whole number. Fractions of one-half or greater shall be rounded to one; fractions less
than one-half shall be rounded to zero.
6. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto or for changes in
1 On July 18, 2016 the ARC approved off-site parking for the Creamery consistent with Section 17.16.060 F of the
Zoning Regulations (off-site parking shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, be
within 300 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access
inconvenient or hazardous).
Packet Pg. 212
12
ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing)
560 Higuera Street
Page 5
occupancy which increase parking requirement relative to prior uses shall be required.
7. The parking space requirement may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use;
b. The director may, by approving an administrative use permit, allow some or all of the
parking to be located on a site different from the use. Such off-site parking shall not
be within a residential zone. It shall be within reasonable walking distance and no
greater than 500 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature
that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. The site on which the
parking is located shall be owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party
controlling the use.
c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where other
businesses maintain their required spaces;
d. Participating in a parking district that provides parking spaces through a fee or
assessment program.
e. Participating in an in-lieu fee program as may be established by the city council. Any
parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the parking standards contained in
subsections (1) through (3) of this section may be adjusted to conform with those
standards, subject to approval by the community development director and city
attorney;
f. In order to facilitate housing development in the downtown, the Director may reduce
the parking requirement for any residential element of a project in the CD district by
10% or one space, whichever is greater. In allowing this reduction, the Director may
require a vehicle trip reduction plan be submitted for approval and such other
conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand. Requests for parking
reductions greater than 10% shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and shall
require a use permit. In granting such additional reduction, the Commission must find
that the increased demand for parking in the Downtown resulting from the project is
not significant due to such considerations as the project's design, location, size or
other features. The Commission may require a trip reduction plan and other
conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand.
As noted in the previous staff report, the applicant is requesting a reduction of 1 parking space for
South Town Eighteen because they are providing housing within the downtown as described
Section 17.16.060(H)7f (see reference above). Four of the parking spaces will be provided in
tandem.2 Other downtown projects have been approved for residential tandem parking including
Pacific Courtyards. The majority of the parking is for residential use and staff recommends the
ARC support the tandem parking with Condition No. 7 that tandem spaces shall be identified on
plans submitted for a building permit as being assigned to specific dwelling units. As proposed,
the project complies with the parking standards of the Downtown-Commercial zone.
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
2 Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060(L)1: When parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a
designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
Packet Pg. 213
12
ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing)
560 Higuera Street
Page 6
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 on an existing
developed property.
5.0 WATER AVAILABILITY
Since the adoption of the 2014 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), the City acquired an additional
annual allocation of 2,102 acre feet of water from Nacimiento Reservoir, bringing the total annual
available to 5,482 acre feet per year. This brings the City’s total annual availability to 12,109 acre
feet, previously 10,007. In addition to this, the City is currently expanding its groundwater program,
while concurrently designing the upgrade to the Water Resource Recovery Facility to allow highly
treated wastewater to become a potable water source.
The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projected that the City’s total annual residential and non -
residential water demand will be 7,496 acre feet at buildout (year 2035 with a population of 57,200)
as evaluated under the 2014 LUE. This estimation uses 117 gallons per capita day consumption
(gpcd), though the current usage is only 90 gpcd. As a baseline comparison, the total City annual
water demand in 2015 was approximately 4,772 acre feet; 40% of the available water supply.
The available annual water supply (12,109 acre feet) far exceeds the LUE projected annual buildout
demand (7,496 acre feet). Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, water use
and demand associated with the development is anticipated and included with LUE buildout
projections.
6.0 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.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION
7.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
7.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced Project Plans
4. Applicant Response Letter
5. Draft ARC Minutes – August 15, 2016
6. ARC Staff Report – August 15, 2016
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
Packet Pg. 214
12
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1022-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A
COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
ZONE, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 17, 2016 560 HIGUERA STREET
(ARCH-3020-2016)
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 17, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-3020-
2016, Creekside Lofts, LP, 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.
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. F indings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARCH-3020-2016), based on the following findings:
1. That 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. That the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.2 (Downtown
Residential) because it provides new residential uses, allowing 24-hour presence and balance
between jobs and housing in the community.
3. That the project is consistent with the Housing Element Policy 5.3 and 5.4 because the project
provides housing above ground-level commercial, is located close to activity centers in the
downtown and provides variety of residential types, sizes, and styles of dwellings.
4 . That the project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3
because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use
of public facilities and services and to improve the City's jobs/housing balance.
5 . The project design maintains consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines by
providing architectural interest and style which complements the character and scale of the
Packet Pg. 215
12
Resolution No. ARC-1022-16
ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street)
Page 2
existing neighborhood.
6. That the 10% parking reduction is consistent with the Zoning Regulations Section 17 .16.060
H. 7fbecause the project provides residential units within the Downtown Commercial District.
7. That, as conditioned, the tandem parking is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section
17 .16.060 L.1 because the parking will be identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a
designated dwelling.
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 on an existing developed property.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final
design approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall note the use of smooth finished stucco on the
exterior of the building.
Packet Pg. 216
12
Resolution No. ARC-1022-16
ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street)
Page 3
5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, 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 ensure 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.
6. 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 may be required to confirm that proposed screening will
be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building
modifications and improvements.
7. Tandem parking spaces shall be identified on plans submitted for a building permit as being
assigned to specific dwelling units within the project.
8. 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.
9. The final building plans shall include additional screening in front of the parking facing the
creek to reduce the potential of light and noise trespass into the creek and residential areas
north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
10. 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.
11. 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
Packet Pg. 217
12
Resolution No. ARC-1022-16
ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street)
Page 4
signage to the ARC if signs need an exception or appear to be excessive in size or out of
character with the project.
Engineering Division -Public Works
12. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC
12.16.050
13. The project is located in the Mission Style Sidewalk District of downtown. Any replaced
sections of sidewalk or driveway approach shall be constructed in the Mission Style per city
standards #4220.
14. The building plan submittal shall show and note that any sections of damaged or displaced
curb, gutter, or sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced per City Engineering Standards and to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
15. The building plan submittal shall show the existing driveway approach to be upgraded or
replaced to comply with City and ADA standards. Current city and ADA standards require a
4' accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades.
Services to the new structures shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall
be shown or noted.
18. 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.
19. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan. The building plan
submittal shall include a final hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report in accordance with the
Packet Pg. 218
12
Resolution No. ARC-1022-16
ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street)
Page 5
Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The report shall include,
as a minimum, a response or discussion of the bullet items in Section 2.3.1 of the Drainage
Design Manual.
20. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled
structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
requirements and the city's Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter
17.84.
21. This property is located in an AE and AO (2' depth) Flood Zone. The proposed structure is
located in the AE floodzone. The structure shall be floodproofed to an elevation that is at least
one foot above the BFE. Additional free board to 2' above the BFE may result in additional
structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged.
22. Any new building service equipment shall be protected or elevated above the BFE in
accordance with the Floodplain Management Regulations and adopted Building Code. The
elevator, design, and equipment room shall be designed in accordance with FEMA Technical
Bulletin 4 I November 2010.
23. 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 final Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the
City's Website.
24. 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 building permit issuance
or final inspection approvals.
25. The building plan shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements
for reference.
26. A quit claim agreement or other acceptable documentation shall be recorded and/or provided
for the removal of the existing 6' PG&E easement per PM 54-90 prior to building permit
issuance.
27. A new creek access easement shall be provided to the City the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, Community Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager prior to
building permit issuance. The easement shall provide for a reasonable staging area along the
creek.
28. The building plan submittal shall include final details of the creek patio area improvements
including the proposed landscaping. The final site improvement plan and landscape plan shall
Packet Pg. 219
12
Resolution No. ARC-I 022-16
ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street)
Page 6
honor the proposed new access, staging area, and creek easement to the satisfaction of the
City. The patio improvement shall be designed to accommodate maintenance vehicles and/or
shall include readily moveable patio furniture/fixtures. The final planting/tree placement plan
shall honor the access requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Community
Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager.
29. A creek maintenance agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City and
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the City's Natural Resource
Manager prior to building permit issuance.
30. The developer shall exhaust reasonable efforts to eradicate and control the expansion of any
known non-native and invasive species within the creek corridor to the satisfaction of the
Natural Resources Manager. These plants may require treatment in advance and prior to
commencing with ground disturbing activities and grading.
31. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter
of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the creek corridor and 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. Tree removals and/or pruning may require approval by the City Arborist and/or
Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees.
Utilities Department
32. 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.
33. The project's commercial and residential uses shall be metered separately. All residential units
are to be individually metered. Privately owned sub-meters may be provided for residential
condominiums upon approval of the Utilities Director or her/his designee. The CCR's for the
property/homeowner association shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association
(or P/HOA contracted service) and each condominium billed according to water use.
Packet Pg. 220
12
Resolution No. ARC-1022-16
ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street)
Page 7
Fire Department
34. Due to the lack of two Fire Department aerial fire apparatus access roads to the proposed
building (2013 California Fire Code, Appendix D), the project will require either Type V-A
or Type II-B construction throughout, along with a full NFP A 13 fire sprinkler system.
Code Requirements
Building Division
35. New buildings citywide shall incorporate the following construction methods and materials:
Ignition resistant exterior wall coverings; Fire sprinkler protection in attic areas (at least one
"pilot head"); Ember resistant vent systems for attics and under floor areas, protected eaves,
and Class 'A' roof coverings as identified in the California Building Code Chapter 7 A.
Utilities Department
36. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors
and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided
with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats,
equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
37. The project's Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City's declared
drought emergency estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum
applied water allowance (or MAWA) (Resolution 10628 (2015)).
38. 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 Commissioner Nemcik, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Root, Nemcik, Soll, and Vice-Chair Ehdaie
None
Chair Wynn
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of October, 2016.
Doug Davids n , Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Packet Pg. 221
12
Minutes
y ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, October 17, 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 17, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Standing Chair Suzan Ehdaie.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, and Standing Chair Suzan
Ehdaie
Absent: Chair Greg Wynn
Staff: Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen,
and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Consideration of Minutes for the Architectural Review Commission Regular Meeting
of August 15, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ROOT, to approve the Architectural Review Commission Minutes of
August 15, 2016 as presented on the following 4:0:1 vote:
AYES: Nemcik, Root, Soll, Ehdaie
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wynn
Consideration of Minutes for the Architectural Review Commission Regular Meeting of
September 12, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, to approve the Architectural Review Commission
Minutes of September 12, 2016 as presented on the following 4:0:1 vote:
Packet Pg. 222
12
AYES: Root, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wynn
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 560 Hieuera Street. ARCH -3020-2016: Continued review of a mixed-use project that
includes 18 residential units and a commercial tenant space within the Downtown Commercial
zone, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C -D zone; Creekside Lofts,
LP., applicant.
Deputy Director Davidson introduced Associate Planner Cohen who provided Staff Report on the
Item continued from the August 15`h ARC meeting with four (4) Directional Items.
Associate Planner Cohen passed a new materials board to Commissioners.
In response to inquiries by Commissioner Root, Associate Planner Cohen confirmed there are a
total of twenty-six (26) required parking spaces associated with this project, including nine (9)
approved off-site parking spaces.
Associate Planner Cohen responded to further inquiry by Commissioner Root, regarding the
parking structure on Nipomo and Monterey; indicated that a consultant has been hired to prepare
an environmental report, though no specific timeline for completion has been established.
In response to Commissioner Soll's inquiry about the location of trees in the parking area not being
referenced in the preliminary landscape plan, Associate Planner Cohen stated that the existing
parking lot would remain (in the pole of the flag lot) as they are part of a parking easement.
Including additional trees could reduce the number of parking spaces.
Associate Planner Cohen responded to further inquiry by Commissioner Soll, regarding the
extension of the creek -walk threading through the parking garage; explained that the path behind
the back of the Creamery is blocked by a staircase and the applicant is proposing that the path pass
through the Creamery and then back out along the creek behind the proposed project.
Commissioner Soll commented that the solstice shadow encroachment should not shadow at noon
and inquired about a freestanding wall that might exist for shielding Dana Street residents from
headlight trespass; Associate Planner Cohen responded that condition #9 in the resolution had been
added by staff that required the project to include a wall or landscaping to limit light trespass onto
neighboring properties.
Commissioner Soll inquired about potential 3-dimensional imaging of neighboring and impending
projects toward a more holistic perspective; Associate Planner Cohen responded that a 3-D model
was not submitted as part of the plans.
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about the assigning of tandem parking spaces for each unit;
Associate Planner Cohen responded that each tandem space would be assigned to one unit
Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 223
12
Commissioner Ehdaie requested clarification about the onsite and offsite parking for the Creamery.
Associate Planner Cohen responded that 20 spaces are provided for the site — the required 11 spaces
for the proposed project and 9 off-site spaces for the Creamery.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Damien Mavis, project architect, discussed the Applicant's response to the four (4) Directional
Items and responded specifically to Commissioner Soll's multiple inquiries.
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about the material of the railings and about potential screening
for the mechanical equipment.
Commissioner Root inquired about the operational nature of the trash chute; inquired about the
aesthetics of the terra cotta tile.
Applicant Representative Steve Rigor responded to Commissioner Soll's inquiries about the
balance between brick and corten steel elements.
Commissioner Soll inquired about the potential for noise -reducing Plexiglas on the balconies.
Standing Chair Ehdaie requested clarification on the proposed materials for the vertical walls;
inquired whether the units were for sale or for rent; inquired about the transition from The
Creamery to the project and its applicability to the creek -path route.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Gary Dwyer, San Luis Obispo, spoke as longtime owner of condominium at end of Dana Street
and as Urban Design professor in Cal Poly's School of Architecture; commented that City
continues to treat Dana Street as an ugly stepsister through its lack of maintenance and provision
of free parking for downtown workforce leading to overabundance of auto presence.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, criticized project through reading excerpts from Alan Cooper's
public correspondence regarding the landscape plan; questioned why this project was untethered
from Nipomo Lofts project in ARC hearing as intended.
Mary Mitchell, San Luis Obispo, voiced objection to the project because it sets precedent for future
four-story apartment complexes in Downtown which do not adequately address parking concerns.
Donna Duerk, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident of Dana Street directly across creek from project;
indicated her belief that the directive for the proposed project to make height compatible with The
Creamery has not been well served.
Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 224
12
Ursula Bishop, San Luis Obispo, commented on her previously written request to have
neighborhood compatibility of both the Nipomo Lofts and this project considered in tandem not
having been honored and further requested postponement of this Item's hearing; shared Creative
Vision's suggestions for creek -walk as it considers the privacy of Dana Street residents.
Geoffrey Chiapella, San Luis Obispo, spoke as transportation planner on SLOCOG staff, discussed
regional land use patterns and subsequent goals for providing vision toward how community will
grow in order to accommodate reduction of vehicular -travel emissions; voiced support of this in-
fill development as a corrective.
Mary White, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Dana Street resident on the ever -worsening street parking
issues and how problems of light and noise from a parking garage will affect residents directly
across creek.
Nancy Hubbard, San Luis Obispo, spoke as South Town Eighteen's project manager on the
adequacy on which Applicant responded to Commission's previous suggestions.
COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION
Standing Chair Ehdaie indicated that one topic of discussion should concern mechanical
equipment screening.
Deputy Director Davidson responded to Commissioner Soll's inquiry regarding plans for the
shielding of parking garage lighting by pointing out Condition #5.
Commissioner Soll inquired about the mandatory nature of developing the creek -walk, in
consideration of potential Special Overlay Ordinances for neighborhoods which buttress up
against commercial buildings; stressed the positives that evolved out of the Discussion Items;
voiced concerns about not being able to view project in holistic context with other neighboring
major developments to determine balance in compatibility.
Commissioner Root commented on the improvement made on the massing, the color scheme,
and the overall architecture; provided architectural suggestions for the elevation facing the creek.
Commissioner Nemcik concurred with Commissioner Root's assessments and further
commented on the Applicant's having responded favorably in becoming more compatible with
The Creamery; indicated that it was not necessary to view this project as part of a whole with the
Nipomo Lofts; discussed adding verbiage within Condition #9 as it pertains to screening of light
into the creek.
Commissioner Root added that transmission of noise is of additional concern which should also
be addressed with proper screening.
Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 225
12
Standing Chair Ehdaie voiced support of project; voiced that creek path should both continue as
a connector and remain in line with the Downtown Concept Vision Plan; indicated her
preference for boosting privacy -infringement mitigation measures.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE -CHAIR ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
NEMCIK, the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft Resolution based on findings
and with the following amendment:
A.) Condition #9 to read, "The final building plans shall include additional screening in front of
the parking facing the creek to reduce the potential of light and noise trespass into the creek
and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director."
on the following 4:0:0:1 vote:
AYES: Root, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Wynn
Standing Chair Ehdaie provided a five-minute recess.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1. STAFF
a. Advisory Body Goals
Deputy Director Davidson introduced the early phases of the Architectural Review Commission
Goal -Setting and Financial Plan & Budget Process for 2017-2019; provided a PowerPoint
presentation on the process and the current financial context for it; mentioned that recused Chair
Wynn had submitted a goal list to Community Development in absentia; requested Commission
to provide preliminary set of goals through discussion.
Standing Chair Ehdaie established outline for roundtable dialogue from both the ARC's previous
2015-2017 goals and Chair Wynn's provided list; Commission discussion ensued.
By consensus of Architectural Commission Members, three (3) broad topics for budget goals were
identified toward fine-tuning of language by the deadline of November 7`h: A.) Alternative
transportation incentives; B.) Community Design Guidelines; and C.) Recycled water.
b. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Davidson provided the Agenda Forecast:
First Meeting in November: 399 Foothill (corner of Tassajara Drive) mixed-use project
Deputy Director Davidson provided update on Appeals as they pertained to 22 Chorro Street;
Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 226
12
Bishop Street Studios; Discovery signage; and the Olive Street mixed-use project.
Commissioner Soll requested further information on Assembly Bill 1069 for future discussion.
Commissioner Root mentioned the impact Measure J could possibly have on the backlog of
infrastructure projects.
ADJOURNMENT: Standing Chair Ehdaie adjourned Meeting at 7:36 PM.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 11/21/2016
Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 227
12
Filing Fee
Tree Appeal: $113.00
CMOF
All Other Appeals: $281.00
Received by: ` S I ISS BISFD
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Received
R'EC VIED
OCT 272016
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
57
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
g0 5 - 70 /03 Z!
Phone Fax
SAN 14
a Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
fOS Z35—
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
C2.ER K
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 decisionof the: \
142 ? 'TE a -TV 2A -,- sC If k 0 (! WL M > S S I Z)nJ
Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: o — 1 - 7—moo/ G ,
3. The application or project was entitled: a G a«vG 14 P 3 a.z v — . 016
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
Q on _
Staff ember'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:
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
10Z'.4
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, if necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
Packet Pg. 228
12
Reason for Appeal continued
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 281", 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 ex ected 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 isXoeduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
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. 229
12
This appeal is being filed because we, residents and friends of Dana Street, believe the Architectural
Review Committee (ARC) did not adhere to the city's Community Design Guidelines for Downtown in
considering the proposed four story apartment rental project at 560 Higuera.
We feel there are unique characteristics to this part of downtown, and we ask that you reevaluate the
decision of the ARC and find that the project, as approved, does not fit the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed 560 Higuera Street residential apartment complex is not a high quality alternative to the
Community Design Guideline, nor an example of design excellence, and, as the Downtown Design
Guidelines state: "Nowhere in the city is design more important."
Specifically, we find the building to be in violation of:
Design
o We do not believe the building meets the Goals for Design Quality and Character, which
include the ideal: `Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive, don't let it become
anywhere USA."' Design issues we will specifically address include:
Scale, Height
Fagade design
Materials and architectural details
Infill development
Landscaping and other miscellaneous design details such as lighting, parking not enclosed
o No final landscaping plan was provided
o Lighting. Increased lighting for safety reasons may be required on the creek side of
development and that will directly impact residences across from development
The ARC, at two meetings, did not give consideration to repeated neighborhood concerns despite
correlation of concerns and comments to the Community Design Guidelines. Issues that were raised
by neighbors not addressed in above bullets, included:
Additional impact on the historical Dana Street residential neighborhood:
o The four story building overlooks and impairs the privacy of both the outdoor and indoor
living space of the existing homes across the creek. The immediately affected homes are
one story
o Four stories, no setbacks, directly facing neighboring residences
o Parking area that will park cars facing directly into neighboring residences, at the same
level, is not fully enclosed
o Noise levels from decks and patios on the creek side affecting many neighbors on Dana
Street. This negative impact of noise could be controlled in the design and development
process
o Parking impact on Dana Street and surrounding streets due to lack of parking provided by
applicant
The proposed project at 560 Higuera violates all the Goals for Design Quality and Character specified
in the Community Design Guidelines for the City of San Luis Obispo. It is an institutional -looking four
story building that dwarfs and conflicts architecturally with the nearby historic one story Creamery and
the two story Soda Water Works. It a four story building that will change forever the historical,
residential neighborhood that is Dana Street.
We respectfully request that you support our appeal of the proposed 560 Higuera Street project.
Packet Pg. 230
12
1.
Gp f SAN LUIS OBISPO
D»@:FINANCE CASHIER m«o0 7@s
7w ama G± 3a+
ymySDATE. 10& 7/5
REGISTER DAIE, 10/27/16 3+: 15:3
DEQ!& RIA AMOUNT
q J:+»* 7 m(
7EL+ElgsRREVENUE XO
TOTAL DUE, @Gm
ZO RED $281.00
D«E: X10
281.00
OW : »q
Packet Pg. 231
12
Zoning Regulations
Section 17.16.060(H)
Downtown Core: Within the Downtown-Commercial (C-D) zone the following parking standards
and incentives shall apply:
1. Parking space reductions noted in items B through E above shall not be applicable in the
C-D zone, as the reduced parking rates established herein are intended to provide flexibility
in meeting parking requirements and rely on the consolidation of parking.
2. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night clubs, other food service
or entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention halls, and churches:
One-half that required in Table 6; provided, however, that in no case the requirement shall
exceed one space per three hundred fifty square feet gross floor area.
3. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that required in Table 6. In
order to support and encourage residential uses in the C-D zone, additional options for
meeting parking requirements for residential uses are available as listed in subsection 7
below.
4. All other uses: One space per five hundred square feet gross floor area.
5. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions shall be rounded to the
nearest whole number. Fractions of one-half or greater shall be rounded to one; fractions
less than one-half shall be rounded to zero.
6. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto or for changes in
occupancy which increase parking requirement relative to prior uses shall be required.
7. The parking space requirement may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use;
b. The director may, by approving an administrative use permit, allow some or all of
the parking to be located on a site different from the use. Such off-site parking shall
not be within a residential zone. It shall be within reasonable walking distance and
no greater than 500 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any
feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. The site on
which the parking is located shall be owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the
party controlling the use.
c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where other
businesses maintain their required spaces;
d. Participating in a parking district that provides parking spaces through a fee or
assessment program.
e. Participating in an in-lieu fee program as may be established by the city council.
Any parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the parking standards
contained in subsections (1) through (3) of this section may be adjusted to conform
with those standards, subject to approval by the community development director
and city attorney;
f. In order to facilitate housing development in the downtown, the Director may
reduce the parking requirement for any residential element of a project in the CD
district by 10% or one space, whichever is greater. In allowing this reduction, the
Director may require a vehicle trip reduction plan be submitted for approval and
such other conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand. Requests for
Packet Pg. 232
12
parking reductions greater than 10% shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and shall require a use permit. In granting such additional reduction, the
Commission must find that the increased demand for parking in the Downtown
resulting from the project is not significant due to such considerations as the
project's design, location, size or other features. The Commission may require a trip
reduction plan and other conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand.
Packet Pg. 233
12
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 234
12
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FEATURES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
REGARDING THE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction about the format and features of a City Council special meeting regarding the
Rental Housing Inspection Program in the City of San Luis Obispo.
DISCUSSION
At the December 13, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council decided to review the Rental
Housing Inspection Program as soon as possible. A special meeting is scheduled for February 16,
2017. In preparing for this special meeting, staff wanted to ensure the following questions or
issues were addressed by the City Council so that a common vision for the meeting is created.
1) What is the anticipated goal or outcome for this meeting? Options include the following:
a) engaging in a candid conversation among Council members about the Rental Housing
Inspection Program in San Luis Obispo and discussing a common vision for
addressing this program in the short and/or long term (including direction to staff);
b) having an opportunity to have a free flowing discussion of ideas regarding the Rental
Housing Inspection Program (including or excluding direction to staff);
c) facilitate a community dialogue where members of the community come up with
common problem definition with the program and ideas to address these concerns;
and/or
d) conducting a traditional public hearing style meeting providing direction to staff for
implementing action;
2) What type of discussion do Council members want to foster? Options include the
following:
a) an informal roundtable discussion involving the Council members (retreat model);
b) a conversation among the Council members based on input received during public
comment; or
c) a facilitated two-way community dialogue with members of the community at this
meeting (town hall meeting model).
d) A study session where staff gives a report, the council hears from the community and
then deliberates to provide direction to the staff regarding desired actions (including
no changes, revisions, repeal, more study/analysis, and what to do in the interim, etc.)
3) What venue should be used for this meeting? Issues to consider regarding this question is
how many people you anticipate attending, the need for parking, accessibility via public
transportation, the costs associated with the venue, the convenience for those who will attend
Packet Pg. 235
13
and ultimately availability of the venue. Options include the following:
a) City Council Chambers;
b) Community Room at the County/City Library;
c) Ludwick Community Meeting Room only (gym not available); or
d) Other options for a venue include the Community Room at Meadow Park, the
Monday Club, the Vets Hall.
4) Who do you want to facilitate the meeting? Options include the following:
a) The Mayor;
b) another Councilmember;
c) a rotating role at the special meeting among the Mayor and Council members; or
d) a trained neutral facilitator.
