HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Council Agenda Packet
Tuesday, February 7, 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. STUDY SESSION REGARDING WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY AND
CONNECTION FEES (MATTINGLY / FLOYD / HIX / METZ – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Receive a presentation on the development of a Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection
Fee Study in a study session and provide feedback on the proposed approach.
RECESS TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2017
Packet Pg. 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 7, 2017 Page 2
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Aaron Gomez
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2016 (GALLAGHER)
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of December 13, 2016.
Packet Pg. 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 7, 2017 Page 3
4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND REQUEST FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (HASLO) AND TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH
ASSOCIATION (TMHA) TO DEVELOP BISHOP STREET STUDIOS (CODRON /
WISEMAN / OROZCO)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, approving an Affordable Housing Fund Award to the Housing Authority of San
Luis Obispo and Transitions Mental Health Association for Bishop Street Studios in the
amount of $850,000” for the development of 34 affordable rental units.
5. AVILA RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) FORMATION
(JOHNSON)
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $54,825 with Economic
Planning Systems (EPS) to assist the City with the financial analysis and related tasks
necessary for the formation of a Communities Facilities District (CFD) for the Avila Ranch
Project.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
6. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY LYDIA MOURENZA
& RICHARD RACOUILLAT) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE
PROJECT THAT INCLUDES GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE,
27 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS (22 CHORRO
STREET) (CODRON / COHEN – 120 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 Lydia Mourenza & Richard Racouillat)
thereby approving the design of a new four-story mixed-use project that includes ground
floor commercial/retail space, 27 residential units, and mechanical parking lifts, with a
categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented in the City Council
agenda report and attachments dated February 7, 2017 (22 Chorro Street, APPL-4278-
2016).”
Packet Pg. 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 7, 2017 Page 4
7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT,
SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND ANNUAL AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR 2015-16 (BRADFORD / PARDO – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit
of the Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2015-16.
8. AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITIES OF
ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO
ROBLES, AND PISMO BEACH TO JOINTLY FINANCE AND CONSTRUCT A
REPLACEMENT ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER (JOHNSON – 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement in substantial conformance with the County of
San Luis Obispo, and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay,
Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach to jointly finance and construct the replacement of an animal
services shelter.
LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(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 Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 6:00
p.m., at the Veteran’s Hall, 801 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purposes of
conducting a review of the Rental Housing Inspection Program.
The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Packet Pg. 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 7, 2017 Page 5
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. 5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 6
Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director, Wastewater
Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director, Water
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY AND
CONNECTION FEES
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the development of a Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee
Study in a study session and provide feedback on the proposed approach.
DISCUSSION
Report-in-Brief
The City’s Utilities Department is in the process of updating the fees charged to new
development for water and sewer service. Previously, the City calculated development impact
fees for water and sewer services using only major system assets (generally projects that were
debt financed). After the presentation on this subject, staff is requesting feedback on whether or
not to incorporate both existing and future assets that provide capacity for new growth is
desirable. Staff is also seeking direction on changing the name of the fee from development
impact to capacity and connection to more clearly communicate what the fee is assessed what the
fee actually is for, as well as eliminating sewer catchment area or “add-on fees.” The study may
result in higher fees depending on the guidance received. As a result, staff is seeking policy
direction as to the desired approach before the study takes place.
Background
In the City, customers are provided water service through a multi-source water supply, raw water
conveyance systems, the Water Treatment Plant, and a water distribution system that includes
treated water storage reservoirs and tanks, pump stations, and pipelines. Wastewater service is
provided through a collection system of pipelines and lift stations, and the Water Resource
Recovery Facility. The community has made an investment in its water sources and its water and
wastewater infrastructure incrementally over many years. These facilities require upgrades from
time to time to meet new regulatory requirements or replacement at the end of their service life.
These systems and facilities must be sized to provide necessary capacity as the City grows and
may need to be expanded over time, or relocated, to provide the capacity necessary to serve new
annexation areas or as densities increase through infill development.
The purpose of water and sewer development impact fees is to recover the cost of the portion of
those improvements that benefit future development. To impose a water or sewer development
impact fee, the City must determine the relationship between the need for the public facility, its
cost, and the amount attributed to future development. The City’s water and sewer impact fees
are based on growth under the General Plan used in conjunction with capital improvement
Packet Pg. 7
1
planning to ensure adequate water supply, water treatment capacity, wastewater collection
infrastructure, and wastewater treatment capacity.
According to the 2015 Housing Element, the City’s
population has grown at a slow, steady pace since
1980, at an average rate of about one percent per year,
with periods of faster or slower growth reflecting
national and statewide economic cycles. The City
experienced a much slower annual average growth rate
of 0.3 percent between 1990 and 2013. Revenue from
water and sewer development impact fees varies with
this rate of growth, however the water and sewer
infrastructure needed to support growth in the City is
either already in place or has been planned.
Generally speaking, with a 2016 population of
approximately 46,000 residents and an estimated future
population of 57,200 residents, 80 percent of the City’s
population is existing and 20 percent is planned.
Past and Current Fee Studies
The City conducted previous water and wastewater development impact fee studies in 1991,
1994, 2004, and 2013 to identify the cost of serving future development. The 2013 fees used
population estimates, growth projections, project costs and the application of water and
wastewater policy available at that time. In the past, impact fees only included the costs of major
infrastructure and specific capacity expansion projects and did not include the existing water
distribution and wastewater collection systems. Also, under the existing sewer fees, “add-on”
fees are charged to development in areas that benefit from sewer lift station service.
Funding for the Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee Study was approved by the City
Council as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Significant Operating Program Change, Water and
Sewer Administration and Engineering Contract S ervices, and described on page 3-25.
The proposed fees will be based, in part, on growth anticipated under the General Plan Land Use
Element adopted in 2014 and water and wastewater master planning efforts completed in 2016.