The advantage of having the Mayor or a Council member(s) facilitate the meeting is that
it would give the Council the greatest amount of interaction with each other and enables
a frank conversation with firsthand information. An alternative perspective is that having
the Council facilitate will take their focus away from the substance of the discussion.
When issues are complex and engender strong opinions, having a skilled neutral
facilitator may help the Council achieve the purpose of this meeting in a constructive
way.
5) Will there be any ground rules for participation in the special meeting? Procedures for
the Council to consider include the following:
a) time limits for speakers (public and/or Council members),
b) requirements for civility, and
c) any other guidelines that you believe will help achieve the purpose of the meeting.
6) What type of staff support or resources would you like to be available at the workshop?
Options include the following:
a) providing professional advice,
b) providing background information and a presentation,
c) being a scribe for ideas, or
d) being in attendance as observers.
Staff would need to know if you want the meeting video recorded for the public record as
arranging offsite videotaping of any proceedings requires a planned coordination of video
and audio logistics. At a minimum, staff will produce minutes of the special meeting.
There is a significant amount of background information available for the City Council and
community to review, if desired. Below are links to previous agenda reports prepared on this
topic. However, the Council may wish to direct staff to provide other or additional resources to
support the discussion.
Council Agenda Report from May 17, 2016 -First annual report regarding rental
housing inspection program. (Attachment A)
Packet Pg. 236
13
Council Agenda Report from May 19, 2015 – Adoption of Ordinance establishing a
rental housing inspection program. (Attachment B)
Council Agenda Report from May 5, 2016 – Public hearing for rental housing
inspection program. (Attachment C)
Council Agenda Report from December 16, 2014 – Review of rental housing
inspection program options. (Attachment D)
Next Steps after the February 16, 2017 Special City Council Meeting
Staff has calendared time on the March 7, 2017 agenda should Council direct staff to return with
any program or ordinance changes. Should program or ordinance changes be extensive,
additional time may be needed and time is also available on the March 21, 2017 agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT
There may be some expenses associated with having this meeting in a different venue and for
video recording the meeting. Without knowing the Council’s preference for a venue and how
long the meeting might be it is difficult to estimate these added costs. The cost for holding the
meeting in council chambers would be for video services at $469 for the first 4.5 hours and $45
for each additional hour. For other city facilities there is no room charge however the cost for
off-site video would be between $1,750 and $3,100 depending on set up and location. The cost
for a non-city owned venue is between $750 and $1200 for the room plus off-site video charges.
Even though there will likely be additional costs and the costs are unknown at this time, staff
believes there are sufficient funds available in Community Development’s budget to conduct this
special meeting without any new allocation of budget resources.
Attachments:
a - Council Reading File 05-17-2016 Council Agenda Report
b - Council Reading File 05-19-2015 Council Agenda Report
c - Council Reading File 05-05-2015 Council Agenda Report
d - Council Reading File 12-16-2014 Council Agenda Report
Packet Pg. 237
13
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 238
13
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Jeff Smith, Police Captain
SUBJECT: SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance amending section 9.22.040 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code regarding Safety Enhancement Zones to designate an additional city-wide safety
enhancement period prior to and inclusive of St. Patrick’s Day.
DISCUSSION
Background
In December 2004 Council enacted Chapter 9.22 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code which
created a process to designate the entire City as a safety enhancement zone during specific
dates/times based upon a finding by the Council that such a designation is necessary to protect
the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
Since 2004, Council has adopted and amended several public safety related Municipal Code
codes which have higher fines when a safety enhancement zone is in effect. These ordinances
include:
Chapter 9.04 Possession or consumption of alcohol in public
Chapter 9.05 Social Host - minors consuming or possessing alcohol
Chapter 9.12 Noise control
Chapter 9.16 Dangerous and deadly weapons
Chapter 9.20 Urinating in public
Chapter 9.22 Unruly Gathering
Fines for these Municipal Code violations outside of the safety enhanc ement zone period are
$350 for a first offense, $700 for a second offense within a 12-month period, and $1,000 for third
or subsequent offenses in a 12-month period. Violations during the safety enhancement period
are double with a first offense fine of $700 and second and subsequent offenses fined at $1,000
in a 12-month period.1 A violation under this chapter may be prosecuted either criminally or
administratively pursuant to Chapter 1.24. (Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures).
Violations of the Unruly Gathering ordinance are $700 for a first offense to the individuals found
responsible for the gathering or $350 first time fine for those that are in attendance. During the
safety enhancement time period those found responsible for the gathering are fined $1,000 for a
first and subsequent offenses in a 12-month period. Participants found in violation of an unruly
gathering are fined $700 for a first offense and $1,000 for subsequent offences in a 12-month
period.
1 Government Code sections 36901 53069.4 limits the amo unt of a fine for violation of a local ordinance to $1,000.
Packet Pg. 239
14
The Police Department conducts extensive outreach annually to inform students and residents of
the St. Patrick’s Day Safety Enhancement Zone ordinance. Over the past several years, the
“Avoid Party Regret” theme has included neighborhood outreach, a media release, paid ads in
the New Times and Mustang News, paid social media ads, and flyers/posters distributed
throughout both Cal Poly and Cuesta College. Cal Poly publicity includ es in-person
presentations to student organizations on campus and in the neighborhoods. Outreach is also
done at Cuesta College with an e-blast to students and distribution of Avoid Party Regret posters.
Cal Poly assists with video screen ads in the UU & poster distribution on campus. The Police
Department also collaborates with the Downtown Association’s Food, Beverage, and Service
Committee to distribute posters throughout downtown. The public relations campaign budget is
$4000 for the St. Patrick’s Day Holiday.
Safety Enhancement Zone History
The Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance had previously been adopted in December of 2004 for
the February Mardi Gras time period due to the impact of the nuisance behaviors and civil unrest
associated with this event. Implementation of the ordinance was found to be a successful
outreach and enforcement tool. Within a short period of time, the problems typically associated
with the Mardi Gras festivities largely stopped.
Over time, other key dates were identified as periods of nuisance partying and adverse behaviors
that impacted the health and safety of our residents. In May 2010, Council approved the use of
the safety enhancement zone for Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day. In August 2013, Council
approved the use of the safety enhancement zone for the start of the Cal Poly school year.
Designating safety enhancement zone periods, coupled with outreach and education, has shown
to be an effective deterrent to address behaviors associated with alcohol, noise, and other
neighborhood wellness concerns.
St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Celebrations
Currently, Council has approved the safety enhancement zone on St. Patrick’s Day to extend
from 12:01 a.m. the morning of the 17th to the morning of the 18th at 7:00 a.m. St. Patrick’s Day
was viewed as a heavily impacted occasion that would require additional police resources and
outreach in order to handle adverse party behavior and alcohol violations occurring both in the
downtown and neighborhood areas.
In order to avoid the specific day of March 17th and associated increased fines, organized efforts
have been made to plan and encourage participation in similar party related activities outside of
this one-day safety enhancement time period. This event, typically a pre-cursor to St. Patrick’s
Day, is referred to as “St. Fratty’s Day”.
Over several years St. Fratty’s Day has been loosely organized and celebrated in our community.
Traditionally, the event has occurred in the early hours of a weekend day in the month of March,
prior to St. Patrick’s Day. Knowledge of the date and time is not readily known to law
enforcement and it is difficult to predict exact timing to have appropriate resources available to
deal with noise complaints, alcohol violations and other adverse behaviors. The celebration has
drawn thousands of participants who converge into the residential areas on the north side of town
Packet Pg. 240
14
near the perimeter of the Cal Poly campus. Much of the hype around this event has been
coordinated by word of mouth or social media outlets. No one group claims responsibility for
promoting the event, however, several Greek organizations and other student groups are known
to coordinate parties in residential neighborhoods and actively endorse participation. Although
some of the organizations attempt to offer controlled or private parties, the nature of the
atmosphere causes individuals to participate in mass and roam the impacted neighborhoods.
Roof Collapse in 2015
St. Fratty’s Day has had a history of occurring in the 300 block of Hathaway (and surrounding
area) to include a residence termed as the “Pink House”. In the early morning hours of March 7,
2015 thousands of college age participants converged on this residential area. Several dozen
students climbed onto the top of a nearby garage roof and the weight of the numerous bodies
caused the garage to collapse. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured in this incident.
This event created a great deal of attention to the university and community. The police
department was not prepared with staffing to safely manage the magnitude of the event. There
was a need to request mutual aid assistance from outlying police agencies to include Cal Poly
Police, the California Highway Patrol and the Sheriff’s Department. The incident prompted a
criminal investigation by the Police Department, however, no charges were filed. Additionally,
an investigation was completed by the Cal Poly Student Affairs Office where one of the
conclusions of their investigative report stated, “students attempting to hold an annual event
outside the ‘period of increased fines’ for city code violations are contributing to a lack of
preparedness and early response.”
Although St. Fratty’s Day had been occurring in our community for several years the
unpredictable situation involving the roof collapse in 2015 was very concerning and prompted
the Police Department to evaluate staffing and put measures in place to discourage future
unacceptable behavior. In working with Cal Poly, the police department embarked on a media
campaign to educate the student age residents on being responsible neighbors and taking
ownership in the community in which they live.
2016 St. Fratty’s Day preparation
In order to prepare for potential disturbances for 2016 St. Fratty’s Day celebrations the police
department intensified community outreach prior to the month of March. Outreach included
social and print media as well as directing officers to visit residences that had historically been
identified as problem locations. Focused outreach was directed to the Greek community who
were known to organize St. Fratty’s Day activities. This early intervention was necessary to
establish expectations, educate potential participants of neighborly responsibilities and advise of
enforcement outcomes for non-compliance.
As in years past, determining the exact date of “St. Fratty’s” in 2016 was a moving target. The
event tends to be “spontaneous” requiring the department to do some investigations to determine
the exact date and time. Even in light of specific intelligence, there remained conflicting reports
causing the department to speculate on exact timing in order to be prepared.
Early information revealed that the event was going to take place the first weekend in the month
Packet Pg. 241
14
of March (4th & 5th). In order to be responsive, the department went to a full deployment of
officers and dispatchers in order to be prepared for increased activity. Inclement weather during
this weekend last year appears to be one of the factors in keeping things calm and there were no
significant reports related to St. Fratty’s activities. Nonetheless, the department had to prepare
staff using overtime and incurred unbudgeted expenses dedicated to this possible occurrence.
After the weekend of March 4th & 5th, the department received specific information that the St.
Fratty’s celebration would begin on Sunday, March 13th at 5:00 a.m. It was necessary for the
Police Department to once again plan for a full deployment, to include the use of overtime, for
officers and dispatchers on both March 12th and 13th to mitigate any potential disturbances.
The neighborhood impacts in 2016 compared to 2015 were substantially reduced. With a full
deployment of officers to respond to service calls, address parties and confront negative
behaviors quickly, provided for a well-managed event. The crowds were estimated to be
approximately two thousand and were relatively calm and well mannered. Some party hosts were
organized and provided ID/license checks at the door or only allowed invited people int o
gatherings. The successful transition from 2015 to 2016 was due to the fact that significant
outreach occurred prior to the event and the deployment of additional police personnel on the
day of the event allowed for clear messaging and a clear police presence for crowd integration
and enforcement if needed.
Although the planning and preparation for St. Fratty’s in 2016 was successful, an environment
persists in the surrounding neighborhoods adjacent to Cal Poly that encourages people to plan
parties and circulate in mass in the neighborhoods. Violations of law continue to occur and other
neighborhood wellness concerns (particularly crowd size and noise) are constant. Although 2016
was relatively calm compared to years past, even with additional Cal Poly resources patrolling
areas within one mile of the campus, there are still numerous noise violations, excessive alcohol
consumption and persons engaged in other adverse behaviors requiring the Police Department to
over staff officers and dispatchers (many on overtime pay) to safely monitor this event.
In 2016 the police department tracked operational expenses (personnel and outreach materials) to
manage St. Fratty’s and the amount was estimated at $31,000.
Recommended period of time for St. Patrick’s Day safety enhancement changes
It is proposed that the safety enhancement time period cover the first seventeen days of March,
beginning at 12:01 a.m. on the first day of March and ending on the morning of the eighteenth
day of March at 7:00 a.m. Should March 17th fall on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday the
safety enhancement period would continue through the weekend, ending on M onday morning at
7:00 a.m. The reasoning for this time period is to cover the weeks leading up to the St. Patrick’s
holiday and the weekend following March 17th. Historically, the weeks leading up to St.
Patrick’s Day, the Police Department sees an increase in the number of party related calls for
service in the neighborhoods.
Outreach
The Police Department has coordinated several outreach opportunities to address the proposed
changes to the Safety Enhancement Zone during the month of March, which was consistent with
Packet Pg. 242
14
the Public Engagement Manual. Meetings have included the Cal Poly Inter Fraternal Council,
Panhellenic, Associated Students Inc.(ASI) representatives, the Student Community Liaison
Committee (SCLC), the Downtown Association’s Food, Beverage & Service Committee and a
presentation was made at a neighborhood community forum in October which included a number
of citizens and community representatives.
Generally, outreach identified some key themes that created consternation about the passage of
this ordinance as written, to include:
The Safety Enhancement period covering 3/4 quarters of the month of March is
excessive and too restrictive.
Increased fines, coupled with fines imposed by landlords, is too punitive and
targeted toward a college age population, many of which have other fi nancial
constraints and obligations.
The City needs to engage in other areas of collaboration to establish boundaries
and not solely rely of fines or other forms of punishment to restrict behavior.
The City will continue to absorb additional costs to staff the 21+ day period
should the ordinance pass. These funds should be utilized in other productive
ways to reduce crime.
The City needs to become engaged with students prior to writing any ordinance
that impacts their demographic in order to obtain true feedback and perspective
amongst the entire San Luis Obispo community.
Noise Violations should be excluded from the Safety Enhancement amendments.
Excluding noise violations would not diminish the effectiveness of the attended
plans purpose.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Amendment of the City’s Safety Enhancement Zone is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and enforcement actions are categorically exempt pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15321(b).
FISCAL IMPACT
In general, revenue resulting from violations does not cover the costs of providing law
enforcement services nor can the City create a scheme by which the revenue from fines pay for
specific services.
No new enforcement resources are being added to support the additional safety enhancement
period. The proposed ordinance expands the time period for existing safety enhancement zone
designations. It is unknown the amount of revenue that may be generated from safety
enhancement zone violations since it is not yet known to what extent violations will increase or
decrease. However, changes that result in increased fines are not likely to generate significant
revenue to offset the existing enforcement costs. Staffing costs for this time period would be
consistent with the costs during the 2016 St. Patrick’s Day deployments. Those cost were
estimated to be $31,000.
Packet Pg. 243
14
ALTERNATIVE
Do not introduce the ordinance. Staff does not recommend this alternative as safety enhancement
has proven to be an effective deterrent to address negative behaviors.
Attachments:
a - CAR - Safety Enhancement 12-7-2004
b - CAR -Halloween & St. Pat's 4-20-10
c - CAR -Cal Poly Start of School 7-2-2013
d - Cal Poly Roof Collapse Report - 2015
e - Ch.9.22 Amendment St Fratty's Redline consistent
f - Ordinance Introduction - Ch.9.22
Packet Pg. 244
14
council
MatiwDe
December 7 2004
AGEnaa nEpout
N1301 n
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Daniel R. Blanke, Police Captain
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE ENABLING SAFETY
ENHANCEMENT ZONES IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND
ESTABLISHING A CITY-WIDE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE
DURING MARDI GRAS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 9.22 to Title 9 of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code that would:
1. Enable the designation of Safety Enhancement Zones in the City of San Luis Obispo to
temporarily increase fines and penalties for certain Municipal Code violations for a
designated time period; and
2. Establish a city-wide Safety Enhancement Zone during the period of Mardi Gras each
year.
DISCUSSION
Background
At the September 21, 2004 meeting of the City Council, Police Department staff presented a
planning update for Mardi Gras weekend 2005, which included a series of strategies designed to
prevent a recurrence of the dangerous and violent activity witnessed during the 2004 Mardi Gras
weekend. During this report to Council, staff requested Council consider a new strategy being
successfully used in the City of Newport Beach called a Safety Enhancement Zone. Each year,
Newport Beach experiences significant problems with alcohol, noise, and parties along their
beach area on July 4. The City enacted an ordinance that created a Safety Enhancement Zone that
encompasses the problem area and is posted as such prior to the July 4 holiday. When the Safety
Enhancement Zone is activated, all fines for Municipal Code violations are automatically tripled.
The Police Department does extensive outreach prior to the holiday to notify residents of the
enhancement zone and increased fines. This ordinance has proven very effective in increasing the
safety of residents in the area by deterring unlawful behavior because potential violators know
the resulting fines will be tripled in "The Zone."
At the September 21, 2004 meeting, Council approved the concept of Safety Enhancement Zones
in San Luis Obispo during Mardi Gras, and directed staff to return with an appropriate ordinance.
Packet Pg. 245
14
ESTABLISHMENT OF SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES Page 2
Feedback from Community Stakeholders
When the concept of Safety Enhancement Zones was first introduced to Council, staff felt that
the Zones would be most effective if they encompassed specific geographic areas, such as the
Foothill/California area and the downtown corridor. This model is patterned after the ordinance
being utilized in Newport Beach. Since that time, staff and Council have received feedback from
community members concerned about the designation of specific geographic zones, and urging
staff to consider the idea of a city-wide Safety Enhancement Zone during Mardi Gras weekend.
In the weeks following that meeting, staff received comments from and met with various
community members and groups to discuss the Safety Enhancement Zone concept and any
concerns these stakeholders may have. Specifically, staff met with the Mardi Gras subcommittee
of the Student Community Liaison Committee ( SCLC), which is comprised of student leaders
from Cal Poly and Cuesta, as well as Cal Poly staff members, community representatives, and
city staff. Police Department staff also met with representatives from Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods (RQN). The prevailing opinion was that designating specific geographic zones
during Mardi Gras weekend, especially in the Foothill/California area, would give the perception
that students were being unfairly targeted for enforcement and, at the same time, could drive
unruly people into other areas of the City simply because they would not have to be concerned
about the enhanced penalties associated with the Safety Enhancement Zones. Stakeholders felt
that the problems.associated with Mardi Gras were significant throughout the City, including in
neighborhoods not included in the originally conceived geographic zones.
During these meetings, the concept of a city-wide Safety Enhancement Zone during Mardi Gras
was discussed and received strong support. Staff and stakeholders believe it would provide a
significant deterrent to criminal behavior throughout the City during Mardi Gras without risk of
shifting the problems to different areas of the City, or being perceived as targeting only students
for enforcement. Staff believes a city-wide zone would still meet our advance messaging
objectives by alerting potential visitors in advance that fines will be tripled throughout the City
during Mardi Gras.
At the October 21, 2004, SCLC meeting, a motion was introduced to support the concept of a
city-wide Safety Enhancement Zone during Mardi Gras weekend. The motion was approved
unanimously by the voting members present. RQN has expressed their support for the same city-
wide concept.
How would the Safety Enhancement Zone work?
The proposed ordinance would provide Council with a means, by ordinance or resolution, to
designate a specific geographical area as a "Safety Enhancement Zone" for a specified period of
time, upon a finding that there is a need to take immediate action to protect the public health,
safety and welfare. The ordinance would also designate the City of San Luis Obispo as a Safety
Enhancement Zone for the period of Mardi Gras each year, defined as the period from 12:01 am
on the Thursday preceding "Fat Tuesday" until 7:00 am on the Wednesday following "Fat
Tuesday."
D— ZPacket Pg. 246
14
1
J/
ESTABLISHMENT OF SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES Page 3
When an area is designated by Council as a Safety Enhancement Zone for a specified time
period, such as the entire City during Mardi Gras, then fines are tripled' for violations of the
following Municipal Code provisions:
Chapter 9.04 Possession of open containers or consumption of alcoholic beverages in public
places
Chapter 9.05 Hosting a gathering where underage persons consume alcohol
Chapter 9.12 Noise control
Chapter 9.16 Dangerous and deadly weapons
Chapter 9.20 Urination in public
Staff is recommending limiting the fine increases to these specific Municipal Code provisions
because each is directly related to the problems the City experiences during Mardi Gras, such as
excessive and illegal alcohol abuse, and out-of-control parties. These violations are a major
contributor to subsequent violence, injuries, and arrests. Tripling the fines for such conduct
provides law enforcement with a tool to better prevent and control misconduct, and allows the
citizens of San Luis Obispo to send a loud and clear message that such behavior will not be
tolerated here during Mardi Gras. Council has the ability to amend this list of violations, or to
apply the Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance to all Municipal Code violations.
Notification that certain Municipal Code fines in the City of San Luis Obispo would be tripled
during Mardi Gras would be made well in advance of the effective date. The City is undertaking
a significant Mardi Gras multi-media messaging campaign and the new ordinance would be
included as part of that messaging.
A Safety Enhancement Zone ordinance would not apply to violations of state law, such as public
intoxication and inciting a riot, since the Council does not have the legal authority to increase
fines for these violations.
The addition of an ordinance that enables Council to designate Safety Enhancements Zones
provides Council a means to create, enhance, repeal, or modify zone locations, days, or hours by
resolution when necessary. For example, Halloween has been a significant public safety problem
in other communities and we are beginning to experience increased problems here in San Luis
Obispo associated with this holiday. Should these problems become significant, Council would
have the legal authority to create Safety Enhancement Zones if they desire, and upon appropriate
findings as outlined in the ordinance.
Penalties for violations committed in the Safety Enhancement Zone
The Police Department, in coordination with the City Attorney and Finance Department, has
determined that the City's existing administrative citation process would be most appropriate to
process citations issued for violations of Municipal Codes under the umbrella of the Safety
Enhancement Zone ordinance. Police officers would issue administrative citations for violations
of the designated Municipal Code provisions, and the City Attorney's Office would be
1 The maximum fine for a third infraction offense understate law is$1,000. Hence,a third violation is not actually
tripled.
U-3Packet Pg. 247
14
ESTABLISHMENT OF SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES Page-4.
responsible for prosecuting violations. The attached ordinance provides that violations may also
be prosecuted criminally. Normally, these violations are prosecuted as infractions, which
currently carry the following penalties, per section 1.12.040 of the Municipal Code:
First offense: 100 fine
Second offense within l year: 200 fine
Third or more offenses within 1 year: 500 fine
Violations committed while a Safety Enhancement Zone is in effect, including during the
specified period of time during Mardi Gras, would carry the following penalties:
First offense: 300 fine
Second offense within 1 year: 600 fine
Third or more offenses within 1 year:1,000 fine
The City Attorney also has the option of prosecuting a violation as a misdemeanor if the same
individual commits three or more violations, or if the seriousness of a particular violation
warrants it.
CONCURRENCES
As mentioned in this report, the city-wide Safety Enhancement Zone concept is supported by
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), the Student Community Liaison Committee
SCLC) and Cal Poly Associated Students, Inc. (ASI).
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of printing new administrative citation books for use by officers would cost
approximately $875.00. There would be some additional staff time required in the Police and
Finance Departments, and the City Attorney's Office to process the citations issued during Mardi
Gras. Staff from these departments have met and concur that the additional workload would be
manageable using existing resources. It is anticipated that fine revenues would exceed the
associated costs.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative#1
Adopt an Ordinance Desigriating Multiple Safety Enhancement Zones within the City. The City
Council could adopt an ordinance designating specific geographic areas as Safety Enhancement
Zones, as originally described during the September 21, 2004 Council meeting.
The recommended zones are a Foothill / California Safety Enhancement Zone, and a Downtown
Safety Enhancement Zone. The Foothill / California Safety Enhancement Zone would comprise
the area bounded by Murray and Taft Streets on the south, Kentucky and Hathway Streets on the
east, the City Limit on the north and Santa Rosa Street on the west. Along the southern and
eastern boundaries, the Zone would encompass the residential and commercial properties on both
Io`/Packet Pg. 248
14
ESTABLISHMENT OF SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES Page 5
sides of the roadway boundary. Notice of the Safety Enhancement Zone designation would be
posted with signs around the perimeter of the Zone.
The Downtown Safety Enhancement Zone would comprise the area permanently designated as a
no skateboarding" zone that encompasses the downtown core. The Safety Enhancement Zone is
bounded by Pacific Street on the south, Santa Rosa Street on the east, Palm Street on the north,
and Nipomo Street on the west. Notice of the Safety Enhancement Zone designation would be
posted with signs at the locations where signs are currently posted giving notice of the downtown
skateboarding prohibition.
This alternative is not recommended, as feedback from community stakeholders indicates that a
City-wide Safety Enhancement Zone would be more effective overall and would alleviate
concerns about student perception and the potential shifting of problems to non-zone areas.
Alternative#2
Decline to adopt the ordinance. This action is not recommended. Staff believes that this
ordinance will be an effective tool in discouraging bad behavior during Mardi Gras weekend, and
will provide Council with necessary authority and flexibility to create or modify safety
enhancement zones as a strategy to quell criminal behavior during specific periods of time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Draft Ordinance adding Chapter 9.22 to the Municipal Code, enabling Safety
Enhancement Zones in the City of San Luis Obispo, and establishing a city-wide Safety
Enhancement Zone during the specified period of Mardi Gras (recommended ordinance).
2) Draft Ordinance adding Chapter 9.22 to the Municipal Code, enabling Safety
Enhancement Zones in the City of San Luis Obispo, and establishing Foothill/California
and Downtown Safety Enhancement Zones during the specified period of Mardi Gras
alternative#1).