In accordance with State law, existing approved tracts with “vested rights” will not be affected
by the update to these fees (approximately 600 housing units).
Current Approach
The terminology used for this fee – capacity and connection rather than development impact – is
proposed to better convey the concept of the facilities and systems associated with the provision
of water and wastewater service by the City. In some communities, these fees may be referred to
as system development charges, impact fees, capacity reserve charges, or infrastructure
investment fees. Regardless of the term used to identify them, their objective is the same. That is,
these charges or fees are intended to provide funds to the utility to finance all or a part of the
capital improvements needed to serve and accommodate future growth.
Water and wastewater
systems and facilities provide
capacity to serve:
80%
Existing population
20%
Planned growth
Packet Pg. 8
1
This study identifies the cost to provide capacity for new development in the City’s existing
water and wastewater systems and facilities. In some cases, expansion costs are identified where
future improvements are necessary facilities to provide adequate capacity to serve new
development.
In establishing capacity and connection fees, there are differing methodologies.
“The buy-in method is based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. This method is
typically used when the existing system has sufficient
capacity to serve new development now and into the
future.
The incremental cost method is based on the value or
cost to expand the existing system’s capacity. This
method is typically used when the existing system has
limited or no capacity to serve new development now
and into the future.
The combined approach is based on a blended value of
both the existing and expanded system’s capacity. This
method is typically used where some capacity is
available in parts of the existing system (e.g. source of
supply), but new or incremental capacity will need to
be built in other parts (e.g., treatment plant) to serve
new development at some point in the future.”
The City’s existing water development impact fee includes
the proportionate share of a limited list of water assets
including:
Nacimiento Pipeline Project,
Water Reuse Project,
1994 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade,
2006 Water Treatment Plant Improvements and
Sedimentation Process, and
2007 Bishop Tank replacement project.
The City’s existing sewer development impact fees include
the following wastewater assets:
1991 upgrade of Units 3 and 4 at the Water
Reclamation Facility (now referred to as the Water
Resource Recovery Facility, and
all phases of the planned upgrade of the Water
Resource Recovery Facility.
This study proposes to analyze those additional water and
Water Capital Assets not included
in current fees
Water - Source of Supply
Existing Whale Rock Reservoir
capital assets and planned capital
improvements
Existing ground water capital assets
and planned capital improvements
Water Treatment
Existing Water Treatment Plant
capital assets (prior to 1994
upgrade) and planned capital
improvements
Potable and Recycled Water
Storage/Distribution
Existing Potable Water
Storage/Distribution capital assets
Existing Recycled Water
Distribution capital assets
Planned Potable Water
Storage/Distribution capital
improvement
Planned Recycled Water
Storage/Distribution capital
improvement
Wastewater Capital Assets not
included in current fees
Wastewater Collection System
Existing and planned Wastewater
Collection System capital assets
Water Resource Recovery Facility
Existing Water Resource Recovery
Facility assets (prior to 1991
upgrade)
Planned Water Resource Recovery
Facility Upgrade
NOTE: Existing water and wastewater
assets are valued using the asset’s
replacement cost less depreciation.
Packet Pg. 9
1
wastewater capital assets that provide capacity for future development, but were not included in
the prior fee study.
Attachment A provides an overview of the City’s present development impact fees and the
detailed methodology for the capacity and connection fee study.
Area-Specific Fees
Area-specific fees create charges of different amounts to new development in various parts of the
City. The City’s current sewer development impact fees include five area-specific catchment
area charges where an area is served by sewer lift stations. The catchment area fees are charged
to new development for its proportionate share of the City’s capital costs for sewer lift station
construction. For example, new development in the Calle Joaquin lift station catchment area is
charged the fee as the development is served by the lift station. In the City, these fees currently
range from approximately $500 per unit in the Laguna catchment area to approximately $3,700
per unit in the Tank Farm catchment area making the cost to develop in these areas higher. The
City has similar transportation area fees.
Although there may be technical justification to support area-specific fees, like the City’s sewer
catchment area fees, these fess can be more cumbersome to implement than applying one
citywide sewer impact fee. It is appropriate when updating these fees to consider whether the
catchment area fees remain as the most effective method of charging new development for sewer
service.
Outreach Efforts
In addition to this Study Session, staff has engaged the development community to discuss the
scope and schedule of the Capacity and Connection Fee Study at the Developer’s Roundtable on
October 20, 2016. Staff has scheduled another meeting with that group to discuss progress on the
Capacity and Connection Fee Study on February 13, 2017.
Legal Basis and Policy Nexus for Capacity and Connection Fees
In establishing capacity and connection fees, an important requirement is that they be developed
and implemented in conformance with state and local laws. The laws for the enactment of
capacity fees in California, passed by AB 1600, are codified in California Government Code
sections 66013, 66016, and 66022, which are interspersed within the ‘Mitigation Fee Act.’ The
Mitigation Fee Act is comprehensive legislation dealing mainly with impact fees, although the
above sections set forth the various requirements for imposition of capacity fees in California:
calculation of the fees, noticing, accounting and reporting requirements, and processes for
judicial review.
The City’s proposed capacity and connection fees are “capacity charges” as defined in the
California Government Code. The basic principle that needs to be followed is that the charge be
based on a proportionate share of the costs of the system required to provide the service and that
the requirements for adoption and accounting be followed in compliance with California law.
The City also has existing General Plan policies and programs related to the cost of growth and
development impact fees. Policy 1.13.9 (Costs of Growth) in the Land Use Element states:
Packet Pg. 10
1
The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new
development be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to
help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits.
The City shall consider a range of options for financing measures so that new
development pays its fair share of costs of new services and facilities which are
required to serve the project and which are reasonably related to the new growth
attributable to the development.
Program 1.14.7 (Maintain Development Fee Program) in the Land Use Element states:
The City shall maintain a development fee program that covers the costs
associated with serving projects with City services and facilities. This maintenance
will include periodic review of the fees collected to ensure they are adequate to
cover City costs.
Total Fee Burden
As the City considers updates to its impact fee structure, it is important to keep the total fee
burden experienced by a given development project in context. As part of the infrastructure
financing strategies identified in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, a series of
study sessions have been presented to the City Council that outline the various options available
for financing important infrastructure. For example, with single-family residential development,
a rule of thumb is that the fee burden should not exceed 15 percent of the cost of the unit. This is
illustrated in the following graphic. The City’s water and sewer capacity and connection fees will
include an analysis of the overall fee burden on various types of development projects to
maintain overall financial feasibility. The following graph illustrates the findings presented to the
City Council in 2015. The full report is included in the Council Reading File. While this
information is helpful as context, it is not the only but significant one in shaping future decisions.
Packet Pg. 11
1
The City’s Community Development Department is concurrently preparing a Capital Facilities
Fee Program Nexus Study. This Study will update the City’s existing Transportation and Parks
development impact fee programs and consider new impact fee programs for General
Government and Public Safety facilities. City staff working on these program updates will
coordinate efforts to ensure consistency and compatibility across the fee program from the
standpoint of fee administration and financial feasibility.
Summary and Next Steps
The table below provides a summary of the approaches under consideration.
Current Water and Sewer
Development Impact Fees
Potential Water and Sewer
Capacity and Connection Fees
Meets legal requirements Meets legal requirements
Lower fee with buy-in of certain water
and sewer assets providing capacity for
new development
May result in higher fee with buy-in of
all water and sewer assets providing
capacity for new development
Includes area specific sewer catchment
area fees in locations served by lift
stations
One citywide water and sewer fee with
area specific water or sewer fees
The consideration of the Final Capacity and Connection Fee Study is on the Council Agenda for
May 2, 2017 with implementation of the new fees planned for July 1, 2017.
Packet Pg. 12
1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is a study session, so staff is not recommending Council take any action on the Water and
Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee Study at this time. Modification of rates and charges by
public agencies is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15273 of the Public Resources Code because changes in fees is not intended to
fund expansion of capital projects not otherwise evaluated under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a study session and there is no fiscal impact associated with it. Fiscal impacts will be
developed for consideration of the Final Capacity and Connection Fee Study for City Council
consideration.
Packet Pg. 13
1
FOCUSED QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council direction to help
guide the City Council in their deliberations:
Questions for City Council Direction
Yes No
1. Is the name change from Water and Sewer Development Impact
Fees to Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fees helpful
to more clearly communicate the service provided?
2. Should the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fee include:
a. The water assets identified in the prior water development
impact fee study?
b. All existing and future water assets that provide capacity to
serve new development?
3. Should the City’s Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee include:
a. The wastewater assets identified in the prior sewer
development impact fee study?
b. All existing and future wastewater assets that provide
capacity to serve new development in the Sewer Capacity
and Connection Fees?
4. Should the City eliminate area-specific sewer Catchment Area
fees in favor of one citywide Sewer Capacity and Connection
Fee?
The presentation at the Study Session will include a similar decision matrix to help focus
Council direction.
Attachments:
a - WSC and HDR SLO Capacity Fee - Final
Packet Pg. 14
1
City of San Luis Obispo 1
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Technical Memorandum
To: Jennifer Metz – City of San Luis Obispo
From: Shawn Koorn – HDR
Judy Dean – HDR
Joshua Reynolds, PE - WSC
Date: 1/09/17
Subject: Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Introduction
Water Systems Consulting (WSC) with HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) as a subconsultant was
retained by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) to develop water and wastewater capacity and
connection fees. The purpose of capacity and connection fees is to bring equity between existing
customers and new customers connecting to the City’s water and wastewater systems. By
establishing cost-based capacity and connection fees, the City will be taking an important step in
providing adequate infrastructure to meet growth-related needs, and more importantly,
providing this required infrastructure to new customers in a cost -based, fair and equitable
manner.
The City’s water and sewer development impact fees were last updated in 2013. As part of the
process, HDR was retained to provide a peer review of the 2013 study. Based on that peer review,
HDR was of the opinion that the City appears to be using a reasonable and appropriate
methodology to calculate the fees, given available data and that the fees are in compliance with
California State law. HDR further recommended that in the f uture the City consider including
existing water distribution and collection system infrastructure that will aide in providing service
to new customers and that the City consider collecting data that can facilitate developing the fee
on a cost per gallon/unit basis. The recommendations from this peer review in 2013 will be used
to develop the proposed capacity and connection fees for the City’s water and wastewater
utilities which will replace the City’s current Development Impact Fees for the water and se wer
utility.
In addition to the 2013 peer review recommendations, all capacity and connection fees should
be updated every five years or when planning documents are updated to assure fees are updated
and based on a cost basis. In addition to the City’s General Plan being updated since the 2013
study the Utilities Department has also completed several key planning documents including the
Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan which was completed in
December 2015, the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan which was adopted in June of
2016 and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy which was
completed in December of 2015. In addition, the Recycled Water Master Plan is currently being
updated and will be incorporated into the analysis as needed and as available. These studies will
be used to update key growth and infrastructure planning components for both the water and
wastewater capacity and connection fees.
Packet Pg. 15
1
City of San Luis Obispo 2
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees
At some utilities, capacity and connection fees may be referred to as system development
charges, impact fees, capacity reserve charges, or infrastructure investment fees. Regardless of
the label used to identify them, their objective is the same. That i s, these charges or fees are
intended to provide funds to the utility to finance all or a part of the capital improvements
needed to serve and accommodate new customer growth. The purpose of a capacity and
connection fee is to provide equity between existing customers and new customers connecting
to the system (i.e., new development). For the purposes of this discussion, the capacity and
connection fee is defined as follows:
“System development charges are one-time charges paid by new development to finance
construction of public facilities needed to serve them.”1
Simply stated, capacity and connection fees are a contribution of capital to either reimburse
existing customers for the available capacity in the current system, or help finance planned future
growth-related capacity improvements. Absent these fees, many utilities may be unwilling to
build growth-related facilities (i.e., burden existing rate payers with the entire cost of growth-
related capacity expansion).