G:Wgenda-Ordinances-Resol\Safety Enhancement Zone-Agenda Rpt.DOC
iv- sPacket Pg. 249
14
Attachment #1
ORDINANCE NO.2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING CHAPTER 9.22 TO TITLE 9 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
CODE ESTABLISHING SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES, INCREASING FINES
AND PENALTIES FOR MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS IN AN AREA
DESIGNATED AS A SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE FOR THE TIME THE
DESIGNATION IS EFFECTIVE,AND DESIGNATING THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AS A SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE DURING THE EXTENDED MARDI
GRAS WEEKEND (12:01 AM ON THE THURSDAY PRECEDING"FAT TUESDAY"
UNTIL 7:00 AM ON THE WEDNESDAY FOLLOWING "FAT TUESDAY OF EACH
YEAR")
WHEREAS, the potential for future incidents of public disorder and serious
misconduct on a large scale requires that Council have the ability to establish Safety
Enhancement Zones in specific locations and for specific time periods; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo has gained international notoriety for being the
destination for participating in the largest Mardi Gras celebration west of the Mississippi River;
and
WHEREAS, during Mardi Gras, San Luis Obispo is the site of numerous large
parties, with throngs of young people traveling between them carrying open alcohol containers,
urinating in public, and committing a variety of other alcohol-related violations; and
WHEREAS, crowds, excessive alcohol consumption, and associated violent
behavior during Mardi Gras have steadily increased over the last 10 years; and
WHEREAS, during Mardi Gras 2004, a riot occurred at the intersection of
Foothill and California Boulevards in San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, during Mardi Gras 2004, police made 200 arrests and issued 130
citations; and
WHEREAS, the cost was approximately $500,000 for law enforcement and other
public services required to control the chaos of Mardi Gras 2004; and
WHEREAS, the increased penalties for citations will reduce the amount of
criminal activity in San Luis Obispo during the period of Mardi Gras, and reduce the potential
for a major disturbance by providing law and code enforcement officers with additional tools to
obtain prompt compliance with all applicable statutes and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo is a charter city with the authority to adopt
ordinances and resolutions governing matters pertaining to municipal affairs, and the provisions
of this ordinance are designed to protect the health safety and welfare of the residents of, and
Packet Pg. 250
14
n
Ordinance No.2004 Series)
Page 2
visitors to, San Luis Obispo by enhancing the penalties for the violation of municipal ordinances
to minimize the potential for a major disturbance and ensure appropriate responses to requests
for emergency medical assistance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.22 is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Chapter 9.22
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES
9.22.010 Designation Process.
The City Council may by ordinance, or by resolution upon a finding that there is a
need to take immediate action to protect the public health, safety and welfare, designate a
specific geographical area as a "Safety Enhancement Zone" and specify the date and or time that
the designation is effective upon a finding that the geographical area is subject to unique
conditions and circumstances during a specific period of time that create the potential for a
significant threat to public health and safety and that the threat would be reduced by enhanced
penalties for violations of provisions of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The ordinance or
resolution establishing a Safety Enhancement Zone shall contain the following provisions: (a) a
description of the geographical area comprising the Safety Enhancement Zone, and (b) the date
and time, or other specific description of the time period during which the Safety Enhancement
Zone designation is applicable to the geographical area.
9.22.020 Safety Enhancement Zone Penalties and Violations.
A. Any violation of designated sections of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code that
is committed within an area that has been designated by the City Council as a Safety
Enhancement Zone, and during the time that designation is effective, shall be subject to
the following:
1.A fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a first violation;
2.A fine not exceeding six hundred dollars ($600.00) for a second violation
of the same section within one year;
3.A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each additional
violation of the same section within one year.
B. Safety Enhancement Zone Violations. Fines for violations committed in the
Safety Enhancement Zone shall apply to the following provisions: Chapter 9.04
Possession of open containers or consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places),
Chapter 9.05 (Hosting a gathering where underage persons consume alcohol), Chapter
9.12 (Noise control), Chapter 9. 16 (Dangerous and deadly weapons), and Chapter 9.20
0-7Packet Pg. 251
14
Ordinance No. 2004 Series)
Page 3
Urination in public). A separate offense shall be deemed to have been committed
whenever a person repeats the act that constitutes the violation.
9.22.030 Prosecution Criminally or Administratively.
A violation under this Chapter may be prosecuted either criminally or
administratively pursuant to Chapter 1.24.
9.22.040 City of San Luis Obispo Safety Enhancement Zone.
The City Council designates as a Safety Enhancement Zone the entire area within
the City Limits of San Luis Obispo. This designation is effective from 12:01 AM on the
Thursday preceding "Fat Tuesday" until 7:00 AM on the Wednesday following "Fat Tuesday"
during each year that the designation is in effect.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five
days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City.
This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 7`h day of December, 2004, and adopted by the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the _ day of 2004, upon motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan P. Lowell
City Attorney
10-fPacket Pg. 252
14
Attachment #2
ORDINANCE NO.2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING CHAPTER 9.22 TO TITLE 9 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
CODE ESTABLISHING SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES, INCREASING FINES
AND PENALTIES FOR MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS IN AN AREA
DESIGNATED AS A SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE FOR THE TIME THE
DESIGNATION IS EFFECTIVE,AND DESIGNATING THE DOWNTOWN CORE AND
AN AREA IN NORTH SAN LUIS OBISPO AS SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES
DURING THE EXTENDED MARDI GRAS WEEKEND (12:01 AM ON THE
THURSDAY PRECEDING "FAT TUESDAY" UNTIL 7:00 AM ON THE WEDNESDAY
FOLLOWING "FAT TUESDAY OF EACH YEAR")
WHEREAS, the potential for future incidents of public disorder and serious
misconduct on a large scale requires that Council have the ability to establish Safety
Enhancement Zones in specific locations and for specific time periods; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo has gained international notoriety for being the
destination for participating in the largest Mardi Gras celebration west of the Mississippi River;
and
WHEREAS, during Mardi Gras, San Luis Obispo is the site of numerous large
parties, with throngs of young people traveling between them carrying open alcohol containers,
urinating in public, and committing a variety of other alcohol-related violations;and
WHEREAS, crowds, excessive alcohol consumption, and associated violent
behavior during Mardi Gras have steadily increased over the last 10 years; and
WHEREAS, during Mardi Gras 2004, a riot occurred at the intersection of
Foothill and California Boulevards in San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, during Mardi Gras 2004, police made 200 arrests and issued 130
citations, and 40% those arrests and 42% of the citations occurred in the Foothill / California
area;and
WHEREAS, Downtown San Luis Obispo has also traditionally been a focal
point of Mardi Gras related activity and, along with the FoothilUCalifomia area, the Downtown
is the site of a disproportionate number of alcohol-related arrests and citations, compared to the
rest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the cost was approximately $500,000 for law enforcement and other
public services required to control the chaos of Mardi Gras 2004; and
WHEREAS, the increased penalties for administrative citations will reduce the
amount of criminal activity in the FoothillICalifornia and Downtown Areas of San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg. 253
14
Ordinance No. 2004 Series)
Page 2
during the period of Mardi Gras, and reduce the potential for a major disturbance by providing
law and code enforcement officers with additional tools to obtain prompt compliance with all
applicable statutes and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo is a charter city with the authority to adopt
ordinances and resolutions governing matters pertaining to municipal affairs, and the provisions
of this ordinance are designed to protect the health safety and welfare of the residents of, and
visitors to, San Luis Obispo by enhancing the penalties for the violation of municipal ordinances
to minimize the potential for a major disturbance and ensure appropriate responses to requests
for emergency medical assistance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.22 is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Chapter 9.22
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES
9.22.010 Designation Process.
The City Council may by ordinance, or by resolution upon a finding that there is a
need to take immediate action to protect the public health, safety and welfare, designate a
specific geographical area as a "Safety Enhancement Zone" and specify the date and or time that
the designation is effective upon a finding that the geographical area is subject to unique
conditions and circumstances during a specific period of time that create the potential for a
significant threat to public health and safety and that the threat would be reduced by enhanced
penalties for violations of provisions of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The ordinance or
resolution establishing a Safety Enhancement Zone shall contain the following provisions: (a) a
description of the geographical area comprising the Safety Enhancement Zone, and (b) the date
and time, or other specific description of the time period during which the Safety Enhancement
Zone designation is applicable to the geographical area.
9.22.020 Safety Enhancement Zone Penalties and Violations.
A. Any violation of designated sections of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code that
is committed within an area that has been designated by the City Council as a Safety
Enhancement Zone, and during the time that designation is effective, shall be subject to
the following:
1. A fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a first violation;
2.A fine not exceeding six hundred dollars ($600.00) for a second violation
of the same o_
ace
within one year;
3.A fine not
exceu
eding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each additional
violation of the same ordi&nce within one year.
I Cilzr,.
p-/0Packet Pg. 254
14
Ordinance No.2004 series)
Page 3
B. Safety Enhancement Zone Violations. Fines for violations committed in the
Safety Enhancement Zone shall apply to the following provisions: Chapter 9.04
Possession of open containers or consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places),
Chapter 9.05 (Hosting a gathering where underage persons consume alcohol), Chapter
9.12 (Noise control), Chapter 9.16 (Dangerous and deadly weapons), and Chapter 9.20
Urination in public). A separate offense shall be deemed to have been committed
whenever a person repeats the act that constitutes the violation.
9.22.030 Prosecution Criminally or Administratively.
A violation under this Chapter may be prosecuted either criminally or
administratively pursuant to Chapter 1.24.
9.22.040 California-Foothill Safety Enhancement Zone.
The City Council designates as a Safety Enhancement Zone the area bounded by
Murray and Taft Streets on the south, Kentucky and Hathway Streets on the east, the City Limit
on the north and Santa Rosa Street on the west. Along the southern and eastern boundaries, the
California-Foothill Safety Enhancement Zone will encompass the residential and commercial
properties on both sides of the roadway boundary. This designation is effective from 12:01 AM
on the Thursday preceding "Fat Tuesday" until 7:00 AM on the Wednesday following "Fat
Tuesday" during each year that the designation is in effect.
9.22.050 Downtown Safety Enhancement Zone.
The City Council designates as a Safety Enhancement Zone the area permanently
designated as a "no skateboarding" zone that encompasses the downtown core. The Safety
Enhancement Zone is bounded by Pacific Street on the south, Santa Rosa Street on the east, Palm
Street on the north, and Nipomo Street on the west. This designation is effective from 12:01 AM
on the Thursday preceding "Fat Tuesday" until 7:00 AM on the Wednesday following "Fat
Tuesday" during each year that the designation is in effect.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five
days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City.
This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the
7h
day of December, 2004, and adopted by the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the _ day of 2004, upon motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg. 255
14
Ordinance No. 2004 Series)
Page 2
during the period of Mardi Gras, and reduce the potential for a major disturbance by providing
law and code enforcement officers with additional tools to obtain prompt compliance with all
applicable statutes and ordinances;and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo is a charter city with the authority to adopt
ordinances and resolutions governing matters pertaining to municipal affairs, and the provisions
of this ordinance are designed to protect the health safety and welfare of the residents of, and
visitors to, San Luis Obispo by enhancing the penalties for the violation of municipal ordinances
to minimize the potential for a major disturbance and ensure appropriate responses to requests
for emergency medical assistance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.22 is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Chapter 9.22
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONES
9.22.010 Designation Process.
The City Council may by ordinance, or by resolution upon a finding that there is a
need to take immediate action to protect the public health, safety and welfare, designate a
specific geographical area as a "Safety Enhancement Zone" and specify the date and or time that
the designation is effective upon a finding that the geographical area is subject to unique
conditions and circumstances during a specific period of time that create the potential for a
significant threat to public health and safety and that the threat would be reduced by enhanced
penalties for violations of provisions of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The ordinance or
resolution establishing a Safety Enhancement Zone shall contain the following provisions: (a) a
description of the geographical area comprising the Safety Enhancement Zone, and (b) the date
and time, or other specific description of the time period during which the Safety Enhancement
Zone designation is applicable to the geographical area.
9.22.020 Safety Enhancement Zone Penalties and Violations.
A. Any violation of designated sections of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code that
is committed within an area that has been designated by the City Council as a Safety
Enhancement Zone, and during the time that designation is effective, shall be subject to
the following:
1.A fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a first violation;
2.A fine not exceeding six hundred dollars ($600.00) for a second violation
of the same section within one year;
3.A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each additional
violation of the same section within one year.
Packet Pg. 256
14
Ordinance No. 2004-Series)
Page 4
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan P. Lowell
City Attorney
0 -/3Packet Pg. 257
14
RED FILE
Associated
StudentsMEETING AGENDA,
Inc..
DATCGLt7/
California Polytechnic University SEM #
San Luis Obispo
Resolution#05-03
Support for a Citywide Safety Enhancement Zone During Mardi Gras 2005
Whereas: ASI is the official voice of the Cal Poly student body, and
Whereas: The city council approved the concept of a safety enhancement zone on September 21"in the
areas of Foothill, California, and the downtown areas during the week of Mardi Gras 2005, and
Whereas:This strategy would isolate a section of the community during this week and would target a
perceived demographic, and
Whereas:The city needs to send a unified message that Mardi Gras is a San Luis Obispo issue and not a
student issue, and
Whereas:The city should not send a message that some neighborhoods are more valuable than others,
and
Whereas: Zoning a perceived population would hinder community relations and divide the community.
Therefore
Be it resolved: Cal Poly students support the creation of a citywide safety enhancement zone, and
Furthermore
Be it resolved:Members of the community.including students and long term residents should be equal
partners and share the same equitable rights as citizens of San Luis Obispo.
CERTIFIED as the true and correct copy, in witness thereof, I ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Board of
have set my hand and Seal of the Associated Students,Inc. Directors by unanimous vote on November 10,2004.
this 10th day
of November 2004.
ASIS retary I it of a Board
ASI President
Sponsored by: Joe Vaccaro, Vice Chair ASI Board of Directors, College of Engi
Li UNCIL DD DIRBlakeBolton, ASI President
CAO
ten Salinas, ASI Board of Directors, College of Engineering ACAO IN DIR'
RECEIVE®an Ficalora, ASI Board of Directors, College of Liberal Arts ATTORNEY IRE CHIEF
CLERK ORIG p'N DIR
DEC G 1 2C0't DF-PT A0S POLICE CHF
R=C DIR
SLO CITY CLERK uriL DIR
HR DIRPacket Pg. 258
14
FROM: Deborah E. Linden, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Chris Staley, Police Captain
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE ORDINANCE
AND RESOLUTION TO ENACT SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE
DURING SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 9.22 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
as follows:
a. Amend section 9.22.020A to modify the fine schedule for safety enhancement
zone violations;
b. Amend section 9.22.020B to add Chapter 9.13 – Unruly Gatherings – to the list of
eligible violations;
c. Delete section 9.22.040 – City of San Luis Obispo Safety Enhancement Zone.
2. Adopt a resolution to designate a city-wide safety enhancement zone for the time periods
encompassing Mardi Gras, St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween.
3. Direct staff to implement a biennial review process for safety enhancement zone
designations.
DISCUSSION
Background
In December 2004 the Council enacted Chapter 9.22 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
which created a process to designate a geographic area in the City as a safety enhancement zone
during specific dates/times based upon a finding by the Council that such a designation is
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
Violations of the following Municipal Code ordinances during the enactment of a safety
enhancement zone result in higher fines than violations when a safety enhancement zone is not in
effect:
Chapter 9.04 Possession or consumption of alcohol in public
Chapter 9.05 Hosting a gathering with minors consuming or possessing alcohol
Chapter 9.12 Noise control
Chapter 9.16 Dangerous and deadly weapons
Chapter 9.20 Urinating in public
April 20, 2010
Packet Pg. 259
14
Safety Enhancement Zone Amendments Page 2
Violations of these Municipal Code sections during a safety enhancement zone period result in a
fine of $350 for a first offense, $700 for a second offense within a 12-month period, and $1000
for third or subsequent offenses in a 12-month period. At the time the safety enhancement zone
ordinance was enacted in 2004, the regular fines for the Municipal Code sections above began at
$100 for a first offense and increased for subsequent offenses within a 12-month period. When a
safety enhancement zone was in effect, the fines essentially tripled, which acted as a strong
deterrent to violating the law. However, since 2004, the Council has approved increases to the
regular fines for alcohol, noise and urinating violations. As a result, the fines in effect during a
safety enhancement zone period are the same as the regular fines for the violations listed above
($350/$700/$1,000).
On September 29, 2009, during a study session with the Council, staff presented several
strategies to reduce neighborhood noise and party disturbances and requested the Council provide
direction to staff regarding the proposed strategies. During this study session, staff presented the
need to amend the safety enhancement zone ordinance to update the fine structure. Staff also
requested the Council provide direction regarding enacting a safety enhancement zone during
other times of the year, such as Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day, in order to deter increasingly
disruptive behavior. The Council directed staff to return with amendments to the ordinance and
with proposed dates for the enactment of the safety enhancement zone ordinance.
Ordinance Amendments
Fine Structure
The existing safety enhancement zone ordinance specifies the fine amounts for violations of
certain ordinances when a safety enhancement zone is in effect. Since the regular fines for the
listed violations have been increased, the fine amounts levied when a safety enhancement zone is
in effect are no greater than the regular fine. Staff recommends amending the ordinance to read
that fines for violations of the listed Municipal Codes shall be doubled, up to $1000 maximum,
during a safety enhancement zone period. The maximum allowable fine for administrative
violations under the City’s Municipal Code is $,1000. By amending the language to double the
existing fines, the Council will retain the ability to adjust fines for specific Municipal Code
chapters without having to amend the safety enhancement zone ordinance each time.
The effect of doubling the fines during safety enhancement zone periods would be:
Regular Fine Fine during Safety
Enhancement Zone Period
1st offense $350 $700
2nd offense within a 12-month period $700 $1000
3rd or subsequent offense within a
12-month period
$1,000 $1,000
Packet Pg. 260
14
Safety Enhancement Zone Amendments Page 3
Add Unruly Gathering to list of Offenses
On April 20, the Council will consider the final adoption of a new unruly gathering ordinance
(Chapter 9.13 of the Municipal Code). Should the Council adopt the unruly gathering ordinance,
staff recommends Chapter 9.13 be added to the list of offenses that would be subject to increased
fines during safety enhancement zone periods in order to act as an additional deterrent during
those times of the year when party activity is at its highest. Should the Council add Chapter 9.13
to the list of offenses, the following Municipal Code chapters will be included in the safety
enhancement zone ordnance:
Chapter 9.04 Possession or consumption of alcohol in public
Chapter 9.05 Hosting a gathering with minors consuming or possessing alcohol
Chapter 9.12 Noise control
Chapter 9.13 Unruly gatherings
Chapter 9.16 Dangerous and deadly weapons
Chapter 9.20 Urinating in public
Should the Council decide not to adopt the unruly gathering ordinance, staff will delete Chapter
9.13 from the list of offenses specified in the safety enhancement zone ordinance.
Delete section 9.22.040 Designating a Safety Enhancement Zone
When the safety enhancement zone ordinance was initially adopted in 2004, the Council included
section 9.22.040 which designated a citywide safety enhancement zone during the period
encompassing Mardi Gras. The Mardi Gras riot had occurred earlier that year and the safety
enhancement zone ordinance was one of the strategies implemented to prevent a recurrence of
the violence.
Staff recommends deleting this section from the ordinance and instead, adopting a resolution
designating the same period of time (Mardi Gras) a citywide safety enhancement zone. By
creating the safety enhancement zone by resolution rather than including the language in the
actual ordinance, the Council can more easily modify or eliminate the safety enhancement zone
designation in the future without having to go through the cumbersome process of amending the
ordinance.
Resolution designating Safety Enhancement Zones
Currently, the only designated safety enhancement zone is in effect citywide for the period of
time encompassing Mardi Gras. Staff believes this designation has been particularly effective in
quelling the violence associated with Mardi Gras and that it is very important to maintain this
designation in order to ensure the large crowds and disruptive behavior associated with Mardi
Gras does not return. Other communities have experienced the return of large unruly celebrations
once special enforcement provisions have been lifted, and this risk exists for Mardi Gras in our
City. The continuation of the safety enhancement zone designation will help ensure this does not
occur. Therefore, staff recommends continuing the designation of Mardi Gras as a safety
enhancement zone period by adopting a resolution to that effect. If the Council adopts the
concept of a biennial review of safety enhancement zone designations, the Council will have
future opportunities, beginning in 2012, to review the need for the safety enhancement zone
designation during Mardi Gras.
Packet Pg. 261
14
Safety Enhancement Zone Amendments Page 4
Additionally, two occasions have become increasingly problematic in the City: Halloween and
St. Patrick’s Day. Large crowds, parties, and excessive and illegal alcohol use have become
associated with these occasions, posing a significant threat to public health and safety and
resulting in increased crime and arrests. The Police Department is at maximum staffing during
both events and incurs significant overtime costs as a result. Staff is concerned that these
celebrations will continue to grow, as has occurred in other college communities such as Chico
and Isla Vista. Staff believes the designation of citywide safety enhancement zones for the
periods of time encompassing Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day would act as an effective
deterrent to the unlawful behavior. Staff further recommends that when Halloween falls on or
near a weekend (Thursday through Sunday), the citywide safety enhancement zone designation
encompass the entire weekend in order to deter multi-night celebrations.
Biennial Review
Safety enhancement zone periods are meant to deter and address problems associated with
certain occasions in San Luis Obispo, such as Mardi Gras. These occasions can change over time
or new ones may become problematic. In order to ensure the designation of safety enhancement
zone periods are still necessary, staff recommends implementing a biennial (every two year)
review process by the Council of existing safety enhancement zone designations. This provides
staff and the Council a regular opportunity to examine the continued need for existing safety
enhancement zone designations, and to eliminate or add designations. If the Council directs staff
to implement a biennial review process, the first review would be conducted in 2012 and every
two years thereafter, unless there are no safety enhancement zone designations in effect.
However, this does not prevent additions or modifications within the two year window if a need
is identified.
CONCURRENCES
In developing the recommendations contained in this report, staff met with representatives from
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and Cal Poly Associated Students, Inc. (ASI). RQN
supports the staff recommendations. ASI supports the biennial review of existing safety
enhancement zone recommendations to ensure they are still necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is unable to estimate the revenue that may be generated from safety enhancement zone
violations since it is not known to what extent violations will increase or decrease as a result of
the actions recommended in this report. When the safety enhancement zone designation went
into effect during Mardi Gras, disturbances decreased substantially. Feedback from stakeholders
was that the increased fines acted as a significant deterrent to noise and party violations. It is
possible that administrative citation revenue could decrease during designated safety
enhancement zone periods because of this deterrent effect.
ALTERNATIVES
Packet Pg. 262
14
Safety Enhancement Zone Amendments Page 5
1. Should the Council desire significant modifications to the recommended ordinance or
resolution language, staff suggests the Council provide direction to staff and staff will
return with new recommendations at a later date.
2. Should the Council desire simple changes to the ordinance or resolution language, the
Council may direct staff to make these changes immediately.
3. The Council could choose to make no changes to the safety enhancement zone
ordinance in which case the fines will not be greater than those in place during other
time periods.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Legislative draft of proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 9.22
2. Ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 9.22
3. Resolution designating citywide safety enhancement zones during the time periods
encompassing Mardi Gras, Halloween, and St. Patrick’s Day.
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Police CAR\2010\Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance Amendments\CAR - Safety
Enhancement Zone 4-20-10.DOC
Packet Pg. 263
14
FROM: Steve Gesell, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Christine Wallace, Neighborhood Outreach Manager
SUBJECT: SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE AMENDMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance to specify the safety enhancement zones in the City and designate an
additional city-wide safety enhancement zone for the time period encompassing the start of school
for California Polytechnic University (Cal Poly) beginning on move-in day for Cal Poly housing
and ending the second Monday morning following the beginning of the fall academic year.
DISCUSSION
On May 21, 2013, Council received a report identifying the health and safety issues experienced in
the neighborhoods at the start of the academic school year and the strategies being considered to
address the challenges it poses. The thrust of the report focused on initiating a collaborative effort
with Cal Poly, Cuesta, and Neighborhood Groups to develop short, medium and long term strategies
to address neighborhood issues. The Council supported the establishment of a Neighborhood
Wellness/Community Civility Effort with representatives from the City, Cal Poly, Cuesta College,
and Neighborhood Groups with the goal to enhance the quality of life for all residents, with
particular emphasis on building positive relations between residential and student–aged neighbors
through a cultural shift in social behaviors.
Cal Poly is concurrently enacting a variety of initiatives to require and encourage students to
participate in planned activities with housing and orientation groups. University Police will also be
assisting the City’s Police Department in response to off-campus violations and disturbances that
may involve students. Cal Poly ASI has also introduced a campaign relating to campus culture
referred to as “The Mustang Way,” which encourages students to carry out their personal conduct in
manner that reflects the principals of pride, responsibility and character both on and off campus.
Safety Enhancement
In May 2010, Council approved the use of the safety enhancement zones for Halloween and St.
Patrick’s Day. The Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance had previously been adopted for the Mardi
Gras time period beginning in 2004. Safety enhancement has shown to be an effective deterrent to
address several types of behaviors. For example, during Halloween noise calls and subsequent
citations have reduced by 50%. Minor in possession of alcohol and urinating in public citations
showed the greatest decline. More significantly, open container citations have decreased by 70%.
The Police Department believes the decrease in violations is the primary result of educational
outreach efforts highlighting the increase in fines. This has translated into behavioral changes and
an increase in voluntary compliance with the requirements of City ordinances.
Meeting Date
Item Number
July 2, 2013
Packet Pg. 264
14
July 2, 2013
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE AMENDMENTS Page 2
The data below shows that the start of school time period is a time when a significant number of
minor in possession of alcohol, drunk in public, open container and urinating in public citations and
arrests occur. Including the start of school in safety enhancement could reduce the number of
negative behaviors and in turn, enhance student success and safety.
Start of
School
Minor in
Possession
Drunk
in
Public
Open
Container
Urinating
in Public
Unruly
Gathering
Social
Host
Noise
Party
Calls
Noise
Party
Citations
9/15/09-9/27/09 23 28 37 13 0 0 173 23
9/15/10-9/26/10 74 25 45 29 0 2 97 20
9/14/11-9/25/11 66 21 60 14 0 0 122 40
9/13/12-9/23/12 67 30 20 27 0 0 97 27
Additional data was gathered to show the significant decline in arrests and citations following
second week and weekend of the academic year.