To understand why capacity and connection fees are an equitable method of assessing new
customers for the cost of available capacity (i.e., infrastructure) one must consider the issue of
time. As an example, consider a water facility that was built in 2006 and sized to accommodate
both existing customers and future anticipated growth. Now, consider the customer that
connects (develops) to the system in 2016. Up to this point, and for the last 10 years, the existing
water ratepayers have been paying for the value of the excess capacity (i.e., carrying costs/debt)
which is available for future development. When a new customer “connects” to the system in
2016, the capacity and connection fee must take into consideration the impact of the
development, the value of the available excess capacity, and potentially, the value of any other
needed (future) improvements required to accommodate customer growth. Depending upon
system characteristics and available excess capacity, a capacity and connection fee will likely have
a component related to reimbursing the existing customers for the value of the excess capacity
in system that they have been funding up to the current point in time, but also for the potential
future improvements needed to continue to accommod ate growth.
Purpose of Capacity and Connection Fees
Capacity and connection fees are generally imposed as a condition of service. The objective of
capacity and connection fees is not to generate money for the utility, but to create fiscal balance
between existing customers and new customers so that all customers seeking to connect to the
utility’s system bear an equitable share of the cost of capacity that is invested in both the existing
and any future growth-related expansions. Through the implementation of equitable and cost -
based capacity and connection fees, existing customers will not be unduly burdened with the
cost of new development. If cost-based capacity and connection fees are not implemented by
the City, then the existing customers will bear (i.e., pay for) a greater portion of the costs
associated with new development. Ultimately, the adoption of the final capacity and connection
1 Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Facilities, Lewis Publishers,
New York, 1995, p. 1,
Packet Pg. 16
1
City of San Luis Obispo 3
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
fees is a policy decision by the City Council regarding the sharing of costs between new
development and existing customers. The adoption of a cost-based capacity and connection fee
implies that “growth pays for growth”. Economic theory suggests that equity and fairness is
derived when those that create the costs, pay for the costs.
Legal Basis for Capacity and Connection Fees
In establishing capacity and connection fees, an important requirement is that they be developed
and implemented in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established
specific laws regarding the establishment, calculation and implementation of capacity and
connection fees. The main objective of most state laws is to assure that these fees are
established in such a manner that they are fair, equitable and cost -based. In other cases, state
legislation may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to establish the
fees.
The laws for the enactment of capacity and connection fees in California are codified in California
Government Code sections 66013, 66016, and 66022, which are interspersed within the
‘Mitigation Fee Act.’ The Mitigation Fee Act is comprehensive legislation dealing mainly with
capacity and connection fees, although the above sections set forth the various requirements for
imposition of capacity and connection fees in California: calculation of the fees, noticing,
accounting and reporting requirements, and processes for judicial review.
A summary of the relevant statutes required in the calculation of capacity and connection fees is
as follows:
“66013 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees
for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or
charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which
the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or charge
imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials
is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on
the issue.”
“66013 (b) (3) ‘Capacity charge’ means a charge for public facilities in existence at the
time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed
in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged,
including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests,
and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to
its use of existing or new public facilities. A “capacity charge” does not include a
commodity charge.”
The City’s proposed capacity and connection fees are “capacity charges” as defined in the
preceding provision. The basic principle that needs to be followed under California law is th at
the charge be based on a proportionate share of the costs of the system required to provide
service and that the requirements for adoptions and accounting be followed in compliance with
California law.
Packet Pg. 17
1
City of San Luis Obispo 4
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Proposition 218 and 26 and Capacity and Connection Fees
In 1996, the voters of California approved Proposition 218, which required that the imposition of
certain fees and assessments by municipal governments require a vote of the people to change
or increase the fee or assessment. Of interest in this part icular study is the applicability of
Proposition 218 to the establishment of capacity and connection fees for the City.
In Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist., 32 Cal.4th 409 (2004), the California Supreme
Court held that water connection fees (capacity fees) are not “assessments” under Proposition
218 because they are imposed only on those who are voluntarily seeking water or wastewater
service, rather than being charged to particular identified parcels, and therefore such fees are
not subject to the procedural or substantive requirements of Proposition 218. The court also
held that such fees can properly be enacted by either ordinance or resolution.
In November 2010 the voters of California passed Proposition 26, an initiative based state
constitutional amendment that provided a new definition of the term “tax” in the California
Constitution. Under Proposition 26 a fee or charge imposed by a public agency is a tax unless it
meets one of seven exceptions. Capacity and connection fees fall within exception 2 – i.e., it is a
charge imposed for a specific government service. Provided that a capacity and connection fee
does not charge one fee payor more in order to charge another fee payor less (i.e., a cross -
subsidy), and it does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the
service, the fee is not a tax within the meaning of Proposition 26. Under proposition 26, the local
government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge,
or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable
costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a
payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from,
the governmental activity.
Methodology for Development of Capacity and Connection Fees
In establishing capacity and connection fees, there are differing methodologies. The AWWA M-1
Manual discusses three generally accepted methods;
“The buy-in method is based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. This method is
typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development
now and into the future.
The incremental cost method is based on the value or cost to expand the existing system’s
capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has limited or no capacity
to serve new development now and into the future.