Second
weekend
Minor in
Possession
Drunk
in
Public
Open
Container
Urinating
in Public
Unruly
Gathering
Social
Host
Noise
Party
Calls
Noise
Party
Citations
9/28/09-10/4/09 1 11 12 8 0 0 47 12
9/27-10-10/3/10 8 9 25 4 0 0 64 15
9/26/11-10/2/11 0 9 6 0 0 0 55 22
9/24/12-9/30/12 2 19 4 6 0 0 42 11
Staff recommends the safety enhancement time period begin on move-in day for Cal Poly housing
and end the second Monday morning following the beginning of the academic year. The addition of
this safety enhancement zone in combination with the other initiatives being brought forth by Cal
Poly, Cuesta College, and the City collaboratively are anticipated to significantly increase
voluntarily compliance, change cultural norms, and reduce adverse impacts in neighborhoods
relating to the start of each academic year.
FISCAL IMPACT
In general, revenue resulting from violations does not cover the costs of providing law enforcement
services. No new enforcement resources are being added to support the additional safety
enhancement period. The proposed ordinance expands the time period for existing safety
enhancement zone designations. It is unknown the amount of revenue that may be generated from
safety enhancement zone violations since it is not yet known to what extent violations will increase
or decrease. However, changes that result in increased fines are not likely to generate significant
revenue to offset the existing enforcement costs.
Packet Pg. 265
14
July 2, 2013
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ZONE AMENDMENTS Page 3
ALTERNATIVE
Do not introduce the ordinance. Staff does not recommend this alternative as safety
enhancement has proven to be an effective deterrent to negative behaviors.
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance designating additional safety enhancement zones
\\chstore4\Team\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-07-02\Safety Enhancement Zone Amend (Gesell-Wallace)
Packet Pg. 266
14
MARCH 7, 2015, INCIDENT
FINAL REPORT
Cal Poly Student Affairs | studentaffairs.calpoly.edu
Packet Pg. 267
14
Cal Poly | March 7, 2015, Incident - Final Report Page 2
Introduction
Over the last few years, Cal Poly students 1 have celebrated St. Patrick’s Day on a large scale.
This St. Patrick’s Day celebration, also known by students as St. Fratty’s Day, has been held on
or before St. Patrick’s Day. A former Cal Poly student, who was part of a Greek organization
and lived at the “Pink House” residence located on 348 Hathaway Avenue, created this event
approximately six years ago. Others living in the residence have continued to keep the event
alive as a tradition. The number of students and others attending has consistently increased
over time. In recent years, the City of San Luis Obispo has taken actions to address large and
unruly gatherings by increasing fines and patrols for high student traffic locations.
As is common practice, Dean of Students Jean DeCosta sent an e-mail to all Cal Poly students on
Wednesday, March 4, 2015, with a message of student safety for Spring Break activities and
end-of-quarter celebrations, including St. Patrick’s Day (Appendix A). The message also
included reminders that double fines for certain municipal code violations would be going into
effect – a practice implemented by the City of San Luis Obispo to address the problems
associated with large and unruly gatherings in the neighborhoods, such as St. Fratty’s Day
celebrations in the past.
On Thursday morning, March 5, 2015, Cal Poly’s Greek Life Office met with a fraternity
president regarding an email warning of a pending social gathering that would occur the
weekend of March 7, 2015. The fraternity president also indicated that he had sent an e-mail to
his chapter to not attend any social gatherings during the upcoming weekend. He wanted the
university to know that he was not participating and would be out of town. All Greek chapters
were on “social probation” during this time and were not permitted to have chapter-related
social events. The Greek Life Office requested a copy of that e-mail from the fraternity
president, which was received and sent to the Greek Life Office and the Dean of Students.
Later that day, the Dean of Students Office spoke with the University Police Department
regarding the status of Greek social probation and the alleged social gathering that might
potentially occur on the weekend of March 7–8, 2015. In response, University Police contacted
the SLO Police Department with this information to coordinate staffing, review information,
and to collaborate on how to best prepare for the weekend. No one anticipated that the social
gathering would begin on Saturday morning, March 7, at 4:30AM. The e-mail information
received from the fraternity president did not contain that information.
1 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of
student education records. The university must have written permission from a student in order to
release any information from that student’s education record. Therefore, we will not include in this
report any identifying information about specific students.
Packet Pg. 268
14
Cal Poly | March 7, 2015, Incident - Final Report Page 3
Incident Overview
Early on Saturday, March 7, 2015, at approximately 6:30AM, the Dean of Students and other
university officials received information from San Luis Obispo and University Police that a roof
had collapsed and that there were a large number of students gathered at or around 348
Hathaway Avenue, also known as the “Pink House.”
Dean of Students Jean DeCosta went down to Hathaway Avenue immediately to conduct
interviews with students to determine how the roof collapsed, to gather any other relevant
information, and to provide university support to Cal Poly students.
During the course of several interviews, Dean DeCosta learned that residents of the Pink House
invited 20 to 30 people over for a social gathering that was to begin around 6:30AM. The
residents told Dean DeCosta that they were having a social gathering to keep up with a long-
standing tradition involving their residence, and that the gathering was a Bring Your Own
Alcohol (BYOB) party. The residents stated that they called 911 at 6:00AM, just prior to the roof
collapsing, because they realized that the gathering had gotten too big and was beyond their
control. Dean DeCosta also learned that a resident next door (where the roof collapsed) was told
by his landlord that the residents were not to participate in any social gathering as the landlord
had heard rumors on Friday night that something big was going to happen over the weekend.
The resident reported that he complied, waking up the next morning to large numbers of
people in his yard and on his roof.
Around 7:30AM, representatives from the Dean of Students office (the Dean and two Assistant
Deans) came into the office to field phone calls from parents and other concerned parties as well
as to determine who was hurt during the roof collapse. Dean DeCosta then visited a local
hospital where the injured students were taken to ensure they received support. The two
Assistant Deans of Students remained on campus to field phone calls until approximately
2:00PM.
University Preliminary Investigation Process
On Monday, March 9, 2015, the Dean of Students department through the Office of Student
Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR) made a plan to address the situation.
OSRR sent an e-mail Wednesday, March 11 at 8:48PM to approximately 90 students requesting
help on gathering information concerning the events of Saturday, March 7, 2015 (Appendix B).
The students were identified by police, faculty, and staff as students who may have direct
knowledge of the events that occurred and led up to the roof collapse. Students were identified
by the following:
Packet Pg. 269
14
Cal Poly | March 7, 2015, Incident - Final Report Page 4
• Received a citation from police;
• Posted something about the event on social media (e.g., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook);
or
• Lived in one of the houses near the event.
On Thursday, March 12, 2015, a number of administrators interviewed over 60 students in the
evening.
Over the course of the week of March 16, 2015, OSRR identified another 25 students who may
have had direct knowledge of the events leading up to and including the roof collapse.
Although students were informed in the notification letter that they must attend the meeting or
face possible judicial action on the part of the university, students were told when they arrived
that their participation was optional. All students responded to written questions with varying
degrees of knowledge relevant to the incident.
The interviews lasted from ten minutes to one hour per student, depending on his or her
knowledge.
Preliminary Investigation Findings
On Monday, March 23, 2015, OSRR submitted a preliminary report to the Dean of Students,
with recommendations for next steps. Key points in that report are as follows:
• In response to the anticipated increased fines, students living in the Pink House moved
their St. Fratty’s Day celebration before St. Patrick’s Day and before Finals week.
• Many students suggested that social media applications such as Twitter, Yik Yak,
Instagram, and Snapchat contributed to the large gathering. Two days before the
incident students posted items about “throw back Thursday” with pictures of last year’s
event. Students reported that there was no centralized forum for disseminating
information about the event – some students knew when/where up to two weeks in
advance, others heard the night before.
• Many students went to Hathaway with no expectation of alcohol being provided, but
40% of the interviewed students stated that there was alcohol at the event, brought by
individuals. Most students intentionally became intoxicated prior to the event because
there was no expectation of alcohol being provided at the event.
Packet Pg. 270
14
Cal Poly | March 7, 2015, Incident - Final Report Page 5
• Many students participated in the activity known as Brewfing (drinking on a roof). This
is a recent social phenomenon that Cal Poly students engage in as part of the party
culture.
• Interviewed students reported that, based on their estimation, approximately 65% of the
attendees were Cal Poly students. Students estimated that the rest of the attendees were
either Cuesta College students or students from other institutions.
• Interviewed students reported that many Greek members attended the event based on
Greek letters being worn by individuals, social media messaging from known Greek
members, and the volume of Greeks living in the residence halls who traveled to
Hathaway. No evidence supports that the Greeks officially promoted or marketed the
event; however, first-year Greek life members from the residence halls likely used word-
of-mouth and social media to promote attending the event.
• One student reported that more than half of residence hall students gathered and
walked down to Hathaway together.
• Members of the Pink House knew that the event was going out of control and tried to
mitigate the damage by calling 911 and posting messages on social media to not come to
the residence.
• It was reported by students that there were a number of simultaneous house parties
occurring in the residences near 348 Hathaway, which contributed to the large number
of students in the central location.
• They estimated that “every other house” was having a party.
• The general feeling from students was that the further into the crowd students got, the
more “unsafe” and “out of control” it felt – students on the periphery stated that it was
“boring” and “hard to move around” because people were just standing around with no
specific agenda or plan.
• The majority of students stated that they did not have “fun” at the event – they simply
attended because it was tradition.
Further Investigation
To delve deeper into the facts surrounding the incident, the university decided to hire an
external investigator to conduct further investigatory interviews with a select number of
students who were identified through the preliminary interview process as having direct
knowledge of the events leading up to the social gathering. On Wednesday, March 25, 2015,
university administration met to identify potential external investigators. On Friday, April 24,
Packet Pg. 271
14
Cal Poly | March 7, 2015, Incident - Final Report Page 6
2015, the university hired an external investigator, Mr. Ralph Latino. Mr. Latino has had
extensive experience as an administrator in the CSU system. In addition, he has served in an
interim role directing the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities at Cal Poly. From April
27–29, 2015, the external investigator conducted interviews with students identified from the
preliminary investigation.
Findings
On Thursday, April 30, 2015, the external investigator provided his findings to OSRR for
review. The key findings confirmed earlier information. The facts were as follows:
• Students indicated that the marketing for the party was via text/word-of-mouth and that
they couldn’t identify specific individuals or organizations that were
hosting/organizing/marketing the event.
• The interviewed students reported that they collaborated to determine a specific date for
the event, specifically to avoid double fines.
• Because many social media platforms are public and anonymous, as soon as there was
enough “word of mouth,” and it was confirmed that the event was occurring on
Saturday, March 7, 2015, many social media outlets “went viral” with information and
ideas on what to do to celebrate the event (pre-game) and where to attend the event
(Hathaway).
• Many students engaged in pre-gaming. Pre-gaming means to drink alcohol prior to
attending a social gathering, usually with close friends, with the intent to become
intoxicated.
• Students reported that this event as a “tradition” had an influence on how the event rose
to the level of involving thousands of students.
• While some members of Greek organizations helped rally groups of Greeks and non-
Greeks, from the residence halls, surrounding areas, and so forth, there is no evidence
that a specific Greek affiliated chapter or Greek leadership played a role in facilitating
the event and the gathering.
• Sitting, standing on, and hanging out on roofs (Brewfing) has been a frequent occurrence
for the last few years. Very few students realized that there was any danger because it is
such a common practice.
Packet Pg. 272
14
Cal Poly | March 7, 2015, Incident - Final Report Page 7
Conclusions
In an era where social messaging platforms are students’ main form of communication with
each other and the outside world, we have further realized the challenges of monitoring the
multitude of platforms that students use to disseminate information. Social Media platforms can
make a topic “trending” or “viral,” meaning that a large number of students will learn a very
specific piece of information very quickly, thereby potentially instigating large crowds of
students to, for example, attend a social gathering. Therefore, we will research, collaborate
across CSU campuses and others, and identify ways to use this platform to help better inform
when events are being planned.
Initial action plans include the following:
• Consider establishing a calendar for “traditional” and “common” student social events,
with locations, dates, and who traditionally participates in those events. Disseminate
this information to potentially impacted parties (both Cal Poly and community) for
preventative purposes to help to plan and prepare accordingly. Use the calendar to
contact and meet with individuals/groups that have historically planned the events, and
educate the students on good risk management practices, potential harm should an
event exceed safety and well-being, and keeping the event in compliance with City
codes and university policies. In addition, use student judicial code to hold students
accountable should a violation occur.
• Consider developing stronger social media campaigns, discouraging students from
attending and contributing to potentially unruly social gatherings, and educating
students on the potential impact of these choices on their student status at Cal Poly.
Develop and deliver media campaigns that particularly target freshmen students,
intrigued by past events, to educate, inform, and discourage attendance. Involve ASI
Student Government in assisting with messaging and outreach to students.
• Meet with key stakeholders to explore developing more on-campus venues to encourage
students to remain on campus during key celebration times.
• Review establishing a team of staff and students designed to address off-campus
events/parties. The team should be nimble and easy to bring together to review known
information, have contacts in the student population that could help with gathering
facts, and outreach quickly and easily to others who could be helpful in adding or
confirming information. This team should advise campus leaders on strategies for
immediately addressing a concern.
• Partner with students to develop a community service campaign that will be completed
by Fall Quarter 2015, aimed towards incoming students. The campaign will be, in part,
created by students who were found responsible for the organization and dissemination
of information that led to this event, and include guidance from Cal Poly staff and
faculty. The purpose of this campaign is to address first-year students and the
Packet Pg. 273
14
Cal Poly | March 7, 2015, Incident - Final Report Page 8
importance of good citizenship, why one should avoid large social gatherings, what it
means to be a “Mustang,” and the steps the university will take when a student violates
the Standards for Student Conduct.
• Students attempting to hold an annual event outside the “period of increased fines” for
city code violations are contributing to a lack of preparedness and early response.
Therefore, collaborating with the City of San Luis Obispo and Student-Community
Liaison Committee (SCLC) to explore strategies and ideas designed to address this issue
is recommended.
Outcomes
On Monday, May 4, 2015, OSRR charged students with violating the Standards for Student
Conduct. FERPA prevents the university from providing information that could identify a
student who went through a disciplinary process, and in this case, identifying how many
students were charged may unmask the identities of those students.
By Thursday, May 14, 2015, the students charged all agreed to sanctions via a Settlement
Agreement. The students who were determined to have organized and disseminated
information leading to the event were held responsible for their actions through the student
conduct process 2, including both punitive and educational sanctions with the ultimate goal of
preventing a situation like the one that occurred on Saturday, March 7, 2015, from ever
occurring again.
No single Greek chapter organized the event; however, many Greek members disseminated
information regarding the event logistics and participated.
To the best of our knowledge, the students who were residing in the Pink House on 348
Hathaway were not given the opportunity to renew their lease for the 2015-2016 school year.
See the above suggestions for further training and outreach.
2 FERPA prevents the university from providing what sanctions students agreed to without express
written permission from those students.
Packet Pg. 274
14
Appendix A
Page 1
From: "Dean of Students" <deanofstudents@calpoly.edu>
To: cpstudents@calpoly.edu
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 11:08:33 AM
Subject: St. Patrick's Day
Dear Cal Poly Student:
In the next few weeks you will have the opportunity to recognize St. Patrick’s Day, Cesar
Chavez Day, and the successful completion of the quarter. If you choose to celebrate, please
be mindful of the choices you make and, most important, to take care of each other. For Greek
chapters, once social probation has been lifted remember to successfully register your event
with the Greek life office. Whether you participate in activities on and off campus this weekend
or over the spring break, please take precautions to ensure your safety and the safety of others.
* Don't go out alone; travel with someone you trust.
* If you go out, go with a group of friends, check in with each other often, and make sure to
leave together.
* If you're of legal age, limit alcohol and make good decisions.
* Avoid risky situations; it's always safest to stay sober.
* Never place your safety in the hands of a person under the influence, including yourself.
* If someone becomes sick and needs emergency room help, please, please, please dial 911
for advice and assistance. Please note that the emergency room is a safe zone. You will not get
in trouble helping a friend get to the emergency room.
I also want to remind you to be aware of the consequences you might face for inappropriate
and/or illegal behavior. Violation of campus policies or criminal laws regarding alcohol may
result in severe academic sanctions or a permanent criminal record. The campus police and
San Luis Obispo City Police are stepping up patrols with larger deployment of officers and
increase in fines for the weekend. It is important for me to let you know that the Social Host
Ordinance will be strictly enforced in the City of San Luis Obispo; that includes severe sanctions
and double fines starting at $700.
* If you host a party or gathering, you are responsible for making sure no one under the age of
21 possesses or consumes alcohol.
* If anyone under 21 is drinking at your party, you could be held criminally liable: 1st offense is
$2,000.
* Keep your social gatherings small and in control.
* Be aware and respectful of your neighbors.
Packet Pg. 275
14
Appendix A
Page 2
If you go downtown, I ask that you please remember you are always a Mustang. How you
behave on and off campus reflects not only on you, but also on the University. Cal Poly has a
great reputation. As citizens of this campus and of the community, I ask that you help us keep
our reputation strong.
Finally, it is all of our responsibility to protect the safety of one another. If you see someone that
needs help, please call the University police or the SLO City police by dialing 911.
Sincerely,
Jean DeCosta, Ph.D.
Dean of Students
--
Jean
Jean DeCosta, PhD
Dean of Students
Building UU 217
(805)756-0327
Packet Pg. 276
14
Appendix B
Page 1
From: "Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities" <osrr@calpoly.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:48:30 PM
Subject: Required Informational Meeting Notice (URGENT)
Dear student:
We need your help. We are trying to understand the events that led up to a “St. Fratty’s Day”
Party, which was held on Saturday, March 7, 2015 starting at 4:30 AM on Hathaway Avenue.
We have scheduled some time to meet with you tomorrow, Thursday March 12, 2015 at 5:00
PM in Chumash Auditorium. We will provide food and beverages for this meeting because it’s
during normal dining hours.
The goal of this meeting is to collect as much information as we can regarding the March 7,
2015 event. Please come prepared to be open and helpful. You are REQUIRED to attend this
meeting, but the meeting is not punitive; it is focused on gathering information and learning
facts.
You have the right to bring an adviser to this meeting. We know that this is close to final's week,
so we will try to make every accommodation that we can to ensure that you have an interview
during a time that meets your schedule. If you do have a conflicting appointment, please contact
my office at 805-756-2794 immediately (during normal business hours) so that we can arrange
another time to meet, or so that we can arrange a better time for you during our scheduled
meeting.
We cannot stress enough the importance of being open and honest, and any information that
you provide will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Duane P. Rohrbacher, Jr., JD, PhD
Assistant Dean of Students
Student Rights & Responsibilities
Building 52 - E7
Packet Pg. 277
14
9.22.040 City of San Luis Obispo safety enhancement zone.
A. The entire area within the city limits of San Luis Obispo is designated a safety enhancement zone
during the Mardi Gras period, effective from 12:01 a.m. on the Thursday preceding “Fat Tuesday” until
seven a.m. on the Wednesday following “Fat Tuesday.”
B. The entire area within the city limits of San Luis Obispo is designated a safety enhancement zone
effective from 12:01 a.m. on March 1 17th (St. Patrick’s Day) until seven a.m. on March 18th of each
year (St. Patrick’s Day is March 17 and St. Fratty’s Day varies in early March) .If March 1 falls on a
Saturday, the safety enhancement period will be effective at 12:01 a.m. on the Friday preceding March 1
until seven a.m. on March 18. If March 17 falls on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday, the safety
enhancement period will be effective from 12:01 am. on March 1 until seven a.m. on the Monday
following March 17.
C. The entire area within the city limits of San Luis Obispo is designated a safety enhancement zone from
12:01 a.m. on October 31st (Halloween) until seven a.m. on November 1st of each year. If Halloween
falls on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday, the safety enhancement zone period will be effective at
12:01 a.m. on the Thursday falling on or preceding October 31st until seven a.m. on the Monday
following October 31st.
D. The entire area within the city limits of San Luis Obispo is designated a safety enhancement zone
from 12:01 a.m. on the first day of Cal Poly University’s housing move-in day until seven a.m. of the
Monday following the first weekend of the fall academic school year. (Ord. 1590 § 2, 2013)
Packet Pg. 278
14
O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9.22.040 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT
ZONE TIME PERIOD SURROUNDING ST. PATRICK’S DAY AND ST.
FRATTY’S DAY
WHEREAS, the Council previously added Chapter 9.22 to the Municipal Code
designating specific geographical areas as safety enhancement zones during specified times, and
imposed double fines for violations of the Municipal Code in those zones and times, in order to
protect the public health, welfare and safety; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.22.040 B of that chapter designated the entire area within the city
limits of San Luis Obispo as a safety enhancement zone from 12:01 a.m. on March 17th (St.
Patrick’s Day) until seven a.m. on March 18th of each year;
WHEREAS, the City Council has observed activities and considered information
regarding annually recurring incidences of conduct during on varying dates in March before and
around March 17 (St. Patrick’s Day) associated with an event locally known as “St. Fratty’s
Day”, impacting public and private property and the public peace, safety and tranquility of city
residents, and resulting in unreasonable noise, extensive public consumption of alcohol, public
urination, underage drinking, personal injuries, property damage, traffic hazards, and littering;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to expand the safety enhancement zone period
associated with St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day, in order to prevent public harm and
address the threat to public health and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City council hereby finds and determines as follows:
A. That activities during the period of time surround St. Patrick’s Day and a local event
known as St. Fratty’s Day have regularly created conditions and circumstances
through the city that have previously resulted in and annually create significant
threats to public health and safety, including large crowds, excessive and illegal
alcohol consumption, and public drunkenness
B. That conditions and circumstances associated with these events are not isolated to any
one area of the City and impact many different neighborhoods and the downtown.
C. That the threats to public peace and safety would be reduced by enhanced penalties
for violations of provisions of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
D. That these findings are based on the knowledge and observations of the City Council,
as well as data and information provided by City residents and the Police Department
Packet Pg. 279
14
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
O ______
regarding increased instances of activities and criminal behavior threatening the
public peace and safety throughout the City during the time periods specified herein.
SECTION 2. Section 9.22.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
9.22.040 City of San Luis Obispo safety enhancement zone.
A. The entire area within the city limits of San Luis Obispo is designated a safety
enhancement zone during the Mardi Gras period, effective from 12:01 a.m. on the Thursday
preceding “Fat Tuesday” until seven a.m. on the Wednesday following “Fat Tuesday.”
B. The entire area within the city limits of San Luis Obispo is designated a safety
enhancement zone effective from 12:01 a.m. on March 17th (St. Patrick’s Day) 1 until seven a.m.
on March 18th of each year (St. Patrick’s Day is March 17 and St. Fratty’s Day varies in early
March). If March 1 falls on a Saturday, the safety enhancement period will be effective at 12:01
a.m. on the Friday preceding March 1 until seven a.m. on March 18. If March 17 falls on a
Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday, the safety enhancement period will be effective from
12:01 am. on March 1 until seven a.m. on the Monday following March 17.
C. The entire area within the city limits of Sa n Luis Obispo is designated a safety
enhancement zone from 12:01 a.m. on October 31st (Halloween) until seven a.m. on November
1st of each year. If Halloween falls on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday, the safety
enhancement zone period will be effective at 12:01 a.m. on the Thursday falling on or preceding
October 31st until seven a.m. on the Monday following October 31st.
D. The entire area within the city limits of San Luis Obispo is designated a safety
enhancement zone from 12:01 a.m. on the first day of Cal Poly University’s housing move-in
day until seven a.m. of the Monday following the first weekend of the fall academic school year
SECTION 3. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any
person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful,
unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision
of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to
that end, the provisions hereof are severable.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2017, on the following vote:
AYES:
Packet Pg. 280
14
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
O ______
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
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. 281
14
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 282
14
Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Christine Wallace, Neighborhood Outreach Manager
SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY PARTY REGISTRATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a presentation on voluntary party registration program options; and
2. Provide guidance to staff regarding initiation of a voluntary municipal party registration
pilot program.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On May 19, 2015 the City Council received the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility
Report (“Civility Report”) which is included as Attachment A. The Civility Report is the final
product of a working group comprised of City staff, Cal Poly University staff, Cal Poly students,
Cuesta College staff, Cuesta college students and residents of San Luis Obispo. The vision for
the working was to “build a community in which year-round residents and students actively
collaborate to build community and communicate in an environment that fosters mutual respect
and understanding.”
The working group divided into subcommittees and each researched and prepared
recommendations for initiatives that the City, Cal Poly and Cuesta could address with programs
or policy to improve and/or maintain the quality of life in the neighborhoods. The objectives that
each subcommittee addressed are as follows:
Objective 1: Define short-term actions to enhance the quality of life
Objective 2: Define stakeholders’ needs and success
Objective 3: Identify university/city best practices
Objective 4: Review enforcement best practices
Objective 5: Engage stakeholders: review current education and informational efforts
Objective 6: Prepare for sustained engagement to achieve desired vision and goal
Since the delivery of the Civility Report to Council, many of the recommendations have been
implemented:
1. MOU with SLOPD and University Police (UPD) to allow UPD citation issuance power
for municipal ordinances (noise, open container, public urination, unruly gathering) –
Objective 4
2. Rental Housing Inspection Program – Objective 2 and Objective 3
3. Blight education – Objective 3
4. Walk and Talks (code enforcement and police outreach in the neighborhoods) –
Objective 3
Packet Pg. 283
15
5. Unruly gathering ordinance amendment to strengthen as enforcement tool – Objective 3
6. Creation of an annual communication plan to effectively communicate neighborhood
wellness information – Objective 5
Also recommended in the Civility Report is the development of a voluntary party registration
program. This report will examine several party registration programs currently being offered in
other college towns and how the programs are impacting noise in their respective communities.