The combined approach is based on a blended value of both the existing and expanded
system’s capacity. This method is typically used where some capacity is available in parts of
the existing system (e.g. source of supply), but new or incremental capacity will need to be
built in other parts (e.g., treatment plant) to serve new development at some point in the
future.”2
2 AWWA M-1 Manual, p 6th Edition, p. 265-266.
Packet Pg. 18
1
City of San Luis Obispo 5
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
At the present time, both the water and wastewater system have available capacity to meet
present and future demands with identified improvements from the recent master planning
processes. Therefore, the “combined approach” methodology will be utilized for the
development of the capacity and connection fee. This will be a change in the approach to setting
cost-based capacity and connection fees as the City currently uses a modified combined approach
in the development of the current development impact fees. As noted in the 2013 peer review,
the City has historically only included the costs of major infrastructure and specific capacity
expanding projects, which does not include the total system value or costs associated with
providing service to new customers connecting to the system.
There are “generally accepted” methodologies that are used to establish capacity and connection
fees. Within the “generally accepted” methodologies, there are a number of different steps used
to establish cost-based and equitable capacity and connection fees. These steps are as follows:
1. Determination of system planning criteria
2. Determination of equivalent dwelling units (EDU)
3. Valuation of system component costs
4. Determination of any financing credits
Step 1 – Determination of System Planning Criteria
The first step in establishing capacity and connection fees is the determination of the system
planning criteria. This implies calculating the amount of water or wastewater capacity required
by a single-family residential customer. The use of an adopted facility plan or master plan for the
utility provides the basis for the fee’s system planning criteria. These plan documents provide
the rational planning basis and criteria for the facilities and investment needed to properly and
adequately operate and maintain the system.
Generally for a water system, two different criteria are determined due to differences in planning
criteria. The first planning criterion is the peak day water usage per EDU and the second is a
water storage requirement per EDU. These two different planning criteria are developed since a
majority of the water system infrastructure is sized to meet the peak day demand, and water
storage is sized to meet equalizing, emergency and fire flow requirements.
For wastewater systems, average daily demand (wastewater contribution) per EDU is most often
used, since this total flow represents the flow, imposed by the customer. Average inflow and
infiltration is added to the customer’s flow since this represents the total volumetric flow and
hence capacity requirement at the treatment plant.
As previously mentioned the City’s recently approved documents the 2015 Final Potable Water
Distribution System Operations Master Plan, the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the 2015
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, and the Water Resource
Recovery Facility plan will be used to develop key growth and infrastructure planning
components for both the water and wastewater capacity and connection fees.
Packet Pg. 19
1
City of San Luis Obispo 6
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Step 2 – Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU)
The next step is the determination of the equivalent dwelling units or EDUs. An EDU provides a
“common denominator” for assessing the impact on a utility system. The determination of the
total system EDUs is an important calculation in that it provides the linkage between the amounts
of infrastructure necessary to provide service to a set number of customers. This implies that if
the system is designed to provide service for demands up to the year 2035, then the
infrastructure costs are divided by the EDUs in 2035 to determine the equitable and
proportionate cost per EDU.
The City’s aforementioned planning documents will be used to update the EDU definition. The
capacity and connection fee will follow the time frame outlined in these documents for the
projected capital improvements needed and will be the basis for establishing both the existing
EDUs and future (new/additional) EDUs.
Step 3 – Valuation of System Component Costs
The next step in the analysis is to determine the valuation of the system infrastructure. There
are different methods for the valuation of the existing assets (buy -in component). A common
methodology for the valuation of existing assets is to use each asset’s ori ginal cost and place
them at current replacement value in order to more fairly reflect the carrying costs associated
with the excess capacity. By using this valuation method, all assets (existing and future) are
brought up to current day dollars. The inclusion of any expansion related assets (i.e., future
expansion-related capital projects) within the analysis are based upon an adopted capital plan or
master plan and valued at today’s cost, regardless of the timing of when the facility will be built.
The calculation of the capacity and connection fee generally includes both historical assets and
planned future assets. Essentially, the capacity and connection fee analysis determines the value
of the total assets and the capacity and connection fee is composed of a “buy-in” component
(i.e., existing assets) and an expansion component. The expansion component is related only to
future capital projects which provide an expansion of capacity to accommodate future growth.
Given a value for capacity and the number of equivalent capacity units, the basic formula for
calculating the capacity and connection fee is relatively straight-forward. The basic formula for
calculating a capacity and connection fee appears as follows:
System Value (Existing or New Facilities) = Capacity and Connection
Fee/Equivalent Dwelling Unit System Capacity (Equivalent Units)
In the determination of the capacity and connection fee, the cost per equivalent dwelling unit as
shown above is the “gross capacity and connection fee”. The “gross capacity and connection fee”
is calculated before any credits for debt service.
The City’s asset inventory record listing will be used to establish existing assets and will be value d
at replacement cost based in 2016 base dollars. The only exception to this is the land assets will
be based on original asset cost value and date put in service and escalated to current dollars using
a cost index (e.g. the Engineering New Record, Construction Cost Index; ENR CCI).
Packet Pg. 20
1
City of San Luis Obispo 7
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
The updated planning documents for both water and wastewater detailed facilities that will be
decommissioned or facilities that may be upgraded. A review is being undertaken to make sure
the inventory record listing used to calculate the capacity and connection fee will only include
those assets considered part of the operations of the water and wastewater system. The capacity
and connection fee will follow the time frame outlined in these documents for the projected
capital improvements needed and will be the basis for establishing both the existing EDUs and
future (new/additional) EDUs.
Step 4 – Determination of Any Financing Credits
The last step in the calculation of the capacity and connection fee is the determination of any
credits. The provision of debt service credits, if applicable, is a calculation to prevent customers
from paying twice for an asset; once through the valuation of the asset contained in the capacity
and connection fee and then again through any debt service payments included within the
utility’s rates. A similar crediting mechanism is also utilized if general obligation or tax revenue
has been used to finance the infrastructure. In addition, any contributed capital through
developer contributed facilities or grant funded facilities will not be included in the capacity and
connection fee calculation.