DISCUSSION
Background
On May 19, 2015 the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Report was presented to
Council (Attachment A). Within the report, many recommendations were made to adopt policy
or enact programs that would enhance the quality of life of residents in the neighborhoods. Under
“Objective 3: Identify university/city best practices”, one of the recommendations made was to
implement a party registration program that provides participants of the program; a window of
time to end a party and/or eliminate noise should a complaint be lodged with the police
department and thus possibly avoid warnings and citations. This report will provide information
on existing party registration programs in other communities and ask for direction on the creation
of a program in San Luis Obispo.
It should be noted that the City of San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, Cuesta
Community College, students and residents that volunteered their time towards the effort were
honored last summer by the International Town and Gown Association (ITGA) the Larry W.
Abernathy Award in Chicago. The Abernathy Award is given out annually to the city and
university that best exemplify the mission of the ITGA: "strengthening town/gown partnerships.”
The Civility Report was recognized for the collaborative roles in producing the San Luis Obispo
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort (Civility Report) and creating a framework
for consistent strengthening of these relationships, increased neighborhood vitality and student
success in the community.
Neighborhood Wellness and Noise
Prior to the presentation of the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility recommendation,
Neighborhood Wellness was adopted by Council as a Major City Goal for FY 2011-2013, FY
2013-2015 and as an Other Important Objective for FY 2015-2017. In that time, Council has
adopted amendments to the noise ordinance, unruly gathering ordinance and safety enhancement
zone ordinance and approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cal Poly. The
MOU provides University Police the ability to enforce municipal code regulations (noise, open
container, public urination, and unruly gatherings) up to one mile off campus. Coupled with the
amendment made to the noise ordinance in 2010 which limited warnings, increased fines,
included landlord citations for noise and the focused education and outreach of the noise
ordinance and neighborhood expectations, there has been a notable decrease in the annual
number of noise complaints.
Packet Pg. 284
15
Noise complaints are approximately 6% of the police departments annual calls for service.
Individuals found to be in violation of the noise ordinance (SLMC 9.12.050) are issued either a
Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) warning or a citation. Once issued a DAC or a citation, the
property is placed on a “no warning” list for a nine (9) month period. If further noise complaints
are verified during that time period, citations are issued. Student Neighborhood Assistance
Program (SNAP) employees and patrol officers are able to issue DACs however only patrol
officers are authorized to issue citations. The current administrative fine structure for noise
citations is as follows: $350 for first citation, $700 for second citation, $1,000 for third and
subsequent citations. Property owners are also cited and fined using the same fine structure but
only after they have been notified of tenant noise violations and the property is placed on the on
the “no warning” list During Safety Enhancement time periods (start of school, Halloween, St.
Patrick’s Day), fines for noise are doubled (but do not exceed $1,000.)
The data indicates a 31% decrease in overall noise party complaints from 2009 to 2015. This
trend is attributed to the change in fine structure, allowable warnings, landlord accountability,
focused outreach to the student age population, and outreach to residents on phoning in
complaints to assist patrol. Cal Poly University also began a student education program in 2013
which holds students accountability for off campus behavior which is also a component of the
decrease in overall complaints. As indicated by the chart below, patrol and SNAP took punitive
action by issuing DACs or citations an average of 45% annually.
Packet Pg. 285
15
NSPY
CALLS
DACs CITES DACs+CITES Enforcement Action
2009 2584 1148 206 1354 52%
2010 2238 785 263 1048 46%
2011 2013 638 206 844 41%
2012 1644 540 245 785 47.74%
2013 1729 513 245 832 49.76%
2014 1841 549 253 802 43%
2015 1779 448 235 683 38%
Party Registration Programs
Several universities and cities have established party registration programs for their students and
residents as a way to 1) educate hosts on responsible event planning; 2) offer an incentive based
approach to reduce the need for police interventions for noise disturbances; and 3) ultimately
have quieter neighborhoods. The chart below compares the key elements of party registration
programs currently in place in other communities in the United States.
Packet Pg. 286
15
Packet Pg. 28715
Program Review
Boulder, Colorado
The University of Colorado, Boulder provided the following party registration statistics:
21 24
0
24
46
2 3 4 2 30020 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Warnings & Citations from Registered Parties
Warnings Citations Houses Banned from program
The City of Boulder does not separate out party noise from other types of noise related
complaints for statistical management.
The University of Boulder staff indicated the program was successful in the number of events
being registered had increase while the number of citations issued has stayed virtually the same
and at very low numbers. The houses banned from the program happened as the result of other
Packet Pg. 288
15
violations that were present during the parties. Per the staff of the Off Campus Life, the decrease
of registered parties in 2013-2014 is attributed to the major flooding incident that took place that
fall.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Fort Collins Police Department in collaboration with the University of Colorado, Fort Collins,
provided the following party registration statistics:
74
47
75
18
3 574 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2013 2014 2015
Warnings & Citations from Registered Parties
warnings citation Citation issued w/o warning
Packet Pg. 289
15
Since the pilot program in 2009, a total of 3,742 parties have been registered. Party registration is
open to all residents but 95% of events registered are by students of the university.
The City of Fort Collins does separate out party noise from other types of noise complaints for
statistical management:
2013 - 2706
2014 - 2633
2015 - 2483
As the number of party registrations increased, the overall noise complaints have decreased.
Additionally, the program is being expanded to over registrations seven (7) days a week at
request of Fort Collins PD who have found the program successful as it allows patrol to focus on
higher priority calls for service.
Amherst, Massachusetts
The University of Massachusetts, Amherst provided the following party registration statistics:
Currently in the first semester of the party registration pilot program (program launched on
September 12, 2016):
175 registered parties
11 warning calls
No citations issued to registered parties
The City of Amherst does not separate out party noise for statistical management. The staff
managing the program will be completing a review at the conclusion of the second semester with
Amherst Police Department to determine success and program continuance.
Clemson, South Carolina
The City of Clemson, South Carolina provide the following party registration statistics.
Packet Pg. 290
15
69
86
76
86
35
10 14 14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2012 2013 2014 2015
Warnings & Citations for Registered Parties
Warnings Citation
The City of Clemson does separate out party noise from other types of noise complaints for
statistical management; the overall party noise complaints are quite low:
2012 – 182
2013 – 143
2014 – 270
2015 – 228
Similar to Fort Collins, the Clemson Police Department considers their program a success as the
warning call to registered parties allows patrol to focus on higher priority calls for service and
party registration motivates residents to take responsibility for planning well managed events.
Packet Pg. 291
15
Public Engagement
Staff conducted a survey with Cal Poly and Cuesta students to gather information on party
registration, met multiple times with student groups, neighborhood groups and also shared with
the attendees of the Neighborhood Forum on October 19th. Specific feedback was as follows:
Concern with the offering of warnings/DACs if a party registration program was offered.
Concern that a party registration program wouldn’t benefit the community unless Cal
Poly managed it
Concern that the time allowed to disperse an event would be too long, recommended 15
minutes
Concern that enforcement of noise would decrease if registration was offered
Concern that Negative Violations1 would increase
Concern that properties with chronic disturbance history would be allowed to be
registered
Concern that registered parties would be “targeted” by patrol
Concern that the registered party list would be given to Cal Poly
Concern that a 20-minute dispersal time would not allow hosts enough time to safely end
their events
General concern in the lack of neutrality in the public log with regard to noise warnings
and citations
General concern that the fine structure for noise violations is high
General concern that property owners pass on fines to tenants, request to consider
removing property owner citations from SLMC 9.12
Support for a program that allows for online registration
Support for party registration program as it could help build relationships with students
Support for party registration that is also offered during Safety Enhancement Zones
RECOMMENDATION
Through the research of the existing programs in other communities, staff recommends the
support of the creation of a police department managed voluntary party registration pilot
program. The police department would like to conduct a pilot program from April 2017 through
December of 2017 and return to Council at that time with a program assessment. The following
infographic shows how the process would work:
1 The police department uses specific codes for noise complaints to indicate how a call is adjudicated. A “negative
violation” is a noise complaint that the police department found to be not a violation of the municipal code.
Packet Pg. 292
15
Packet Pg. 293
15
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION
YES NO
1. Direct staff to create a voluntary party registration pilot program
2. If yes, what features are important to be included?
a) 20-minute warning period to end noise?
b) Specific days of the week? If yes, which days?
c) Cost or fee for registration?
d) In person registration?
e) Person must live at property being registered?
f) Common areas may be registered?
g) Person must be 18 years of age or older?
3. Return to Council after specific period to report results?
4. Allow for program to be administratively managed through PD?
FISCAL IMPACT
The expected cost of a voluntary party registration program would be dependent on how it would
be structured. There would be staff time required to receive and process registration forms and
staff response in calling a party host if a noise complaint was received. In the research of the four
programs exhibited in this report, all of the program managers stated the administrative program
costs were “minimal” The recommended voluntary program would be free with no fees charged
to registrants with ongoing evaluation and review with the citywide service fee analysis.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff to request Cal Poly University and Cuesta College consider creating party
registration programs similar to that of University of Colorado at Boulder and UMass,
Amherst in collaboration with the police department. This is not recommended as a
program of this nature would be focused solely on students and disallow the opportunity
for all residents to register events.
2. Direct staff to not create a party registration pilot program.
Attachments:
a - Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Report Final
Packet Pg. 294
15
May 12, 2015
The Honorable Jan Marx
Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dr. Gil Stork
Superintendent/President
Cuesta College
Highway 1
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dr. Jeffrey D. Armstrong
President
Cal Poly State University
1 Grand Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Dear Mayor Marx, Drs. Stork and Armstrong:
On behalf of the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort working group, we are pleased
to present our final report for acceptance. The report contained with this letter is the result of 18
months of collaboration and discussions among residents, students, university and college staff, and
City leadership.
The action plans and timelines for implementation contained within this report are the result of a
consensus agreement by all members of the working group, and these actions will result in
improved neighborhood wellness in San Luis Obispo. All groups are ready to begin
implementation, upon acceptance of this report.
We welcome your suggestions to the report’s action items. The Student Community Liaison
Committee is the body identified in this process to consider modifications during their oversight of
this plan’s implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve the San Luis Obispo community!
Sincerely,
Keith B. Humphrey, Ph.D. Sandee L. McLaughlin
Vice President for Student Affairs Vice President for Student Services & College Centers
Cal Poly Cuesta College
Enc.
Packet Pg. 295
15
San Lui s Obi spo
Neighborhood Wellness/Community
Civility Effort
FINAL REPORT
Spring 2015
- Enhancing the quality of life for all residents -
Packet Pg. 296
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 3
PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
OBJECTIVE ONE: Define short-term actions to enhance the quality of life .............................................. 5
OBJECTIVE TWO: Define stakeholders’ needs and success ....................................................................... 7
OBJECTIVE THREE: Identify university/city best practices ................................................................... 10
OBJECTIVE FOUR: Review enforcement best practices .......................................................................... 17
OBJECTIVE FIVE: Engage stakeholders: review current educational & information efforts .................. 23
OBJECTIVE SIX: Prepare for sustained engagement to achieve desired vision & goal ............................ 25
APPENDIX A: Working Group Membership ........................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX B: Council Agenda Report .................................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Report ........................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX D: Matrix of All Action Items .............................................................................................. 70
APPENDIX E: Post March 7 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 76
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Report .................................................................. 79
Packet Pg. 297
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 3
OVERVIEW
ith the focus of making San Luis Obispo an even more vibrant community for residents
and students to reside in, community representatives, Cal Poly and Cuesta College
administrators, students and San Luis Obispo city staff have worked side by side to coordinate
their efforts through the Neighborhood Wellness/ Community Civility Effort. The effort was
launched in May of 2013 with the support of the San Luis Obispo City Council, Cal Poly
President Jeffrey Armstrong, and Cuesta College President/Superintendent Gil Stork. This
initiative aimed to discuss the changing culture of neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo resulting
from the shifts of owner-occupied households to the increase in rental units, specifically by
student-aged individuals.
Collectively, the working group has a vision of building “a community in which year-round
residents and students actively collaborate to build community and communicate in an
environment that fosters mutual respect and understanding.”
The unified goal of the working group has been to develop ideas for stakeholder consideration
that are intended to “ enhance the quality of life for all residents.” The group responded to the
six objectives created by the San Luis Obispo City Council with subsequent recommendations,
desired outcomes, implementation leads and partners, and timelines for implementation.
The objectives are outlined below, and each is addressed thoroughly in this report.
Define short-term actions to enhance the quality of life
Define stakeholders’ needs and success
Identify university/city best practices
Review enforcement best practices
Engage stakeholders: review current educational and information efforts
Prepare for sustained engagement to achieve desired vision and goal
W
From the recommendations above and active collaboration within the working group, three
overall themes emerged:
Increase communications from Cal Poly and Cuesta College
Develop responses through solution-oriented initiatives
Set in motion proactive measures to avoid repeating past mistakes and preventing new
problems from occurring
Packet Pg. 298
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 4
PROCESS
Beginning work in October of 2013, the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort
working group conducted a thoughtful study of the objectives outlined by the San Luis Obispo
City Council and created a process to efficiently move the community into action.
Champions were assigned to each objective, and the subsequent 13 meetings, hosted by Cuesta
College, were devoted to discussions of the objectives, led by the champions.
Champions for the objectives are presented below:
Not e: Names in parentheses denote past working group members.
During the robust discussions for each objective the entire working group offered feedback on
the work of the champions and direction on how to proceed. Each group returned to conduct
further studies based on the feedback and direction of this group. The champions provided
recommendations to the working group in late 2014. Each of the recommendations were
discussed and affirmed during the monthly meetings, which focused specifically on one
particular objective. It is those recommendations that are presented in this report.
OBJECTIVE ONE:
Karen Adler, Julie Towery
OBJECTIVE TWO:
Katie Lichtig, Joi Sullivan
(Jason Colombini), Dr. Anthony Gutierrez,
Ju v ent i no Or t i z
OBJECTIVE THREE:
Derek Johnson, Stephanie Teaford
(Justin Wellner, Betsy Kinsley)
OBJECTIVE FOUR:
Joe Arteaga, Steve Gesell, George Hughes,
Chris Staley, Brenda Trobaugh
OBJECTIVE FIVE:
Scott Chedester (Charles Scovell),
Dr. Anthony Gutierrez,
Kimberly Hampton, Joi Sullivan
(Jason Colombini), Christine Wallace
OBJECTIVE SIX:
Dr. Keith Humphrey,
Sandee McLaughlin
Packet Pg. 299
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 5
Goal
To define short-term actions that could be
implemented to enhance the quality of life for all
residents, particularly associated in the timeframe
around the start of Cal Poly’s fall term.
OBJECTIVE ONE: Define short-term actions
to enhance the quality of life
Champions
Karen Adler, Community
Julie Towery, Community
Background
Historically, there has been an increase in calls for
service around the neighborhood areas adjacent to
Cal Poly coinciding with start of the school year. This
objective is set to define what short-term actions
could lead to positive long-term effects during that
timeframe. Short-term actions are also distributed
among all objectives, thus are not exclusive to
objective one.
Recommendations
Schedule regular neighborhood tours with city council, mayor, neighbors, Cal Poly and
Cuesta College leaders, etc.
Investigate establishing Student Nighttime Auxiliary Patrol (S.N.A.P.) Ride-Along
program and promote current Police Ride Along program
Explore the option of creating a noise ordinance in public spaces on streets and
sidewalks for gatherings of more than 50 people by issuing citations or other alternative
options
Consider expanding tools to enforce ordinances for nuisance properties including, but not
limited to, “tagging” properties that meet a definition of a public nuisance or unruly
gatherings in terms of both property-maintenance concerns and behavior issues
Evaluate policies so that new development or redevelopment does not unduly impact
neighborhoods
Packet Pg. 300
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 6
Actions Desired Outcomes I mpl ement at i on
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Schedule regular neighborhood
tours with city council, mayor,
neighbors, Cal Poly and Cuesta
leaders, etc.
Allow neighbors to
point out
neighborhood
issues
Cal Poly Ongoing, began
Summer of 2014
Investigate establishing S.N.A.P.
Ride-Along program and
promote current Police Ride
Along program
Increase the
amount of support
to assist with
complaints and
allow officers to do
other police work
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2015
Explore the option of creating a
noise ordinance in public spaces
on streets and sidewalks for
gatherings of more than 50
people by issuing citations or
other alternative options
Decrease number
of noise complaints
City of San Luis
Obispo
Spring 2016
Consider expanding tools to
enforce ordinances for nuisance
properties including, but not
limited to, “tagging” properties
that meet a definition of a public
nuisance or unruly gatherings in
terms of both property-
maintenance concerns and
behavior issues
Hold repeat noise
violators
accountable
City of San Luis
Obispo
Spring 2016
Evaluate policies so that new
development or redevelopment
does not unduly impact
neighborhoods.
Decrease properties
that allow for high
occupancy
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2016
Packet Pg. 301
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 7
OBJECTIVE TWO: Define stakeholders’ needs and success
Champions
Dr. Anthony Gutierrez, Cuesta College
Katie Lichtig, City of San Luis Obispo
Juventino Ortiz, Community
Joi Sullivan (Jason Colombini), Cal Poly
Goal
For Cal Poly, Cuesta College and the City of San Luis Obispo to use the results of the
community-wide survey to suggest efforts for implementation to address community-defined
issues.
Background
The purpose of this objective is to identify the stakeholders’ needs and suggest solutions so that
the outcomes reflect a desired environment for the community.
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the community’s needs and what success looked like,
a communitywide survey was mailed in May of 2014. A total of 3, 774 surveys were completed
and returned, physically and electronically. Of the completed surveys, 1,706 were from non-
student residents, 1,783 were from individuals identifying themselves as either Cal Poly or
Cuesta students, and 318 individuals did not associate themselves with any group. The full
survey results and discussion is offered in Appendix C.
Recommendations
The assessment results provided a clearer picture of the stakeholder perceptions, which helped
develop potential recommendations, such as:
Evaluate best practices and implement strategies to reduce the number of disruptions from
parties and noise in neighborhoods (as referenced in Objective Three)
Develop and implement a rental housing inspection program
Implement a range of strategies to change the relationship and culture between students
and non-students in neighborhoods
Explore and implement strategies to address the concentration of bars in the downtown
area and related safety issues. Consider using strategies identified in the Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) update to achieve this objective
Implement educational programs to increase the number of student-aged residents who
bring in their trashcans on the same day the trash is picked up
Implement strategies to reduce traffic issues in neighborhoods. Consider using strategies
identified in the Land Use and Circulation Element update to achieve this objective
Packet Pg. 302
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 8
Continue to implement strategies to address homelessness in San Luis Obispo
(particularly in the downtown area)
Actions Desired Outcomes Implementation
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
I mpl ement at i on
Evaluate best practices and
implement strategies to reduce
the number of disruptions from
parties and noise in
neighborhoods (as referenced in
Objective Three)
Reduce noise
disruptions
Cal Poly and Cuesta
College
(programmatic) City
of San Luis Obispo
(enforcement)
Fall 2015
Develop and implement a rental
housing inspection program
Insure that rental units
comply with required
minimum health and
safety standards
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2016
Implement a range of strategies
to change the relationship and
culture between students and
non-students in neighborhoods
(no specific recommendations
discerned from the survey
results)
Improve student and
community
relationships
Cal Poly Associated
Student, Inc. (ASI)
and Associate
Students for Cuesta
College (ASCC)
Spr i ng 2016
Explore and implement
strategies to address the
concentration of bars in the
downtown area and related
safety issues. Consider using
strategies identified in the Land
Use and Circulation Element
update to achieve this objective
Address and decrease
safety-related issues
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing per
LUCE strategies
Implement educational programs
to increase the number of
student-aged residents who
bring in their trashcans on the
same day the trash is picked up
Increase the number
of student-age
residents to comply
with the 24-hour
ordinance
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Continue to implement strategies
to address homelessness in San
Luis Obispo (particularly in the
downtown area)
A reduction in the
impacts of
homelessness on the
community
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Packet Pg. 303
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 9
Implement strategies to reduce
traffic issues in neighborhoods.
Consider using strategies
identified in the Land Use and
Circulation Element update to
achieve this objective
Reduce traffic-related
issues in
neighborhoods
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Packet Pg. 304
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 10
OBJECTIVE THREE: Identify university/city best practices
Champions
Derek Johnson, City of San Luis Obispo
Stephanie Teaford (Betsy Kinsley, Justin Wellner), Cal Poly
Goal
To identify best practices that can be undertaken by Cal Poly, in collaboration with the City of
San Luis Obispo, to enhance positive interactions between students and permanent residents.
Background
Universities and colleges across the nation impact the communities in which they exist in both
positive and negative ways. The impact of students in residential neighborhoods has prompted
higher education institutions to share best practices that can lead to improvements in
community relationships and mitigate negative impacts. The objective explored various
programs and efforts undertaken by universities and colleges nationwide. The following
recommendations could provide a framework for improving relations between student
residents and permanent residents of San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg. 305
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 11
Recommendations
To address student rental properties
Create and implement a transition to Off-Campus Living Education Program, to be
shared with Cuesta College’s Student Life Office
Include expectations and responsibilities of living in neighborhoods in the City
of San Luis Obispo (e.g. local ordinances)
The successful completion of a culminating test will result in a Preferred Renter
Certification with potential benefits offered by landlords
Work with the city to generate a neighborhood map of housing rental properties and
provide outreach to student renters by funding welcome bags for neighbors to distribute
to establish positive interactions (University of Colorado, Boulder)
Create a Renter/Rental Housing Inspection Program. Students and landlords can work
together for preferred renter/rental designation
o Beautification Program: “Door Decal” or “Golden Arrow” for upkeep of
property and meeting standards for appearance and safety
o Student Affairs Awards: Awarded yearly to no-complaint housing (LaSalle
University)
o Preferred rental properties listed with the city
o Request the release of judicial information to off campus entities (Plymouth State
University)
Packet Pg. 306
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 12
To alleviate nighttime noise and to build compassion and understanding
Develop outreach and marketing efforts toward students (University of Massachusetts,
Amherst)
Implement a Party Registration Program. Develop a program to incentivize party
registration that provides the opportunity for the San Luis Obispo Police Department to
contact the party registrant and offer a 20-minute warning before dispatching S.N.A.P.
or a police officer. This provides the students a way to minimize impacts on enforcement
resources (University of Colorado, Boulder)
Initiate Dialog Dinners or Block Parties for students and residents to talk about what
they like most about their neighborhoods (University of Colorado, Boulder)
Promote the principles of the The Mustang Way in neighborhoods:
o Student Neighborhood Liaisons: Block parties/events for networking. (University
of Minnesota, Twin Cities & Towson University)
o Neighborhood Helping Hands: Volunteerism for neighbor assistance (e.g. fruit
picking, ladder needs, barn raising, etc.). Coordinate with campus departments
to provide Learn by Doing experiences within neighborhoods for senior projects
and other work-related majors such as horticulture, landscape architecture,
construction management and others.
o Peer-to-peer engagement for neighborhood policing; “Walk this Way Program”
(University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
Packet Pg. 307
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 13
To improve collaboration and understanding among students, non-students and city
groups, and to increase engagement in problem solving
Continue to engage and communicate collaboratively among students, non-students and
city groups. See Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC), below.
Utilize various on-campus departments and offices that support living off-campus (Off-
Campus Student Life; Cuesta College Student Life and Leadership; Student & Community
Relations; Office of Neighborhood Life; Student Neighborhood Relations; Neighborhood
University Relations and Neighbors; and Student Life and Leadership at Cuesta College) to:
o Support all students, non-students, and permanent residents in the communities
surrounding Cal Poly
o Educate students about university policies and local ordinances
o Continue to build and strengthen neighborhood relations by facilitating dialogue
o Promote civic citizenship to create a positive quality of life for everyone living in the
neighborhoods (Georgetown University)
o Specific communications and strategies could include:
A 100 percent response policy for any time, any issue, by enforcing a
prompt and meaningful response
The police provide a blueprint that lets students and neighbors
know exactly what to expect when a community concern is
registered with the university
The policy will establish a standard for reporting an incident
(through a university helpline); clear steps that would be taken for
follow-up with the student (through an updated sanction chart)
and community members; and what data would be collected to
create a metric to evaluate student success and outcomes
(Georgetown University)
Sustained conflict resolution services such as “ SLO Solutions,” a
jointly sponsored citywide conflict-resolution program specifically
designed to address student-neighbor issues and provide a means
for constructive resolution. Since 2004, this program has used the
services of Creative Mediation to resolve a variety of community
disputes at no cost to those seeking mediation
Sustained SCLC effort. For more than 20 years, Cal Poly’s Associated
Students, Inc. (ASI), Associated Students of Cuesta College (ASCC), and
the city have served as leaders on the committee. It was established to
further student and community communication and develop positive
relationships
Packet Pg. 308
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 14
Neighborhood Concerns Phone Line: Neighbors can call in with concerns.
Cal Poly and Cuesta College staff can recommend actions and contact
students (Colorado University, Boulder)
Quarterly walkabouts and coffee sessions with city residents and
representatives from Cal Poly, Cuesta College and the city
One-hour walkabouts will be scheduled, every third month and
will take place at various times throughout the neighborhoods
surrounding the campus. During these walks they will explore
student housing rentals, party atmosphere, traffic impacts and
Greek housing
One-hour coffee sessions or “listening sessions” will be scheduled
every third month, in the afternoon, at a local venue to discuss
such topics as the Cal Poly Master Plan and vision for the future,
diversity and inclusivity, students in the community, and year-
end accomplishments and challenges
Develop proactive engagement of law and code enforcement with visits to properties of
concern; “Knock and Talk” (University of Maryland).
Implement a Joint Letter Program. Police contact with students in off-campus housing
who generates letters signed by the university, police and city that outlines expectations.