Overview of the City’s Present Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees
The City currently has water and wastewater development impact fee in place. The fees include
a fee class for secondary dwelling units (studio units less than 450 square feet) that is 30 percent
of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar
units. The fees also include an updated multi-family unit development impact fee that is 70
percent of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for
similar units. Provided below in Table 1 is a summary of the City’s present water development
impact fees.
Packet Pg. 21
1
City of San Luis Obispo 8
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Table 1
Summary of Present Water Development Impact Fees ($/EDU)
Land Use Type
Equivalent Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Water Development Impact Fee
Residential
Single family Unit 1.00 $11,023
Multi-family Unit 0.70 7,716
Mobile Home 0.60 6,614
Studio Unit, 450 square feet or less 0.30 3,307
Non-Residential (Meter Size)
3/4” inch 1.00 11,023
1” inch 1.70 18,739
1-1/2” inch 3.40 37,478
2” inch 5.40 59,523
3” inch 10.70 117,944
4” inch 16.70 184,081
6” inch 33.40 368,162
The current wastewater development impact fees are based on a city wide fee for service plus
additions for catchment areas. These catchment areas are regions with wastewater mains, lift
stations, and force mains that collect wastewater from identified areas of the City. Each
catchment area varies in the amount of flow contributions to the W RRF, due to its applicable
topography and land uses. The wastewater catchment areas are Margarita, Tank Farm, Silver
City, Calle Joaquin and Laguna, each corresponding to a lift station service area. All fees for the
various residential and non-residential land uses are determined by multiplying the single family
residential wastewater fee for the City wide and each catchment area by its applicable EDU
factor. Table 2 provides the citywide fee and summarizes the add-on fees for each catchment
area for both residential and non-residential development.
Packet Pg. 22
1
City of San Luis Obispo 9
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Table 2
Summary of Present Wastewater Development Impact Fees ($/EDU)
Land Use Type
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
City
Wide
Margarita
Tank
Farm
Silver
City
Calle
Joaquin
Laguna
Residential
Single-family Unit 1.00 $3,815 $2,808 $3,713 $1,387 $1,871 $501
Multi-family Unit 0.70 2,670 1,966 2,599 971 1,310 351
Mobile Home 0.60 2,289 1,685 2,228 832 1,123 301
Studio Unit - 450 sq. ft or less 0.30 1,144 842 1,114 416 561 150
Non-Residential
3/4” inch 1.00 3,815 2,808 3,713 1,387 1,871 501
1” inch 1.70 6,485 4,774 6,313 2,358 3,181 852
1-1/2” inch 3.40 12,970 9,548 12,626 4,716 6,362 1,704
2” inch 5.40 20,600 15,164 20,053 7,490 10,104 2,707
3” inch 10.70 40,818 30,047 39,734 14,843 20,020 5,364
4” inch 16.70 63,707 46,896 62,015 23,166 31,247 8,371
6” inch 33.40 127,413 93,792 124,031 46,332 62,494 16,472
As a part of updating these fees, the City’s existing methodology is proposed to be revised and
updated for current costs and other planning parameters. There are a number of key
assumptions being reviewed as a part of the study as discussed in the memo. Among the key
assumptions currently being reviewed are the following:
The valuation of existing water and wastewater facilities (assets) will be based upon
replacement cost less their depreciation (booked) value.
The development of future equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) will be based on the City’s
annexation policy, planning maps, and land use designation.
Assumed future growth will be based on the growth assumptions as developed in the City’s
general plan.
Future expansion related water and wastewater capital projects will be based upon the City’s
current capital improvement plan and planned future capital improvements needed to
service future growth.
The capacity and connection fees for both water and wastewater will be reviewed based on
components for water of supply, reservoirs, treatment, storage, distribution and wastewater
treatment and collection.
Annual adjustments of the Capacity and Connection Fee should be based on an industry
standard index (e.g., ENR CCI).
The final report to be developed for this study will document these and any other key
assumptions of the study.
Packet Pg. 23
1
City of San Luis Obispo 10
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study
Summary
This discussion paper has provided an introduction and overview of the development of water
and wastewater capacity and connection fees. Development of capacity and connection fees is
an equitable method to finance the cost of growth and expansion facilities. The water and
wastewater capacity and connection fees will be updated to reflect the City’s current costs and
value of capacity. The intent is to provide a calculated cost-based water and wastewater capacity
and connection fees that are fair to both existing customers and future development. There are
no proposed changes to implementation or administration of the water or wastewater capacity
and connection fees when compared to the current Development Impact Fees.
Packet Pg. 24
1
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, December 13, 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,
December 13, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Charlene Rosales, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce voiced concern that the previous
decision made by the residents, remain honored and noted that the Chamber was very active in
fighting for the repeal of binding arbitration in 2011 which received overwhelming support by
the voters; she spoke regarding the need for long term fiscal responsibility.
---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: 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
Packet Pg. 25
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 2
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 The
Kokkonen Family Trust vs. City of San Luis Obispo; San Luis Obispo County Superior
Court Case No. 16CV-0493
RECESSED AT 5:40 P.M. TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2016 TO
BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M.
Packet Pg. 26
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
December 13, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
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
Council Member Carlyn Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action for Closed Session Item A and
reported that for Item B, on motion by Council Member Christianson, seconded by Vice Mayor
Rivoire, the Council voted 5-0 to authorize the defense of the amended complaint in the case
entitled: 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 vs. City of San Luis Obispo, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. 16CV-0493, which challenges the
City Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance.
APPOINTMENTS
1. APPOINTMENT TO THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BAC) AND
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TBID)
City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Confirm the appointment of Jonathan Roberts to the Bicycle Advisory Committee to
complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2020; and
Packet Pg. 27
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 4
2. Confirm the appointment of Amy Swink to the Tourism Business Improvement District
to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2017.
2. APPOINTMENT TO THE ZONE 9 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to appoint Matt Horn, City Engineer, to serve
as the staff representative on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee, effective December 13, 2016,
for a term to expire on December 31, 2018.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo, thanked staff for extending the Avila Ranch project comment period
by an extra week, she noted hopes that the next steps in the development project slows to a
reasonable pace to give residents adequate time to review the reports; she noted the difficulty of
residents having adequate time to review multiple projects at one time.