It is sent to the resident and landlord (University of Oregon)
o Tagging for repeat offending or problem properties
Packet Pg. 309
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 15
Actions Desired Outcomes I mpl ement at i on
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
I mpl ement at i on
Create and implement a
transition to Off-Campus
Living Education Program, to
be shared with Cuesta
College’s Student Life Office
Set expectations and
responsibilities for
students living in
neighborhoods in the
City of San Luis Obispo
Cal Poly Summer 2015
Work with the city to generate
a neighborhood map of
housing rental properties and
provide outreach to student
renters by funding welcome
bags for neighbors to
distribute to establish positive
interactions
Establish positive
interaction with City
Cal Poly ASI ,
ASCC, City of San
Luis Obispo
Spr i ng 2016
Create a Renter/Rental
Housing Inspection Program
Rental properties that
meet minimum health
and safety standards
Cal Poly, City of San
Luis Obispo
Spr i ng 2016
Develop outreach and
marketing efforts toward
students
Raise awareness of the
impacts of noise on
neighborhood
Cal Poly Spring 2016
Implement a Party
Registration Program.
Develop a program to
incentivize party registration
that provides the opportunity
for the San Luis Obispo Police
Department to contact the
party registrant and offer a 20-
minute warning before
dispatching S.N.A.P. or a
police officer
Fewer noise citations City of San Luis
Obispo
Spr i ng 2016
Initiate Dialog Dinners or
Block Parties for students and
residents to talk about what
they like most about their
neighborhoods
Create positive
interactions between
students and year-
round residents
Cal Poly ASI, ASCC Ongoing
Promote the principles of the
The Mustang Way in
neighborhoods
Enhance a positive
culture of peer-to-peer
accountability in
neighborhoods
Cal Poly ASI Ongoing
Packet Pg. 310
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 16
Continue to engage and
communicate collaboratively
among students, non-students
and city groups
Improve collaboration
and understanding
among students, non-
students and city
groups
SCLC Ongoi ng
Utilize various on-campus
departments and offices that
support living off-campus to
support students, non-
students and permanent
residents living in
neighborhoods.
Educate students about
university policies and
ordinances, strengthen
neighborhood relations
by facilitating dialogs
Cal Poly & Cuesta
College
Fall 2015
Develop proactive
engagement of law and code
enforcement with visits to
properties of concern; “Knock
and Talk”.
Positive engagement
with law enforcement
and decrease repeat
offending properties
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Implement a Joint Letter
Program.
Police contact with
students in off-campus
housing generates
letter signed by
university, police and
city that outlines
expectations sent to
resident and landlord
Cal Poly Fall 2015
Packet Pg. 311
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 17
Goal
That Cal Poly, Cuesta College and the City of San Luis Obispo police departments consider
implementing strategies to address community civility and quality-of-life matters.
OBJECTIVE FOUR: Revi ew enforcement best pract i ces
Champions
Joe Arteaga, Cuesta College
Steve Gesell, City of San Luis Obispo
George Hughes, Cal Poly
Chr i s Staley , Ci ty of San L ui s Obi spo
Brenda Trobaugh, Cal Poly
Packet Pg. 312
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 18
Background
In the past several years, both Cal Poly and the City of San Luis Obispo have engaged in
numerous programs to address quality of life and community wellness.
Both organizations have expanded professional staff dedicated to neighborhood wellness,
created and modified ordinances, and implemented new programs to address pubic disorder
and nuisance crimes including but not limited to:
Amendments to the noise ordinance
In 2010 the San Luis Obispo Police Department made recommendations to the city council
regarding changes to the existing noise ordinance to improve noise reduction efforts. The
modifications included reducing the number of allowable warnings to one every six months
and to hold residential property owners responsible for repeat noise violations. Many landlords
have since added language to their lease and rental agreements with penalties levied to their
tenants who receive noise violations. These modifications were accepted by city council and
noise complaints were significantly reduced by 30 percent for the following year and have been
maintained since (see Table 1 below).
Table 1: Total noise party violations reported from 2009 to 2014.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Noise Violations 2584 2238 2013 1644 1672 1729
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Noise Party Violations
Packet Pg. 313
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 19
Unruly Gathering Ordinance
In 2010 the San Luis Obispo Police Department conducted research on Unruly Gathering
Ordinances. After extensive research and outreach to the community and Cal Poly, an Unruly
Gathering Ordinance was proposed and accepted by the city council. The ordinance was
intended to prevent substantial disturbances on private property in a neighborhood. This
included unlawful and disruptive behavior by large groups of people. On April 6, 2010, the city
council adopted section SLMC 9.13.030 Prohibition of Unruly Gatherings. A violation of the
Unruly Gathering Ordinance consists of hosting a gathering on private property that:
Involves 20 people or more; and
Involves unlawful conduct that creates a substantial disturbance in a significant segment
of a neighborhood.
“Unlawful conduct that results in a substantial disturbance can include such things as excessive noise,
public drunkenness, serving alcohol to minors, fighting, urinating in public, crowds overflowing into
yards, sidewalks, or streets, or similar unlawful behaviors.”
Neighborhood Officer Program
The San Luis Obispo Police Department initiated its Neighborhood Officer Program on
December 1, 2013. The goal of the Neighborhood Officer Program is to quickly identify
community issues, concerns, problems and crime trends that have long-term quality-of-life
impacts on a particular neighborhood. The Neighborhood Officer Program allows for officers to
coordinate resources to help solve these problems. This model of policing is both a philosophy
and an organizational strategy that allows police and community residents to work closely
together in new ways to solve problems associated with crime, fear of crime, social disorder and
neighborhood decay.
Attainable goals of this program include:
Maintain or increase public confidence in the Police Department
Decrease fear of crime
Listen to and address citizen concerns
Bring community resources together to solve problems
Impact specific crime problems
Reduce repetitive calls for service
Educate the public about its Police Department
Packet Pg. 314
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 20
Student Community Success Program
In 2013 Cal Poly hired a full-time off-campus student life coordinator to be both proactive and
reactive in supporting students and neighborhood residents with neighborhood wellness
initiatives. Responsibilities of the position include:
Coordinate the resolution of off-campus conduct with university administration, city
government and community members to find solutions for student’s problems or
concerns
Assist in mediating and resolving student/community conflicts
Effect change in the social climate and relationships with specific responsibility of
working with students and their neighbors within the local community
Implement training sessions, presentations, and educational programs regarding
substance abuse, civic and social responsibility
One goal of the program is to create a Student Community
Success Program with the mission to help students be successful
off campus and address community concerns. The program is
intended to change and encourage inappropriate behavior
through community and student meetings, workshops,
leadership panels, and peer-mentoring opportunities.
Cal Poly University Police Off-Campus Patrols
By authority of the California Penal Code, the University Police
Department has legal authority to exercise peace officer powers
within a one-mile radius of the exterior boundaries of campus
(see Appendix A). In 2014 Cal Poly hired two additional police
officers to expand proactive patrols within the neighborhoods
directly adjacent to campus. The focus of these patrols has been
to proactively discourage and enforce public disorder crimes.
Recommendations
City and Cal Poly officials should craft a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) agreement between the city and university regarding police
operational protocol
Partner Cal Poly and Cuesta police officers with San Luis Obispo Neighborhood Officers
to coordinate resources and achieve program goals
Packet Pg. 315
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 21
City should explore additional proactive educational opportunities with Cal Poly and
Cuesta College to change the student culture related to neighborhood wellness
Implement a keg registration program
Conduct an internal assessment of the San Luis Obispo Police Department staffing to
prepare for growth within the city and on the Cal Poly campus to ensure staffing needs
match the population
Conduct an internal assessment of the University Police Department staffing to meet the
growth on the Cal Poly campus
Explore the possibility of Cal Poly Police being able to issue City Municipal
Administrative Citations
Location of a university police substation within the new residence hall project to
coordinate law enforcement problem-solving efforts
Packet Pg. 316
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 22
Actions Desired Outcomes I mpl ement at i on
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
I mpl ement at i on
City and Cal Poly officials to craft
a Memorandum of Understanding
agreement between the city and
university regarding police
operational protocol within a one-
mile radius
Allows for
coordination of
resources to quickly
respond to
community concerns
Cal Poly, City of
San Luis Obispo
Fall 2015
Partner Cal Poly and Cuesta police
officers with San Luis Obispo
Neighborhood Officers to
coordinate resources and achieve
program goals
To coordinate
resources and obtain
program goals
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2015
City should explore additional
proactive educational
opportunities with Cal Poly and
Cuesta College to change the
student culture related to
neighborhood wellness
Change student
culture related to
neighborhood
wellness
SCLC Fall 2016, and
with each annual
report
Implement a keg registration
program
A reduction in
underage alcohol use
and an accountability
mechanism for
persons who serve
minors
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2016
Conduct an internal assessment of
the San Luis Obispo Police
Department staffing to prepare for
growth within the city and on the
Cal Poly campus to ensure staffing
needs match the population
Meet the needs of the
community as
population grows
City of San Luis
Obispo
Spring 2016
Conduct an internal assessment of
the University Police Department
staffing to meet the growth on the
Cal Poly campus
Meet the needs of Cal
Poly as student
population grows
Cal Poly Spring 2016
Explore the possibility of Cal Poly
Police being able to issue City
Municipal Administrative
Citations
To be able to patrol in
neighborhoods
adjacent to Cal Poly
campus
Addressed via
MOU identified
above
Location of a university police
substation within the new
residence hall project to coordinate
law enforcement problem-solving
efforts
Coordinate law
enforcement outreach
and problem solving
efforts
Cal Poly Fall 2018
Packet Pg. 317
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 23
Goal
To engage stakeholders: review current educational and informational efforts.
OBJECTIVE FIVE: Engage stakeholders: review current educational &
information efforts
Champions
Scott Chedester (Charles Scovell), Cuesta College
Dr. Anthony Gutierrez, Cuesta College
Kimberly Hampton, Cal Poly
Joi Sullivan (Jason Colombini), Cal Poly
Christine Wallace, City of San Luis Obispo
Background
This objective examines the methods, content and effectiveness of educational efforts put
forward by Cal Poly, Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo, and student resident groups.
The inventory of channels of communication was compiled by representatives of Cal Poly,
Cuesta College, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Neighborhood wellness meeting attendees,
Cal Poly and Cuesta College student focus groups were presented with the inventory. An
additional student subcommittee met to discuss the effectiveness of current methods and
content. Suggestions for outreach changes made during the presentations based on the content
effectiveness are reflected in the recommendations of this report.
Recommendations
The recommendation is to collaboratively create an annual communications plan containing
neighborhood wellness messages and a process for communicating the information effectively
to maximize resources. The communication plan should be reassessed annually to evaluate
effectiveness and to ensure resources are not duplicated or wasted. Communications plan
participants could consist of representatives from Cal Poly, Cuesta College and the city.
Suggest i ons for t he Subcommi t t ee
Produce a variety of impactful electronic and print media to educate residents on
property maintenance standards, with a specific focus on repeat offenders in
neighborhoods
Packet Pg. 318
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 24
Revive the Off-Campus Housing Guide (University of Colorado, Boulder)
Produce video for new Cuesta College students to view as part of the required online
orientation on “how to be a good neighbor”
Produce “good neighbor” and Safety Enhancement Zone videos for
www.respectslo.com (Linked to Cal Poly websites and campus television stations)
Cal Poly University Housing bulletin boards made available for “ good neighbor” and
Safety Enhancement Zone messaging
Cuesta College bulletin boards are made available for “good neighbor” and Safety
Enhancement Zone messaging.
Create and play radio public service announcements on KCPR
Conduct annual presentations to Block P – Cal Poly Athletics
Develop an information distribution plan with off-campus housing providers and
property management; request Safety Enhancement and good neighbor materials be
posted
Housing resident assistant training to include off-campus impacts
Create better avenues of communication with Greek Life house owners
Produce Safety Enhancement Zone door hangers
Produce banners and sandwich boards to be displayed in the Cal Poly and Cuesta
College university unions about community and neighborhood wellness issues
Produce table tents in Cal Poly University Union and Cuesta College cafeteria
Involve off-campus housing providers (property management companies, housing
complex managers) in outreach efforts
Actions Desired Outcomes I mpl ement at i on
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Create an annual
communications plan
containing neighborhood
wellness messages and a
process for
communicating the
information effectively to
maximize resources
Effectively inform the
community on matters of
neighborhood wellness
City of San Luis
Obispo
Winter 2015
Packet Pg. 319
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 25
Goal
The purpose of objective six of the report is to ensure that the plans developed in objectives one
through five are implemented, assessed, and folded into the regular operations of the
appropriate agency (for ongoing efforts). Additionally, the goal is to sustain regular
communications between Cal Poly, Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo, residents and
students.
OBJECTIVE SIX: Prepare for sustained engagement to achieve desired vision & goal
Champions
Dr. Keith Humphrey, Cal Poly
Sandee McLaughlin, Cuesta College
Background
Neighborhood wellness issues in San Luis Obispo have historically been fragmented within
each agency by implementing its own projects, causing confusion among year-round residents,
and limiting the effectiveness of each individual effort. There is a unified desire among all
constituencies in San Luis Obispo to see the quality of life improve in neighborhoods, and a
structure to coordinate these efforts was missing. For almost three decades, the Student-
Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) has brought the students of Cal Poly and Cuesta
College together with city officials and residents for communication and discussion. This forum
has been valuable to all parties, as any culture change related to neighborhood wellness rests
with the students.
Recommendations
Re-invest in the Student-Community Liaison Committee
The Student-Community Liaison Committee should assess the effectiveness of each
recommendation once they have been implemented
Shi f t SCLC member shi ps
Host an annual town hall meeting
Packet Pg. 320
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 26
Actions Desired Outcomes I mpl ement at i on
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Re-invest in the Student-
Community Liaison
Committee
Become the coordinating
body responsible for
monitoring the
recommendations, once
adopted by the city council,
Cal Poly and Cuesta
College
SCLC Fal l 2015, ongoi ng
The Student-Community
Liaison Committee should
assess the effectiveness of
each recommendation
once they have been
implemented
Recommend the
appropriate changes, and
produce an annual report
on the state of
neighborhood wellness in
the City of San Luis Obispo
SCLC Ongoing
Shift SCLC memberships SCLC memberships should
be reevaluated to directly
involve those individuals
(by their position) most
directly involved in
neighborhood wellness
SCLC Spr i ng 2016
Host an annual town hall
meeting
Present their report to the
community, receive
feedback and suggestions
from the broader San Luis
Obispo community
SCLC Spr i ng 2016,
ongoing
Packet Pg. 321
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 27
Packet Pg. 322
15
Appendix A: Working Group Membership Page 28
APPENDIX A: Working Group Membership
Dr. Keith Humphrey, Co-Chair Cal Poly
Sandee McLaughlin, Co-Chair Cuesta College
Karen Adler Community
Joe Arteaga Cuesta College
Scott Chedester (Charles Scovell) Cuesta College
Steve Gesell City of San Luis Obispo
Dr. Anthony Gutierrez Cuesta College
George Hughes Cal Poly
Kimberly Hampton Cal Poly
Derek Johnson City of San Luis Obispo
Katie Lichtig City of San Luis Obispo
Juventino Ortiz Community
Chris Staley City of San Luis Obispo
Joi Sullivan (Jason Colombini) Cal Poly
Stephanie Teaford (Betsy Kinsley, Justin Wellner) Cal Poly
Julie Towery Community
Brenda Trobaugh Cal Poly
Christine Wallace City of San Luis Obispo
Sharon Spatafora, Administrative Support Cuesta College
Daisy Chavez, Copy Writing Cal Poly
Yukie Murphy, Graphic Design & Editing Cal Poly
Jo Ann Lloyd, Copy Editing Cal Poly
Packet Pg. 323
15
APPENDIX B: Council Agenda Report
Packet Pg. 324
15
Packet Pg. 325
15
Packet Pg. 326
15
Packet Pg. 327
15
Packet Pg. 328
15
Packet Pg. 329
15
Packet Pg. 330
15
Packet Pg. 331
15
Packet Pg. 332
15
Packet Pg. 333
15
Packet Pg. 334
15
Packet Pg. 335
15
Packet Pg. 336
15
Packet Pg. 337
15
Packet Pg. 338
15
Packet Pg. 339
15
Packet Pg. 340
15
Packet Pg. 341
15
Packet Pg. 342
15
Packet Pg. 343
15
Packet Pg. 344
15
Packet Pg. 345
15
Packet Pg. 346
15
Packet Pg. 347
15
Packet Pg. 348
15
Neighborhood Wellne ss and Community Civility Initiative:
Summary Report from the
City of San Luis Obispo Opinion Survey
Peter B. Chi, Ph.D.
Department of Statistics
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
1 Intro duction
On May 21, 2013, the Neighborhood Wellne ss / Community Civility Effort was launched in order to
foster and improve the relationship between year round residents of San Luis Obispo, and students of
California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), and Cuesta College. Specifically, there has been
a growing concern regarding student partying and disruptive behavior across the city of San Luis
Obispo. This has been highlighted by particular incidents of recent years, such as Cal Poly’s Week
of Welco me (WOW) in 2012, when an estimated 2000+ students congregated in the residential area
just directly south of campus, causing disruption and safety concerns as roads became impassable
(City of San Luis Obispo, 2013)
In addition to implementing particular strategies aimed at addressing WOW scheduling to at-
tempt to keep students occupied on campus instead of disrupting neighborhoods surrounding cam-
pus, the Neighborhood Wellness / Community Civility Effort implemented an opinion survey across
the city of San Luis Obispo. This survey was meant to capture feedback from permanent residents
and students, with the aim of identifying strategies to produce outcomes towards the overall goal of
neighborhood wellness.
In this report, data from the survey a re analyzed and reported in order to identify any notable
trends. With no specific a priori hypotheses, this exploratory data analysis aims to capture anything
that may be revealed from the data. A particular focus of the analyses, however, will be on identifying
potential sources of conflict between Cal Poly students and non-student residents of San Luis Obispo.
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 54
Packet Pg. 349
15
2 Metho dology
The City of San Luis Obispo Opinion Survey was distributed with utility bills and across campus at
Cal Poly. A total of 3,807 responses were received, and entered into SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey
Inc., 2014). For analyses, the entire dataset was exported from SurveyMonkey as a comma-separated
text file and imported into the statistical analys is p latform called R (R Development Core Team,
2011).
Questions were written to either gain identifying information on an individual (such as “With
what ethnicity do you most identify?”), or to gain content regarding how the individual feels about
a particular topic or situation (such as a Likert-scale response to “I feel as though my neighbors are
respectful of my property.”). For this report, these will be referred to as “identifying questions” and
“content questions,” respectively. Figures 1 and 2 below are the actual survey, where the identifying
questions can be seen in Figure 1: Questions 1 through 12, and the content questions are Questions
13 through the end, across both Figures 1 and 2.
1. Do you live in San Luis Obispo city limits?
O Yes. I am eligible to continue with the survey.
O No. If you do not currently live in San Luis Obispo we
would appreciate your willingness to fill out the survey.
However, our primary initial focus is to target relations
within San Luis Obispo city limits and we are limiting
survey participants to this area.
2. What is your age?
O 18-24 years old O 59-65 years old O 25-31 years old O 66-71 years old
O 32-38 years old O 72-78 years old
O 39-45 years old O 79-85 years old
O 46-51 years old O 86+ years old
O 52-58 years old
3. With what gender do you identify?
O Male O Transgender
O Female O No response.
4. Are you currently attending Cal Poly San Luis Obispo,
Cuesta College, or Allan Hancock College?
O Yes. I am attending Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
O Yes. I am attending Cuesta College.
O Yes. I am attending Allan Hancock College.
O No. I am not currently attending any of these schools.
If you are attending one of these schools, what year are you
and what is your major?
5. With what ethnicity do you most identify?
O African American/Black
O American Indian/Alaska Native
O Asian
O Latino
O Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
O White/Caucasian
O Other (please specify):
6. Where is your current residence located? Please use
your best judgement when picking a neighborhood
O On Cal Poly’s campus.
O Laguna area.
O Cal Poly area.
O Tank Farm/Broad area.
O Johnson/Sinsheimer area.
O Downtown area.
O Foothill/N. Chorro area.
7. How many years have you lived in San Luis Obispo?
8. Were you born in San Luis Obispo?
O Yes
O No
9. How many people live in your household (include
yourself in the number)?
O 1 O 3 O 5 O 7
O 2 O 4 O 6 O 8+
10. In what age group are the people who live in your
household (mark all that apply)?
O 0-17 years old O 52-58 years old
O 18-24 years old O 59-65 years old
O 25-31 years old O 66-71 years old
O 32-38 years old O 72-78 years old
O 39-45 years old O 79-85 years old
O 46-51 years old O 86+ years old
11. How many more years do you see yourself staying in
San Luis Obispo?
O I have no plans of leaving.
O 1 year O 5 years O
2 years O 6 years O
3 years O 7 years O
4 years O 8+ years
12. If you are renting your residence, please mark all that
apply:
O I am renting a room in a shared residence.
O My residence is managed by a property management
company.
O My landlord lives outside San Luis Obispo.
O My landlord lives in San Luis Obispo.
O My landlord lives in my residence.
O I am not renting my residence.
O Other (please specify):
13. When I return to my house after school or work:
O I can assume that there will be parking relatively
close to my house.
O I frequently have trouble finding parking relatively
close to my house.
O I rarely find parking relatively close to my house.
Comments:
14. After the garbage companies empty the trashcans, I
usually bring in my household’s trashcans off of the
street:
O The same evening.
O Sometime the next day.
O Within the next 2 – 3 days.
O Within the next week.
Comments:
15. After the garbage companies empty the trashcans,
my neighbors usually bring in their household’s
trashcans off of the street:
O The same evening.
O Sometime the next day.
O Within the next 2 – 3 days.
O Within the next week.
Comments:
16. I frequently observe the following conditions in my
neighborhood (check all that apply)?
O Parking on the front yard.
O Parking in the driveway with the vehicle extending over
the sidewalk.
O Fences with missing boards or that is not structurally
sound.
O Indoor furniture used outside or placed on rooftops.
O Storage of inoperable vehicles or equipment.
O Storage of building materials or other debris not
associated with a valid building permit.
O Illegally parked cars (i.e. opposite direction, red curb,
etc.)
Other (Please specify):
17. I feel my neighborhood should be quiet on a
weeknight (Sunday – Thursday) by approximately:
O 7 p.m. – 8 p.m.
O 8 p.m. – 9 p.m. O
9 p.m. – 10 p.m. O
10 p.m. – 11 p.m. O
11 p.m. or later
Comments:
18. I typically notice my neighborhood is quiet on a
weeknight (Sunday – Thursday) by approximately:
O 7 p.m. – 8 p.m.
O 8 p.m. – 9 p.m. O
9 p.m. – 10 p.m. O
10 p.m. – 11 p.m. O
11 p.m. or later
Comments:
19. I feel my neighborhood should be quiet on a
weekend night (Friday – Saturday) by approximately:
O 7 p.m. – 8 p.m. O
8 p.m. – 9 p.m. O 9
p.m. – 10 p.m.
O 10 p.m. – 11 p.m.
O 11 p.m. or later
Comments:
20. I typically notice my neighborhood is quiet on a
weekend night (Friday - Saturday) by approximately:
O 7 p.m. – 8 p.m.
O 8 p.m. – 9 p.m. O
9 p.m. – 10 p.m. O
10 p.m. – 11 p.m. O
11 p.m. or later
Comments:
21. I feel comfortable addressing my neighbor if a
concern arises.
Strongly Disagree Disagree N eutral Agree Strongly Agr ee
O O O O O
Comments:
22. I feel as though my neighbors are respectful of my
property.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
23. I think there is enough unsolicited police presence (not
responding to a call) in my neighborhood.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
24. I would like to see more unsolicited police presence
(not responding to a call) in my neighborhood. St r o n gl y
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree O
O O O O
Comments:
25. Please mark all that apply in regards to the following
statement: If one of my neighbors hosts a social
gathering, I often notice…
O Parking becomes unavailable quickly.
O Garbage is left on my or other neighbors’ property.
O Vomit on my or other neighbors’ property.
O Other unwanted objects on my property.
O Loud and disruptive activity on the street.
O Little or no problems.
Comments:
26. When I first moved to San Luis Obispo, the quality of
life within the San Luis Obispo residential community
was:
Strongly Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Strongly
Unfavorable Favorable
O O O O O
Comments:
27. Currently, I feel the quality of life within the San Luis
Obispo residential community is:
Strongly Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Strongly
Unfavorable Favorable
O O O O O
Comments:
28. If there is a discrepancy between your answers to
Questions 26 and 27, please comment on the shift of
your view on community climate.
Comments:
Figure 1: Opinion Survey, page 1
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 55
Packet Pg. 350
15
29. I believe the relationship between college-age students
and permanent residents is important.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
30. I believe college-age students provide value to the San
Luis Obispo community.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
31. I believe permanent residents provide value to the San
Luis Obispo community.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
32. I believe a meaningful relationship between the college-
age students and permanent residents should be a
priority of the local government.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
33. I feel as if I am welcome to participate in discussions
about improving community relationships.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
34. I feel as if I should be included in discussions about
improving community relationships.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
35. I believe college-age students provide an important role
in facilitating economic growth within the San Luis
Obispo community.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
36. I would recommend living in my neighborhood to a
friend.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
37. I support a rental inspection program for commercial
and residential housing.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
38. I believe property owners of rental properties are
responsible for ensuring tenants are not disruptive
to neighbors.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
39. I believe property owners can be proactive with their
tenants about not being disruptive in residential
neighborhoods.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
40. I believe city leaders have enacted ordinances and
programs to improve neighborhood civility.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
41. I believe Cal Poly and Cuesta have enacted policies
and regulations for standards of conduct for their
students to improve neighborhood civility.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
O O O O O
Comments:
42. Have you ever been invited to be a participant in a
discussion that involved Cal Poly and/or Cuesta and
permanent residents?
O Yes
O No
Other (Please specify):
43. Have you ever participated in a discussion that
involved Cal Poly/Cuesta and permanent residents?
O Yes
O No
Other (Please specify):
44. If invited to participate in a discussion that involved
Cal Poly/Cuesta and permanent residents, would you
participate?
O Yes
O No
Other (Please specify):
45. At what times of the year, if any, do you notice the
most disturbances in community neighborhoods?
O Winter
O Spring
O Summer
O Fall
Comments:
46. If you could fix one issue in San Luis Obispo, what
would it be?
47. What suggestions do you have to improve the
relations between the college-age students and
permanent residents?
48. Are you interested in being contacted to share your
opinions on these community related issues in the
future?
O Yes, my e-mail is:
O No
Neighborhood Wellness
and
Community Civility
Initiative
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OPINION SURVEY
In May of 2013, community representatives, Cuesta and Cal
Poly administrators, students, and San Luis Obispo officials
convened and ultimately launched a Neighborhood W ellness
and Community Civility Initiative. Collectively, the group has
a vision of a community in which year round residents and
students actively collaborate to build community and
communicate in an environment that fosters mutual respect
and understanding. With this vision comes a goal of
enhancing the quality of life for all residents, with particular
emphasis on building positive relations between residential
and student–aged neighbors through a cultural shift in social
behaviors.
To learn more about this initiative, please visit
www.slocity.org/police/communitycivility.asp
The following survey is an integral s t e p i n this initiative. In
order to assess the current conditions of neighborhood
wellness, surveying residents of all ages and backgrounds
will provide guidance for future actions taken by officials of
San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Cuesta
College. Please answer honestly and explain when you
feel necessary. Should you have concerns arise about the
survey, please contact Christine Wallace at
cwallace@slocity.org.
You have two options. You may complete the enclosed
survey and return it in the postage-paid envelope OR
you may complete the survey on-line at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/ s/PPNJHF6. Only one
survey per person and only one survey per official
postage-paid envelope please.
Figure 2: Opinion Survey, page 2
Where appropriate, distributions of variables were compared using a standard statistical proce-
dure known as a χ2 goodness-of-fit test (Pearson, 1900). As this pro ject was exploratory in nature,
however, few formal statistical tests were actually performed. The ma jority of trends were simply
shown in a qualitative manner, in graphical or tabular form. Additionally, a regular expression search
was performed for certain free response questions, to isolate any common words that appeared most
frequently.
3 Results
3.1 Descriptive Statistics
An overview of our dataset, resulting from 3807 survey responses, is shown in Table 1. As expected,
the vast ma jority of those between 18-24 years old are Cal Poly students (1591 out of 1672). Also,
approximately 23% of non-students live in two areas that have a substantial student population: the
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 56
Packet Pg. 351
15
All residents Non-students Cal Poly Students Cuesta Students
Characteristic Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Age 18-24 years o ld 1672 47.913 0.81591 95.86051.7
25-31 years o ld 144 4.168 4 54 3.32118.1
32-38 years o ld 117 3.4101 6 10 0.6 5 4.3
39-45 years o ld 119 3.4107 6.33 0.2 8 6.9
46-51 years o ld 114 3.3109 6.50 0 5 4.3
52-58 years o ld 264 7.6 256 15.21 0.1 6 5.2
59-65 years o ld 346 9.9 336 19.90 0 7 6
66-71 years o ld 275 7.9 273 16.20 0 1 0.9
72-78 years o ld 205 5.9 196 11.60 0 2 1.7
79-85 years o ld 148 4.2144 8.50 0 1 0.9
86+ years o ld 87 2.583 4.92 0.1 0 0
Ethnicity
African American/Black 17 0.5 4 0.2 12 0.7 1 0.9
American Indian/Alaska Native 12 0.370.4 2 0.1 3 2.6
Asian 167 4.835 2.1128 7.7 3 2.6
Latino 162 4.732 1.9113 6.8 15 13
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 14 0.480.5 5 0.3 1 0.9
White/Caucasian 2951 85.21518 91.11329 80.2 85 73.9
Other (please specify) 140 4 62 3.7 69 4.2 7 6.1
Neighborhood
Cal Poly area. 746 21.6 134 8 592 35.7 18 18
Downtown area. 427 12.3 281 16.7 127 7.7 19 19
Foothill/N. Chorro area. 629 18.2 252 15 354 21.4 16 16
Johnson/Sinsheimer area. 372 10.8 305 18.2 52 3.1 11 11
Laguna area. 469 13.6 333 19.8 115 6.9 16 16
On Cal Poly’s campus. 376 10.9 0 0 374 22.6 1 1
Tank Far m/Broad area. 441 12.7 373 22.2 43 2.6 19 19
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the entire dataset
“Cal Poly area” and the “Foothill/N. Chorro area.” Among these non-student residents of these
two areas, roughly 90% of them are above the age of 38, pointing towards the possibility of conflict
between these residents and Cal Poly students.
To determine the extent to which our study sample may have been biased with respect to the
target population of all San Luis Obispo citizens, a comparison of the distributions of age and eth-
nicity from our survey was made to that of 2010 Census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The
χ2 goodness-of-fit test revealed that our age and ethnicity distributions were indeed statistically
significantly different from those of the Census data. Specifically, 18-24 year olds were overrep-
resented in our sample (47.9% compared to 39.6% in Census data), and African Americans were
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 57
Packet Pg. 352
15
underrepresented in our sample (0.5% compared to 1.2% in Census data). Additionally, Hispanic o r
Latino ethnicities were not explicitly recorded in the 2010 Census data, so our accuracy with this
population is unknown.
3.2 Strong Majority Opinion Exploration
Our first analysis was to examine whether any content questions had a strong ma jority responding
in any particular way. We scanned through the entire survey responses, with a threshold of 80%
indicating a strong ma jority. Also, we looked at this within subgroups of the dataset, with subgroups
defined by combinations of the identifying questions.
Among all of the content questions, only two questions surfaced as having strong ma jority opin-
ions through this exploration. They were (with majority response bolded):
• W hen I return to my house after school or work:
– I can assume that there will be parking relatively close to my house
– I frequently have trouble finding parking relatively close to my house
– I rarely find parking relatively close to my house
• After the garbage companies empty the trashcans, I usually bring in my household’s trashcans
off of the street:
– The same evening
– Sometime the next day
– Within the next 2-3 days
– Within the next week
In the entire dataset, 81.1% responded that they can find parking relatively close to their house,
and 80.9% responded that they bring in their trashcans on the same evening. Among subgroups
defined by age, gender, ethnicity and all other identifying questions, plus combinations thereof,
many subgroups identified these same two questions/responses at a greater than 80% rate. No other
content question surfaced as having at least 80% of responses matching.
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 58
Packet Pg. 353
15
Proportion 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 3.3 Contrasting Questions Exploration
3.3.1 Trashcans
As observed in the previous section, 80.9% of the study sample reported that they bring their
trashcans in on the same day. While this does not directly point to any possible conflict, we
can compare this to the responses of the next question: “After the garbage companies empty the
trashcans, my neighbors usually bring in their household’s trashcans off of the street. . . ” Specifically,
we can examine the distribution of responses among those who stated that they bring in their
trashcans on the same day. Any of these individuals who report that their neighbors do anything
other than bring their trashcans in on the same day will form a group who are potentially upset by
this situation. This is summarized in Figure 3.
Neighbors bring in their trashcans...
(among those who responded that they bring in their trashcans the same evening)
The same
Sometime the
Within the
Within the
evening next day next 2−3 days next week
Response
Figure 3: Distribution of responses about their neighbors, by people who reported bringing in their
own trashcans on the same evening as the garbage companies empty them
Since this is only among those who responded that they themselves bring in their trashcans on
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 59
Packet Pg. 354
15
Proportion 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 the same evening that the garbage companies empty them, it is plausible that they might expect
the same from their neighbors. Thus, we observe that just over 30% of these individuals might
potentially be upset by this situation.
Additionally, we explored whether this dichotomy was driven by a differing attitude between
students and non-students. That is, when do students b ring in their trashcans, and when do non-
students b ring in their trashcans? This is summarized in Figure 4.
After the garbage companies empty the trashcans, I usually bring in my trashcans off the street:
Non−students
CP students
The same Sometime the Within the Within the
evening next day next 2−3 days next week
Response
Figure 4: Student vs. non-student responses regarding when they bring in their own trashcans
As we observe above, Cal Poly students tend to bring their trashcans in at a later time than the
non-student population. In particular, only about 60% of Cal Poly students report that they bring
their trashcans in on the same evening.
Finally, we examined the free responses attached to this question. Among a total of 156 non-
students who left a free response, approximately 35 of them left a comment that voiced frustration
at the situation, such as:
• “But some NEVER bring them in!”
• “The adults do. Students not so much.”
• “Po ly students don’t understand trash rules.”
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 60
Packet Pg. 355
15
Proportion 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 7−8pm 8−9pm 9−10pm 10−11pm 11pm or later In contrast, approximately 10 of the comments appeared to indicate that this should not be a
concern of the city, e.g.:
“I actually have no idea, I don’t care what my neighbors do with their trash cans as
long as they don’t block my driveway.”
The remaining comments appeared to be either neutral or of undeterminable tone. Also, an exam-
ination of the student comments to this question revealed virtually zero who voiced frustration at
the situation. It is important to note, however, that all of these counts are quite imprecise, as it was
left entirely up to human judgement of a written phrase.
3.3.2 Time that it should b e quiet
Questions 17 and 18 asked contrasting questions about what time it should be, and actually is, quiet
on a weeknight. The overall distributions are summarized in Figure 5.
I feel my neighborhood should be/is quiet on a weeknight (Sunday −Thursday) by approximately:
should be
is
Figure 5: Side-by-side distributions of when it should be and is quiet on a weeknight.
To determine the proportion who might potentially be upset at the situation surrounding this ques-
tion, we categorized people as “potentially upset” if they responded that it usually is quiet at a later
time than what they stated for when it should be quiet. In the entire dataset, 16.8% responded
that it is quiet at a later time than they feel that it should be, on a weeknight. When separated
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 61
Packet Pg. 356
15
Proportion 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 7−8pm 8−9pm 9−10pm 10−11pm 11pm or later into Cal Po ly students and non-students, the percentage potentially upset was 17.0% and 16.4%,
respectively.
Questions 19 and 20 were similar to Questions 17 and 18, but posed for the weekend nights. The
overall distributions are summarized in Figure 6.
I feel my neighborhood should be/is quiet on a weekend (Friday−Satu rday) by approximately:
should be
is
Figure 6: Side-by-side distributions of when it should be and is quiet on a weekend.
To determine the proportion who might potentially be upset at the situation surrounding this ques-
tion, we categorized people as “potentially upset” if they responded that it usually is quiet at a later
time than what they stated for when it should be quiet. In the entire dataset, 14.8% responded that
it is quiet at a later time than they feel that it should be, on a weekend night. When separated
into Cal Poly students and non-students, the percentages potentially upset were 9.9% and 18.0%,
respectively.
3.3.3 Quality of life at first vs. currently
Questions 26 and 27 asked about the quality of life in San Luis Obispo, when first moved to the town,
and currently. The overall distributions are summarized in Figure 7. Overall, it appears that people
are reporting a declining quality of life after living in San Luis Obispo for some amount of tim e.
Specifically, 28.8% of all respondants reported that their current quality of life is worse than when
they first moved to San Luis Obispo. W hen separated into Cal Poly students and non-students, the
percentages reporting a worse quality of life currently were 13.0% and 40.4%, respectively.
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 62
Packet Pg. 357
15
Proportion 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Quality of live when first moved to / currently in San Luis Obispo:
When first moved
Currently
Strongly
Favorable
Neutral Unfavorable Strongly
Favorable Unfavorable
Figure 7: Side-by-side distributions of quality of life when first m oved to San Luis Obispo vs.
currently.
An examination of the written comments, however, revealed no obvious trend or cause of the
decline. Among non-students, comments ranged from
“crime, drugs, late nite partys, housing authority trash/noise”
to
“Too much nit-picking while real problems go unresolved.”
Although far fewer Cal Poly students reported a decline in quality of life over the time that they
have lived here, there was a modest trend towards comments that expressed disdain for increasing
rules/restrictions and police presence among those who did (16 out of 37 total written comments
from Cal Po ly students).
3.4 Cal Poly and Footh ill / N. Chorro area residents
As mentioned in Section 3.1, the Cal Poly and Foothill / N. Chorro area are two locations in San
Luis Obispo with a high mixing of students and non-students. A summary of responses to the Likert
scale questions, separated by students and non-students in these areas, is shown in Table 2.
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 63
Packet Pg. 358
15
Table 2: Likert scale questions for residents of the Cal Poly and Foothill / N. Chorro area residents, separated by
Cal Poly students and non-students.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
I feel as though my neighbors are respectful of my property.
Cal Poly Students 0.21 0.46 0.18 0.11 0.05
Non-students 0.29 0.41 0.14 0.11 0.05
I would like to see more unsolicited police presence (not responding to a call) in my neighborhood.
Cal Poly Students 0.03 0.11 0.27 0.25 0.33
Non-students 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.11 0.05
I believe the relationship between college age students and permanent residents is important.
Cal Poly Students 0.34 0.53 0.10 0.02 0.01
Non-students 0.540.39 0.05 0.01 0.01
I believe college age students provide value to the San Luis Obispo community.
Cal Poly Students 0.51 0.39 0.07 0.02 0.01
Non-students 0.26 0.510.18 0.04 0.02
I believe permanent residents provide value to the San Luis Obispo community.
Cal Poly Students 0.39 0.49 0.10 0.02 0.01
Non-students 0.71 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.01
I believe a meaningful relationship between the college age students and permanent residents should be a priority of the local government.
Cal Poly Students 0.19 0.40 0.26 0.11 0.05
Non-students 0.42 0.40 0.13 0.02 0.02
I feel as if I am welcome to participate in discussions about improving community relationships.
Cal Poly Students 0.07 0.28 0.33 0.22 0.10
Non-students 0.14 0.510.26 0.07 0.02
I feel as if I should be included in discussions about improving community relationships.
Cal Poly Students 0.20 0.46 0.29 0.05 0.00
Non-students 0.17 0.510.29 0.02 0.01
I believe college age students provide an important role in facilitating economic growth within the San Luis Obispo community.
Cal Poly Students 0.60 0.33 0.05 0.01 0.00
I would recommend living in my neighborhood to a friend.
Non-students 0.29 0.44 0.19 0.06 0.02
Cal Poly Students 0.39 0.45 0.11 0.03 0.02
Non-students 0.32 0.33 0.14 0.10 0.11
I support a rental inspection program for commercial and residential rental housing.
Cal Poly Students 0.20 0.32 0.27 0.14 0.08
Non-students 0.37 0.31 0.16 0.08 0.07
I believe property owners of rental properties are responsible for ensuring tenants are not disruptive to neighbors.
Cal Poly Students 0.09 0.27 0.24 0.26 0.14
Non-students 0.53 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.05
I believe property owners can be proactive with their tenants about not being disruptive in residential neighborhoods.
Cal Poly Students 0.11 0.500.25 0.09 0.06
Non-students 0.55 0.37 0.06 0.02 0.01
I believe city leaders have enacted ordinances and programs to improve neighborhood civility.
Cal Poly Students 0.05 0.30 0.38 0.13 0.14
Non-students 0.10 0.45 0.32 0.10 0.03
I believe Cal Poly and Cuesta have enacted policies and regulations for standards of conduct for their students to improve neighborhood civility.
Cal Poly Students 0.06 0.35 0.38 0.13 0.08
Non-students 0.04 0.28 0.41 0.20 0.09
11
Packet Pg. 359
15
Notably, the distribution of responses for Cal Po ly students vs. Non-students differed at a
statistically significant level for all of the questions in the table above, except for the question:
“I feel as if I should be included in discussions about improving community relation-
ships.”
That is, every other Likert scale question in the above table points to a dichotomy of attitudes when
comparing students vs. non-students who live in the Cal Poly and Foothill / N. Chorro areas.
One specific contrast of interest is the differing of attitudes about who should be responsible
for whether tenants are disruptive to their neighbors o r not. Among non-students, roughly 80-
90% believe (either “Strongly Agree” or “Agree”) that property owners should be responsible for
their tenants regarding their disruptiveness to neighbors, whereas only about 30% of students feel
similarly. On the other hand, when asked if property owners can be proactive about the same issue,
approximately 60% of students responded with either “Strongly Agree” or “Agree,” pointing to at
least some degree of openness to communication with their landlords regarding noise issues.
Additionally, the trashcan and quiet time issues from Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 are at an increased
level in the Cal Poly and Foothill / N. Chorro areas. Using the same “potentially upset” definition
as in the previous sections, approximately 37.0% of non-students living in these areas fall into this
categorization. By comparison, in Section 3.3.1 we saw that approximately 30% of all citizens (that
is, all students and non-students) fell into this categorization; in fact, this percentage is the same
for non-students across all neighborhoods, indicating an increase in the proportion in this category
for the Cal Poly and Foothill / N. Chorro areas. Regarding the tim e that it should be quiet on a
weekday night, approximately 28.0% of non-students are categorized as potentially upset, and 31.2%
are potentially upset for the weekend nights (compared to 17.0% and 18.0% as stated in Section
3.3.2).
3.5 Issues and Suggestions: written comments
Question 46 asked:
“If you could fix one issue in San Luis Obispo, what would it be?”
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 65
Packet Pg. 360
15
Using a regular expression search, Table 3 shows the most common words found in the responses,
separated by students and non-students.
non-students Cal Poly students
word count word count
downtown 110 students 142
homeless 90 college91
traffic 87 residents 53
rental 72 noise52
Poly 58 campus 47
street 42 parking 46
noise 41 housing 46
bars 40 police42
residents 39 permanent 41
cars 35 Poly 39
Table 3: Most common words found in written responses to the question, “If you could fix one issue
in San Luis Obispo, what would it be?”
All short words such as prepositions, conjunctions, and other low-content words (such as “more”)
were removed from the list. Some words that do appear on the list may not be that revealing, such
as the usage of “students” or “college” by Cal Poly students in their comments. On the other hand,
an examination of the non-student comments containing the word “downtown” showed comments
that mainly focused on homelessness (overlapping with #2) and disruptive behavior associated with
the bars (overlapping with #8).
Question 47 asked:
“W hat suggestions do you have to improve the relations between the college-age
students and permanent residents?”
Again using a regular expression search, Table 4 shows the most common words found in the
responses to this question, separated by students and non-students.
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 66
Packet Pg. 361
15
non-students Cal Poly students
word count word count
students 335 students 192
neighbors 103 residents 153
residents 93 college 137
Poly 80 permanent 111
college 80 community 71
campus 75 campus 55
respect 70 neighbors 45
community 60 noise36
landlords 45 people 35
behavior 44 think 35
Table 4: Most common words found in written responses to the question, “W hat suggestions do you
have to improve the relationship between the college-age students and permanent residents?”
Again, not all words are extremely revealing. Of note, however, is the fact that the words “rule(s),”,
“regulation(s),” and “fine(s)” do not appear on either list, suggesting that neither students nor
non-students tend to believe that an increase in city ordinances is the answer. In contrast, we see
words such as “respect,” “community” and “neighbors,” suggesting that ultimately, students and
non-students would like to co-exist in a harmonious manner. A specific response to this question
that exemplifies this sentiment is one from a non-student living in the Foothill / N. Chorro area
that states:
“Have a beer with them - as long as they are of legal drinking age. Otherwise, you
might have to buy them a fountain drink.”
4 Discussion and Conclusions
In this report, we summarize the results f rom the City of San Luis Obispo Opinion Survey. Certain
trends were explored, with a focus on potential sources of conflict between Cal Poly students and non-
student residents of San Luis Obispo. It is important to note that, since this analysis was exploratory
in nature, all of the findings must be treated as suggestive, rather than as strong evidence in favor
or in opposition of any notion.
Additionally, there is a slight concern for bias in the dataset, as noted in Section 3.1. The
distributions of age and ethnicity in our survey dataset were statistically significantly different from
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 67
Packet Pg. 362
15
that of the Census data. However, the differences were not drastic; although this may indeed be a
concern, it is relatively minor.
Among all potential sources of conflict in San Luis Obispo, the one with the largest indication
is the time that neighbors bring their trashcans in, with approxim ately 30% of all residents being
potentially upset. Noise at night does not appear to be as much of an issue, except specifically in
the Cal Poly and Foothill / N. Chorro areas, where non-students are potentially upset at a rate of
approximately 30% on both weeknights and weekends.
The survey also revealed a vast dichotomy of attitudes between non-students and Cal Poly
students. This is exposed in the responses to the Likert Scale questions in Table 2, and also with
regard to when each group tends to bring their trashcans in. It does not appear likely that this
systematic difference in attitude could be corrected by specific fines and ordinances. Rather, any
strategy to remedy this must be aimed at addressing this broadly, both am ong students who plan
to live off-campus, and for non-students who live in heavily student-populated areas.
Future work could examine the question of whether any implemented strategies are working. In
particular, certain increases in fines have indeed been in place since May 2010, aimed specifically at
Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day (City of San Luis Obispo, 2013). Fr om a statistical standpoint,
the data up to this point do not suggest that the increase in fines have been an effective deterrent
of citable offenses. It is of course possible that, with more data, the evidence could arise, and this
question could possibly be addressed properly at that time.
However, as mentioned above, this report does not support the notion that specific increases
in fines will achieve outcomes consistent with neighborhood wellness. As student and non-student
attitudes and expectations about residential life in San Luis Obispo are so dichotomous at this time,
this must be addressed systematically, rather than by attempting to deter specific behaviors.
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 68
Packet Pg. 363
15
References
City of San Luis Obispo. Council agenda report, 2013.
K. Pearson. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of
a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from
random sampling. Philosophical Magazine Series, 50:157–175, 1900.
R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foun-
dation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2011. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
SurveyMonkey Inc. Surveymonkey. http://www.surveymonkey.com, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2010, 2010.
APPENDIX C: Full Survey Results Page 69
Packet Pg. 364
15
APPENDIX D: Matrix of all action items
Objective One:
Actions Desired Outcomes Implementation
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Schedule regular neighborhood
tours with city council, mayor,
neighbors, Cal Poly and Cuesta
leaders, etc.
Allow neighbors to
point out
neighborhood
issues
Cal Poly Ongoing, began
Summer of 2014
Investigate establishing S.N.A.P.
Ride-Along program and
promote current Police Ride
Along program
Increase the
amount of support
to assist with
complaints and
allow officers to do
other police work
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2015
Explore the option of creating a
noise ordinance in public spaces
on streets and sidewalks for
gatherings of more than 50
people by issuing citations or
other alternative options
Decrease number
of noise complaints
City of San Luis
Obispo
Spring 2016
Consider expanding tools to
enforce ordinances for nuisance
properties including, but not
limited to, “tagging” properties
that meet a definition of a public
nuisance or unruly gatherings in
terms of both property-
maintenance concerns and
behavior issues
Hold repeat noise
violators
accountable
City of San Luis
Obispo
Spring 2016
Evaluate policies so that new
development or redevelopment
does not unduly impact
neighborhoods.
Decrease properties
that allow for high
occupancy
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2016
Appendix D: Matrix of all action items Page 70
Packet Pg. 365
15
Objective Two:
Actions Desired Outcomes Implementation
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Evaluate best practices and
implement strategies to reduce
the number of disruptions from
parties and noise in
neighborhoods (as referenced in
Objective Three)
Reduce noise
disruptions
Cal Poly and
Cuesta College
(programmatic)
City of San Luis
Obispo
(enforcement)
Fall 2015
Develop and implement a rental
housing inspection program
Insure that rental units
comply with required
minimum health and
safety standards
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2016
Implement a range of strategies
to change the relationship and
culture between students and
non-students in neighborhoods
(no specific recommendations
discerned from the survey
results)
Improve student and
community
relationships
Cal Poly Associated
Student, Inc. (ASI)
and Associate
Students for Cuesta
College (ASCC)
Spring 2016
Explore and implement
strategies to address the
concentration of bars in the
downtown area and related
safety issues. Consider using
strategies identified in the Land
Use and Circulation Element
update to achieve this objective
Address and decrease
safety-related issues
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing per
LUCE strategies
Implement educational programs
to increase the number of
student-aged residents who
bring in their trashcans on the
same day the trash is picked up
Increase the number
of student-age
residents to comply
with the 24-hour
ordinance
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Continue to implement strategies
to address homelessness in San
Luis Obispo (particularly in the
downtown area)
A reduction in the
impacts of
homelessness on the
community
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Implement strategies to reduce
traffic issues in neighborhoods.
Consider using strategies
identified in the Land Use and
Circulation Element update to
achieve this objective
Reduce traffic-related
issues in
neighborhoods
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Appendix D: Matrix of all action items Page 71
Packet Pg. 366
15
Objective Three:
Actions Desired Outcomes Implementation
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Create and implement a
transition to Off-Campus
Living Education Program, to
be shared with Cuesta
College’s Student Life Office
Set expectations and
responsibilities for
students living in
neighborhoods in the
City of San Luis Obispo
Cal Poly Summer 2015
Work with the city to generate
a neighborhood map of
housing rental properties and
provide outreach to student
renters by funding welcome
bags for neighbors to
distribute to establish positive
interactions
Establish positive
interaction with City
Cal Poly ASI ,
ASCC, City of San
Luis Obispo
Spring 2016
Create a Renter/Rental
Housing Inspection Program
Rental properties that
meet minimum health
and safety standards
Cal Poly, City of San
Luis Obispo
Spring 2016
Develop outreach and
marketing efforts toward
students
Raise awareness of the
impacts of noise on
neighborhood
Cal Poly Spring 2016
Implement a Party
Registration Program.