Kathy Borland, San Luis Obispo, noted her concern for the timing of completion and delivery of
a large EIR report just before the holidays; she requested a month extension be applied to the
comment period of the Avila Ranch project.
Kathie Walker, San Luis Obispo, requested that Council agenize the Rental Housing Inspection
Ordinance on the next Council meeting agenda scheduled for January 2017.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, suggested that Council take into consideration that some public
speakers speak for reasons to benefit themselves financially.
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 3 thru 6 and
8 thru 14.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Item 7 as amended.
3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
Packet Pg. 28
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 5
4. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2016 REGULAR AND JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND OCTOBER 18, 2016 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the Regular and Joint City Council and Planning
Commission meeting of October 4, 2016 and Regular City Council meeting of October 18,
2016.
5. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3066-1, 3761 ORCUTT ROAD
(SBDV-0067-2014)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10757 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Final Map for Tract
3066-Phase 1 (3761 Orcutt Road, SBDV-0067-2014).”
6. BIENNIAL REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10758 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code”;
and
2. Approve a Procedure for Assessing and Waiving Late Fines for Statements of Economic
Interest.
7. SCHEDULE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2017
(Item pulled by Council Member Pease and taken after app roval of remaining Consent
Calendar)
CARRIED 5-0, to:
as amended to include and make tentative the City Council Meeting of December 19, 2017
1. Cancel the Regular City Council meetings of August 1 and December 19, 2017; and
2. Reschedule the Regular City Council meeting of July 4 to July 5, 2017.
Packet Pg. 29
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 6
8. LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PRADO DAY CENTER
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve a lease agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Community
Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO) through December 31, 2017 for use
of the Prado Day Center; and
2. Authorize City Manager to approve any monthly lease extensions after December 31,
2017.
9. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SOLE SOURCE
CONTRACT WITH THE CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION EFFECTIVENESS
(COE) FOR EMPLOYEE AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the issuance of a purchase order to the COE in the amount of $125,000; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a sole source agreement with the COE not to
exceed $125,000 for Fiscal Year 2016-17 to continue a comprehensive employee and
leadership development and core competency program for the City of San Luis Obispo.
10. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA) TO CONTRACT WITH DISABILITY
ACCESS CONSULTANTS (DAC) TO CONDUCT AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE WORK
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the issuance of a purchase order to the CJPIA in the amount of $250,000; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a MOU with the CJPIA not to exceed $250,000
for fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18 to have DAC conduct Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) compliance work.
11. ORDINANCE ADOPTION – AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13.07.030 OF THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON OUTDOOR
IRRIGATION OF PUBLIC FACILITY TURF WITH POTABLE WATER
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt 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. 30
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 7
12. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DELEGATION OF INVESTMENT
AUTHORITY TO THE CITY TREASURER THROUGH THE 2016-17 FISCAL
YEAR
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10759 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the city of San Luis Obispo, California extending the delegation of
Investment Authority to the City Treasurer through the 2016-17 Fiscal Year.”
13. ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD BYLAWS
CARRIED 5-0, to as recommended by the Administrative Review Board, adopt the
inaugural Administrative Review Board Bylaws.
14. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY RELATED TO DIABLO POWER PLANT CLOSURE JOINT
PROPOSAL
CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file a settlement agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E), the County of San Luis Obispo, Coalition of Cities (City of Arroyo
Grande, City of Atascadero, City of Morro Bay, City of Paso Robles, City of Pismo Beach,
and City of San Luis Obispo), San Luis Coastal Unified School District, Friends of The
Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees,
and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
BUSINESS ITEMS
15. CONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN PENDING PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB) ACTION BETWEEN THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (SLOPOA) AND THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (CITY), UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE NO. LA-CE-729
City Attorney Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
John Grady, San Luis Obispo noted his previous vote for binding arbitration and belief that a
yes vote tonight would overturn the vote of the people; he requested Council further study
the item and not rush to judgement this evening.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve a settlement agreement with the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association
in the pending unfair practices case between SLOPOA and the City involving the City’s
2011 election modifying the City Charter to eliminate binding arbitration and modify a
Packet Pg. 31
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 8
retirement provision requiring voter approval of negotiated and Council approved
changes to the City’s contract with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(PERS).
2. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute documents necessary to
request dismissal of the action by PERB and implement the terms of the agreement.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 10760 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Resolution 6620 (1989 Series) to
establish a new dispute resolution process applicable on to the San Luis Obispo Police
Officers Association,” amending Section 13.2 of the City’s Employer-Employee
Relations Resolution 6620 (1989 Series) to remove the SLOPOA from application of the
existing dispute resolution process provided in that section and to add new Section 13.3
to the resolution establishing a new dispute resolution process applicable only to
SLOPOA.
16. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT - FUNDING
RESOLUTIONS
Utilities Director Mattingly and Deputy Director Hix provided an in-depth staff report with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10761 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the reimbursement
to the State Water Resources Control Board for the financing of the Water
Resource Recovery Facility upgrade,” and authorize the Utilities Director to sign
and file the financial assistance application for the Water Resource Recovery
Facility project; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10762 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, pledging sewer fund revenues
to the State Water Resources Control Board for the financing of the Water
Resource Recovery Facility upgrade”; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 10763 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, seeking reimbursement from
the State Water Resources Control Board for certain advanced moneys related to
the construction of the Water Resource Recovery Facility upgrade.”
Packet Pg. 32
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 9
17. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN PROCESS, ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY’S BUDGET
POLICIES
City Manager Lichtig introduced the item; Interim Finance Director Bradford and Budget
Manager Steck provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation
and responded to Council questions.