Develop a program to
incentivize party registration
that provides the opportunity
for the San Luis Obispo Police
Department to contact the
party registrant and offer a 20-
minute warning before
dispatching S.N.A.P. or a
police officer
Fewer noise citations City of San Luis
Obispo
Spring 2016
Initiate Dialog Dinners or
Block Parties for students and
residents to talk about what
they like most about their
neighborhoods
Create positive
interactions between
students and year-
round residents
Cal Poly ASI, ASCC Ongoing
Promote the principles of the
The Mustang Way in
neighborhoods
Enhance a positive
culture of peer-to-peer
accountability in
neighborhoods
Cal Poly ASI Ongoing
Appendix D: Matrix of all action items Page 72
Packet Pg. 367
15
Continue to engage and
communicate collaboratively
among students, non-students
and city groups
Improve collaboration
and understanding
among students, non-
students and city
groups
SCLC Ongoing
Utilize various on-campus
departments and offices that
support living off-campus to
support students, non-
students and permanent
residents living in
neighborhoods.
Educate students about
university policies and
ordinances, strengthen
neighborhood relations
by facilitating dialogs
Cal Poly & Cuesta
College
Fall 2015
Develop proactive
engagement of law and code
enforcement with visits to
properties of concern; “Knock
and Talk”.
Positive engagement
with law enforcement
and decrease repeat
offending properties
City of San Luis
Obispo
Ongoing
Implement a Joint Letter
Program.
Police contact with
students in off-campus
housing generates
letter signed by
university, police and
city that outlines
expectations sent to
resident and landlord
Cal Poly Fall 2015
Objective Four:
Actions Desired Outcomes Implementation
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
City and Cal Poly officials to craft
a Memorandum of Understanding
agreement between the city and
university regarding police
operational protocol within a one-
mile radius
Allows for
coordination of
resources to quickly
respond to
community concerns
Cal Poly, City of
San Luis Obispo
Fall 2015
Partner Cal Poly and Cuesta police
officers with San Luis Obispo
Neighborhood Officers to
coordinate resources and achieve
program goals
To coordinate
resources and obtain
program goals
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2015
City should explore additional
proactive educational
opportunities with Cal Poly and
Change student
culture related to
neighborhood
SCLC Fall 2016, and
with each annual
report
Appendix D: Matrix of all action items Page 73
Packet Pg. 368
15
Cuesta College to change the
student culture related to
neighborhood wellness
wellness
Implement a keg registration
program
A reduction in
underage alcohol use
and an accountability
mechanism for
persons who serve
minors
City of San Luis
Obispo
Fall 2016
Conduct an internal assessment of
the San Luis Obispo Police
Department staffing to prepare for
growth within the city and on the
Cal Poly campus to ensure staffing
needs match the population
Meet the needs of the
community as
population grows
City of San Luis
Obispo
Spring 2016
Conduct an internal assessment of
the University Police Department
staffing to meet the growth on the
Cal Poly campus
Meet the needs of Cal
Poly as student
population grows
Cal Poly Spring 2016
Explore the possibility of Cal Poly
Police being able to issue City
Municipal Administrative
Citations
To be able to patrol in
neighborhoods
adjacent to Cal Poly
campus
Addressed via
MOU identified
above
Location of a university police
substation within the new
residence hall project to coordinate
law enforcement problem-solving
efforts
Coordinate law
enforcement outreach
and problem solving
efforts
Cal Poly Fall 2018
Objective Five:
Actions Desired Outcomes Implementation
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Create an annual
communications plan
containing neighborhood
wellness messages and a
process for
communicating the
information effectively to
maximize resources
Effectively inform the
community on matters of
neighborhood wellness
City of San Luis
Obispo
Winter 2015
Appendix D: Matrix of all action items Page 74
Packet Pg. 369
15
Objective Six:
Actions Desired Outcomes Implementation
Leads & Partners
Timeline for
Implementation
Re-invest in the Student-
Community Liaison
Committee
Become the coordinating
body responsible for
monitoring the
recommendations, once
adopted by the city council,
Cal Poly and Cuesta
College
SCLC Fall 2015, ongoing
The Student-Community
Liaison Committee should
assess the effectiveness of
each recommendation
once they have been
implemented
Recommend the
appropriate changes, and
produce an annual report
on the state of
neighborhood wellness in
the City of San Luis Obispo
SCLC Ongoing
Shift SCLC memberships SCLC memberships should
be reevaluated to directly
involve those individuals
(by their position) most
directly involved in
neighborhood wellness
SCLC Spring 2016
Host an annual town hall
meeting
Present their report to the
community, receive
feedback and suggestions
from the broader San Luis
Obispo community
SCLC Spring 2016,
ongoing
Appendix D: Matrix of all action items Page 75
Packet Pg. 370
15
APPENDIX E: Post March 7 Recommendations
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group
Ideas to Investigate arranged by Objective
*NOTE: These ideas were generated by the City of San Luis Obispo (e.g. public comment at March 17, 2015 City
Council Meeting) and Cal Poly staff through a number of forums after the March 7, 2015 roof collapse on Hathway
Street. These ideas were not discussed by the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort working group and
their inclusion in this report should not be considered an endorsement by the working group.
Objective 1: Define short-term actions that could be implemented to enhance quality of life for
all residents particularly associated in the timeframe around the opening of the Cal Poly and
Cuesta College campuses at the beginning of the school year.
1 Develop smoother lines of communication between the city, Cal Poly and Cuesta both
proactively and reactively.
2 Students need to be informed of the consequences of their actions off campus and
perhaps have responses strengthened to moderate behavior.
3 Quicker administrative response is needed to violations of behavior off campus by the
city, Cal Poly and Cuesta.
Objective 2: Define Stakeholders’ Needs and Success
4 Create a tip line where anyone (students, neighbors, etc.) can report potential problems
before they have negative impact on the community.
Objective 3: Identify University/City Best Practices
5 Advance the effort to house Greek organizations on the Cal Poly campus.
6 Create a student ambassador program that has two components. The first component
should be to promote positive relations in the community. The second component
should be an anonymous social event attendee to report unsafe behavior to the
appropriate authority.
7 Improve response time by SLOPD and UPD to reports of noise off campus.
8 Bring alternative social/entertainment opportunities on campus to reduce the reliance on
off campus events for socialization.
9 Reach out to universities who consistently host regulated tailgate parties, with monitored
alcohol distribution. Learn what works well for them and bring their best practices to
Cal Poly tailgates.
10 Increase the methods to hold landlords accountable for the negative behavior of their
tenants including court appearances by the landlord or denial of business license.
11 Suggest that landlords add clause in rental agreements that prevents any activity on roof.
Appendix E: Post March 7 Recommendations Page 76
Packet Pg. 371
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group
Ideas to Investigate arranged by Objective
*NOTE: These ideas were generated by the City of San Luis Obispo (e.g. public comment at March 17, 2015 City
Council Meeting) and Cal Poly staff through a number of forums after the March 7, 2015 roof collapse on Hathway
Street. These ideas were not discussed by the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort working group and
their inclusion in this report should not be considered an endorsement by the working group.
12 Aggressively advance the Rental Inspection ordinance to identify unsafe and unhealthy
properties.
13 Evaluate “Neighborhood Specialists” like in Davis (Maybe adjust hours/days of existing
Neighborhood Specialists.
14 Continue to develop strategies that promote more diverse neighborhoods, including
more owner-occupied and long-term rentals (ie workers and family rentals, not short
term academic year rentals)
15 SLOPD and UPD should collaborate on methods to deter large crowds from migrating
from area to area.
16 Implement programs that create peer to peer pressure, that help students own their
actions and accept responsibility for behavior that does not promote neighborhood
wellness.
Objective 4: Review Enforcement Best Practices
17 Consider the size and scope of a party to help determine what safety and hazard city
ordinances can be created/enforced? Perhaps double or triple fines during peak hours or
holidays where large parties/events are expected.
18 Limit the number of student rental properties to one per street.
19 Create and enforce a 10:00 pm noise curfew with escalating noise fines by the hour.
20 More visible UPD presence on campus and in the residential neighborhoods immediately
surrounding campus (an MOU is currently being finalized to allow UPD to issue
municipal citations off campus).
21 Issue a citation to the leadership figure of the organization responsible for hosting an out-
of-control party. Consider exploring ways to hold the national organization responsible
as well.
22 Consider installing more security cameras to effectively monitor activity.
23 Create a staff position to investigate potential dangerous student activity before events
take place.
24 Enforce limits on the size of parties at residential addresses.
25 Create a culture change regarding informants. Students offer information to a point, but
stop divulging information for fear of implicating themselves. Re-work current policy to
ensure informants will not be reprimanded to encourage future sharing.
26 Citations should be issued to those students who participated in negative events.
27 City approval should be required for individuals or organizations hosting a party over a
Appendix E: Post March 7 Recommendations Page 77
Packet Pg. 372
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group
Ideas to Investigate arranged by Objective
*NOTE: These ideas were generated by the City of San Luis Obispo (e.g. public comment at March 17, 2015 City
Council Meeting) and Cal Poly staff through a number of forums after the March 7, 2015 roof collapse on Hathway
Street. These ideas were not discussed by the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort working group and
their inclusion in this report should not be considered an endorsement by the working group.
certain number of people.
28 Red tag ordinance for houses that have unruly gatherings/noise citations should be
implemented and last longer than the academic year.
29 Find a way to hold property managers or management companies accountable for the
negative behavior at properties they manage.
30 Serious academic consequences up to suspension and expulsion should be on the table
for Students who engage in activities that do not promote neighborhood wellness.
31 Immediately suspend or permanently ban fraternities who allow in any way illegal
activities to happen via their instigation: rapes, underage drinking, hazing deaths, racist
displays, unruly gatherings. Second chances seem to mean “go ahead” to this crowd.
32 Parental notification should be explored for off campus behavior.
33 Higher fines, double fines, longer fines, fines able to be raised at certain time of day.
Objective 5: Engage Stakeholders: Review Current Educational And Information Efforts
34 Require students to complete an alcohol/safety education program before being allowed
rush for a Greek organization (we should also consider limiting Greek organization
recruitment to the first quarter of attendance).
35 Monitor Yik Yak and other social mediums used by our student population as a resource
to inform us of potential dangerous situations.
36 SLOPD should consider utilizing social media scanning software to be more aware of
activities planned off campus.
37 The city should inform the landlord every time the police are called to a rental property,
even if no violation is found.
38 Enhance education on the dangers of large crowds: students need to learn this is as bad
as drinking too much, nonconsensual sex and other immature or inappropriate or illegal
behaviors.
39 Evaluate systems & structures in dorms to prevent mass exodus to mega social gathering
and complement protocols to inform authorities (student affairs UPD SLOPD) of
eminent threat of unruly gathering (mega social gathering).
40 Targeted patrolling by city and university police. Wider area for UPD patrols.
Objective 6: Prepare for Sustained Engagement to Achieve Desired Vision and Goal
41 None.
Appendix E: Post March 7 Recommendations Page 78
Packet Pg. 373
15
MAINTAINING BALANCED NEIGHBORHOODS
A Research Paper presented to the San Luis Obispo Civility W orking Group on
Different Approaches to Students Living in Established Residential Areas
July 18, 2014
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 79
Packet Pg. 374
15
I . .
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 80
Packet Pg. 375
15
""'
CITY OF S.flll LUIS OBISPO
Civilit y W orking Group
The City of San Luis Obispo Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort is a working
group comprised of City residents and representatives of Cal Poly State University (Cal Poly),
Cuesta College and the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The goal of the working group is to
enhance the quality of life for all residents, with particular emphasis on building positive
relations between residential and student-aged neighbors through a cultural shift in social
behavior. This goal is to be reached by identifying the needs of those involved and the short-
term actions, long-term best practices and engagement efforts required by the City and schools
to successfully meet those needs.
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort
Cal Pol y
President City Council Cuesta College
President
CUESTA 11LtJ COLLEGE
...- - ,•._.._,...,,..»..p. ublic lnput----lllllliiiiii
Mission:
Rf!s Mr.h, ill ntffy
and implement Cal
..,...,..i--..;;::;r;;....,
_..Recommend"'"•'"""""-''"'""""'"'"''"'.,...,_..,"",.a.
Poly, Council, and
Cvl!staJtrategies to
l.'nh.m[ethequality
of life for all
residents with an
emphasis on
builtUngposltive
relations between
resldentiilland
student-aced
neighbors through
COmmliltlllt'( De opment Deparl nt foWe DrD tl li'NI"I
PubUcWor
De:::: nl
t1t
Cal Poly
l'rflld«llf'•
v M.m.: grr omcr
Cal Poly-City- Cuesta Working Group
7
( LICOifii• ( NTI (I)iMIJ•
Vir.ePfl.'SIJ:lNII Studuttufe l
Smd""\' S•I'II M & qd .......,Hp
A.!.todf{fd
Slli OO""
PrM.Idt"nt
acullurill!.hiltiu '------------------;r"'
social behaviors
Public
/ . _/\_\
Neighborhood Services Team
Mission:
EKChange
.jei wJ -,; jl1 c.WHI c Y
Neighborhood CM'M <i!.I YdMU C<Jifloty!>twh•JJl'> Cl f'oJyA I C.lll'olyHnu< "i Group\ Rfowdi' •Tf
Information
and Ideas to
Implement
nel&hborhood
1fllj21.Jl
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 81
Packet Pg. 376
15
CITY OF S.fill LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager, City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared By: James David, Principal Analyst
Lisa Letteriello, Administration Intern
SUBJECT: MAINTAINING BALANCED NEIGHBORHOODS
PURPOSE
Review current local town-gown neighborhood issues and provide alternative practices in other
communities that face similar student housing challenges in residential areas.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) is in close proximity to two colleges; Cuesta College and Cal
Poly. Cuesta College is a commuter school without campus housing, and Cal Poly does not have
sufficient on-campus housing for all enrolled students (there are plans to create more housing
opportunities on-campus in the next five years). Furthermore, college students often prefer to
live off-campus in their junior and senior years. These factors mean students seek housing in
the City limits, and the most predominant housing type in the City is low-density single-family
housing in established neighborhoods.
A number of issues have been reported over the years related to students living in low-density
residential neighborhoods:
1. Students tend to live in certain areas close to campus, which affects neighborhood
diversity. High concentrations of student renters living in neighborhoods compounds
and intensifies issues like partying, noise and parking. Renter-occupancy estimates for
census tracts immediately adjacent to Cal Poly range from 59 to 95 percent renters:
Selected Housing Characteristics from U.S. Census 1
CHARACTERISTIC
CENSUS
TRACT 109.01
CENSUS
TRACT 109.02
CENSUS
TRACT 112
TOTAL
{ALL 3 TRACTS)
CITYWIDE
Total Housing Units 1,032 1,561 3,033 5,626 20,553
Single-Family Residences 10% 40% 62% 46% 54%
Units Built 1950 to 1979 53% 64% 62% 61% 48%
Owner-occupied Units 5% 13% 41% 26% 38%
Renter-occupied Units 95% 87% 59% 74% 62%
1 Estimates do not include on-campus housing units, which are classified as "group quarters" by the U.S. Census.
Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, 2010 U.S. Census
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 82
Packet Pg. 377
15
CITY OF SHU LUIS OBISPO
Reference Map of Census Tracts near Cal Poly
2. Rental costs are high, which drives more students (smaller incomes) to live together in
one single family home. Most single-family homes are not designed for four to five
adults, especially in terms of bathroom facilities and parking.
3. The City's code enforcement data shows a correlation between high rental areas and
reported violations of municipal codes. Some repeated reported violations include:
a. Noise, public drunkenness, vandalism and crime
b. Property maintenance issues
c. Parking
4. Local housing costs are inflated because four to five students can and will pay more for
rental housing than the majority of the local workforce, especially those workers in
industries with lower wages. This causes many workers to commute, which affects
infrastructure (roads), environment (emissions) and society (less owner-
occupancy/pride of ownership).
These issues are common in many town-gown communities when large student populations
move . in to residential neighborhoods; sometimes referred to as "studentification".
Studentification is a term coined by Dr. Darren Smith (2002) and is defined as the social and
environmental changes caused by a very large number of students living in particular areas of a
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 83
Packet Pg. 378
15
CITY OF S.Hn LUIS OBISPO
town or city. It is not necessarily students living in the community, but instead the substitution
of a local community by a student community. 1
The City desires to avoid "studentification" in its low-density residential neighborhoods. The
following sections identify ideas for potential solutions -including best management practices
from nationwide research- to be considered by the Civility Working Group.
Potential Solutions
Two main focus areas should be (1) increasing neighborhood diversity and (2) enhancing
affordable housing options.
1. Increasing Neighborhood Diversity
Diversifying neighborhoods means creating a healthy balance of renters and owner-occupants,
as well as a mix of resident types (families, students, couples, singles, etc.). Within the context
of student housing, limiting concentration of student rentals increases neighborhood diversity.
A. Consider a Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and many other communities facing foreclosure and
abandonment issues, instituted an NSP to help troubled neighborhoods rebound. 2 Using
a revolving NSP fund, abandoned and foreclosed homes were purchased and then
resold at a discounted price to homebuyers in need of assistance. The same philosophy
could be implemented in residential neighborhoods to create more opportunities for
owner-occupied housing units. Potential NSP elements may include:
a. Establish a revolving fund to be used exclusively to purchase single-family homes
within targeted neighborhoods (such as Alta Vista and Monterey Heights) as they
become available on the open market.
b. Resell all homes purchased with the revolving fund within a reasonable time to
likely owner-occupants; university staff, faculty or other workforce buyers.
c. Evaluate legally permissible mechanisms to perpetuate owner-occupancy, such
as a homeowners association (HOA), that are consistent with fair housing
provisions of State and Federal laws. Developing a HOA for NSP homes is
preferable because the HOA can impose conditions, covenants and agreements
that require owner-occupancy of the primary residence for a minimum length of
time.
d. Proceeds from all home sales would go to replenish the revolving fund.
e. Maintain "right of first refusal" granting the NSP the right to re-purchase the
home when it is offered for sale.
f. The NSP could be established on a limited-term basis, or terminated when
owner-occupancy rates for single-family units within targeted neighborhoods
reach a certain level that could be seen as self-sustaining.
1 Town and Gown Glossary. http://www.towngownworld.com/towngownglossary.html
2 http: //portal.hud.gov/hudportai/HUD?sr c=/program offices/comm plannlng/communitydevelopment/programs/neighborhoodspg.
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 84
Packet Pg. 379
15
CITY OF S.flnLUIS OBISPO
This alternative has complicated legal issues surrounding real property rights, equal
protection, and privacy that will require more research if the Civility W orking Group
supports further development of a NSP.
B. Look for opportunities to create faculty and staff housing in student areas. The College
of San Mateo, California, has an award winning 44-unit rental housing development for
faculty and staff (College Vista), which offers a first-class living environment with rents
at half the market average.3 A local example is the 69-unit Bella Montana workforce
housing project located in a neighborhood that is impacted with student rentals
immediately adjacent to Cal Poly campus. The ground sublease has a ranking priority
hierarchy that encourages purchase by Cal Poly faculty and staff, with a back-up market
priority for public education, public agency, other CSU employees, and the general
public. In all, there are 24 priority rankings in the sublease with newly recruited Cal Poly
faculty receiving the highest priority and the general public receiving the lowest. Bella
Montana is different from most condominiums in that the structures are owned by the
buyers, while Cal Poly remains the owner of the ground upon which the structure sits
and has greater control over the conditions of sale of the condos.
C. Evaluate strengthening occupancy restrictions to avoid single-family residential
overcrowding. The City of Fort Collins, home to Colorado State University, restricts
occupancy in all residential dwelling units (single-family, duplex, and multifamily) to one
family and not more than one additional person; or two adults and their dependents,
and not more than one additional person, or up to four unrelated persons in a dwelling
unit located in an apartment complex containing units which were approved to house
four unrelated persons.4 The City of San Luis Obispo's Zoning Regulations prohibit six or
more adult occupants in the low-density residential zone without a High Occupancy Use
Permit.
D. Develop a rental inspection program that checks occupancy. The City of Bloomington,
home to Indiana University Bloomington, implemented a Rental Occupancy Program
that requires rental property inspection every three to five years to validate current
occupancy permits. Occupancy permits allow up to three unrelated adults in single-
family zoning districts, and up to five in multi-family zoning districts. 5 The City of Santa
Cruz, California adopted a 2010 ordinance that requires all owners of one or more
residential rental dwelling units to register with the city and participate in an annual
inspection. The Santa Cruz program aims to address unpermitted dwelling units and the
renting of spaces not intended for habitation, as well as substandard, overcrowded,
unsanitary and unsafe housing conditions that render a housing _unit unfit or unsafe for
occupancy.6 The City of San Luis Obispo is currently developing a multifamily rental
inspection program to be presented to the public and City Council in late 2014.
'.h ttp://www.smccd .edy/accounis/smccd/department s/faclllt les/BestAmerlca nllvlngAwa rd.shtml.
'http://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy. php
'http://www.ltgau.org/userAies/flles/CityBrochure-Bioomi ngton.pdf
6 Santa Cruz Residential Rental Inspection Program. http:l!www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=1536.
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 85
Packet Pg. 380
15
CITY OF S.fin LUIS OBISPO
E. Work with common interest developments on restrictive leases. In California, courts
have allowed homeowners associations to limit or ban rentals in private condominium
projects or planned developments. Restrictions against leasing in a common interest
development must be shown to be reasonable in order to be enforceable per California
Civil Code Sections 711 and 1354. In the case City of Oceanside v. McKenna (1989), the
Oceanside court found that restrictions on a publicly subsidized condominium project to
require owner-occupancy and forbid the leasing of units was valid. The justification
offered by the City and its Community Development Commission was found reasonable
since prohibiting leasing would foster the redevelopment goals of providing a stabilized
community of owner-occupied units for low and moderate income persons.7
F. Create more on-campus housing. Giving students more opportunities to live on-campus
may reduce concentration of students living in nearby low-density residential
neighborhoods. Cal Poly and the City have adopted policies that support student
housing on-campus, and Cal Poly is planning to build a new 1475-bed campus housing
facility soon. Other universities require all freshmen to live on-campus, and some also
require that freshmen leave their cars at home the first year. In addition to providing
new campus housing, Cal Poly could formally adopt a goal to house a certain percentage
of students on campus b y a specified date.
2. Enhancing Affordable Housing Options
Creating affordable housing is a local, regional and national objective. Within the context of
student housing, creating affordable options means offering more housing types with different
cost profiles so that students may avoid overcrowding in single-family residences.
A. Create partnerships to achieve common affordable housing goals. Northeastern
University, Massachusetts, provides a good example of this approach in its Davenport
Commons. The project consists of 125 units of housing for students and staff, 60
affordable owner-occupied townhouses, and 2,100 square feet of retail space. 8 It was a
complex project, involving many stakeholders and negotiations including a community
benefits package of affordable housing, helping homeowners start a condominium
association and providing both technical assistance and education for first-time
homebuyers.
B. Continue to distribute Good Neighbor guides and update off-campus housing outreach
materials. The University of Virginia 9 and the City of Fort Collins10 have developed
guides that include tips for finding affordable off-campus housing, advice about the
financial responsibilities of living on their own, and behavior expected of a good
neighbor and community member. Cal Poly, Cuesta College and the City should update
their off-campus housing guides to include affordable housing options in the region. The
7 The Case for Rental Restrictions. http://www.hoa-iaw.com/publicalions/case--rental-restridions.shtml
'http://www.dhkinc.com/Housing/affordable/9703.asp
• http://www.itgau.org/userfiles/files/off grounds guide.pdf
10 http://www.fcgov.com/nelghborhoodservlces/pdf/lthandbook.pdf?20081224
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 86
Packet Pg. 381
15
CITY OF SHU LUIS OBISPO
guides should also list reasons why overcrowding in low-density residential housing can
adversely affect health and safety of tenants, impact available parking, arid contribute
to noise and privacy conflicts.
Additional Resources
The following four resources come from other town-gown communities that have formed
public-private task forces with a similar mission to the Civility W orking Group. Each document
contains recommended actions to address issues that often arise from off-campus student
living in residential neighborhoods.
1. Central Austin Community Development Corporation. 2005. What Other College
Communities Have Done: Examples of Regulatory Actions to Preserve the Single-Family,
Residential Character of a Campus Neighborhood.
http://centralaustincdc.org/fair affordable housing/west urbana na ccupancy.pdf
2. Rutgers University. 2013. Task Force for Off Campus Issues and Concerns: Final Report and
Recommendations.
http://studentconduct.rutgers.edu/files/documents/OffCampusTas kForceReport.pdf
3. St. Paul P lanning Commission. May 2012. Student Housing Zoning Study: Report and
Recommendations. http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/20436
4. Temple University. 2012. Final Report of the Community and Student Off Campus Issues and
Concerns Task Force.
http://w ww.temple.edu/studentaffairs/deanofstudents/documents/StudentComm unityOff
CampuslssuesTaskForceFina1ReportforW ebsiteNov2012.pdf
The remaining four resources listed below are academic studies and white papers on the issues
of studentification and town-gown collaborations.
5. Smith, Darren P. 2005. Studentification: the gentrification factory?
http://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/studentification-darren-smith.pdf
6. Smith, Darren P. 2008. The Politics of Studentification and (Un)balanced Urban Populations:
Lessons for Gentrification and Sustainable Communities?
http://usj.sagepub.com/content/45/12/2541.full.pdf+html
7. U.K. National HMO Lobby. 2008. Balanced Communities & Studentification: Problems and
Solutions. http://www.itgau.org/userfiles/files/Nationai%20HM0%20Lobby.pdf
8. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2009. Town-Gown Collaboration in Land Use and
Development. http://community-wealth.org/ pdfs/news/recent-articles/11-09/report-
sungu-eryilmaz.pdf
APPENDIX F: Maintaining Balanced Neighborhoods Page 87
Packet Pg. 382
15
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort, Final Report | San Luis Obispo, CA Page 28
- Enhancing the quality of life for all residents -
Packet Pg. 383
15
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 384
15