Consultant, Don Maruska provided overview and agendas of the upcoming 2017
Community Forum Event and Goal Setting Workshop; he noted the importance of creating
the feeling of community.
Council recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:13 p.m., with all Council Members
present.
Interim Finance Director Bradford resumed and completed the 2017-19 Financial Plan
Process staff report.
Public Comments:
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo questioned the interest rate that the City is paying on the long
term unfunded liabilities and what it means in regards to the City’s debt; he questioned the
City’s payments on long term pension debt in previous years.
Kathie Walker, San Luis Obispo questioned the City’s unfunded liability amounts and how
reserve money will be spent; she added that use of that money should be the taxpayer’s
decision stating that transparency is needed.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Review and approve the 2017-19 Financial Plan Goal Setting Process; and
2. Review and discuss the results of the Economic Outlook for the 2017-19 Financial Plan
development; and
3. Review and approve proposed changes and direction regarding the City’s Budget and
Fiscal Policies.
18. 2016 WATER RESOURCES STATUS REPORT
Utilities Director Mattingly and Deputy Director Floyd provided an in-depth staff report
with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding restoring the water demand offset program; Packet Pg. 33
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 10
he provided estimated projections of future water supplies through 2019 with the help of a
slide show presentation.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo stated there are no guarantees of a future water supply; he
added that conflicting data presented is confusing; he requested that residents receive
priority to water by establishing a water hook up moratorium.
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, referenced Monterey County’s high water usage and spoke
regarding the option of ground water desalination.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to receive and file the 2016 Water Resources
Status Report.
19. ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S PUBLIC ART MASTER
PLAN
Parks and Recreation Director Stanwyck and Parks and Recreation Manager Mudgett
provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Council questions.
Public Comments:
Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo, stated he is thankful for downtown opportunities however
questioned their locations; he spoke regarding pedestrianizing downtown and added that
priorities should be incorporated into the Downtown Concept Plan Update.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt the City of San Luis Obispo’s Public
Art Master Plan.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
A written Council Liaison Report was received from Council Member Christianson.
Mayor Harmon requested Council hold a special meeting to access the Rental Housing
Inspection Ordinance; Council Member Pease and Vice Mayor Rivoire noted their support for a
special meeting. By consensus, the item was approved to return to Council in February 2017.
Community Development Director Codron provided brief background on measures already taken
by City staff regarding the gathering of analysis on this item and stated that staff will be ready
sooner than March to present their findings.
Packet Pg. 34
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 13, 2016 Page 11
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
January 3, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg. 35
3
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 36
3
Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager
Steven Orozco, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND REQUEST FOR THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (HASLO) AND TRANSITIONS
MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION (TMHA) TO DEVELOP BISHOP
STREET STUDIOS ($850,000)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving an Affordable Housing Fund award in the amount of $850,000 for
development of 34 affordable rental units located at Bishop Street Studios.
DISCUSSION
The Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) has been collected from commercial and residential
developers to meet the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance “in-lieu” of those developers
providing actual housing units. State planning and zoning law requires the fund to be used only
for the purpose that it was established – to support affordable housing in the City of San Luis
Obispo. These funds are awarded at the City Council’s sole discretion, based on previously
adopted criteria (Attachment A). Requests for AHF support are evaluated by staff and forwarded
to the City Council for consideration. The project requesting funds is described below and
evaluated for how it meets these criteria.
Overview of Requests
The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) and Transitions Mental Health Association
(TMHA) is requesting an allocation of $850,000 in Affordable Housing Funds for the Bishop
Street Studios project (Attachment B).
In collaboration between HASLO and TMHA, Bishop Street Studios will provide 34 affordable
assisted living rental units for mental health clients in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project is
located at the old “Sunny Acres” Site behind the former General Hospital. It consists of the
rehabilitation of the old Sunny Acres building creating thirteen residential units, and the new
construction of twenty-one additional units among three new buildings. One unit will be utilized
for an on-site resident manager. The project also includes a management office as well as a
resident community room.
In September 2016, Bishop Street Studios was unanimously approved by the Architectural
Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. The project had one appeal filed, which
was later unanimously denied by City Council in November 2016.
Packet Pg. 37
4
AWARD CRITERIA
In making its recommendations to the City Council for how AHF funds should be allocated, staff
considers Council adopted criteria including: eligibility, need, suitability, timing, financial
effectiveness and readiness (Attachment A). The following is an analysis of the requests relative
to the criteria.
Eligibility. Use of the AHF for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City’s
affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies regarding housing, as follows:
Bishop Street Studios Project is eligible for Affordable Housing Funds because it
increases the City’s affordable housing inventory, and implements several General Plan
policies regarding housing. The project will increase the supply of affordab le housing for
very-low income households with the construction of 34 units. The proposed request is
consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policies 3.1, 3.5, 3.7, 6.18, 8.1, 8.8,
8.11,8.12, and 8.20.
Need. There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of unit to be assisted, as
follows:
The City of San Luis Obispo has a substantial need for affordable housing to meet goals
stated in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. This need is further evidenced by
HASLO's long waiting lists for all of the affordable housing programs. TMHA operates
housing in the City which is also at capacity, and hundreds of clients remain in need of an
affordable, supported living environment similar to what Bishop Street Studios will
provide. Bishop Street Studios will become a new permanent special needs housing
resource for the community.
Suitability. The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location both in terms of land use
and design, as follows:
Bishop Street Studios is ideally suited for this location. It is consistent with zoning and
land use designations, and close to health and transportation services for residents. The
design is respectful of the site context, and will rehabilitate the currently abandoned
Sunny Aces building. The project does an excellent job of renovating the existing brick
building, while adding new buildings that complement the restored Sunny Acres building
as the center piece of the project. Bishop Street Studios suitability received unanimous
approval by the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission.
Timing. The project would better serve the City’s needs if it were built immediately as opposed
to later, as follows:
The timing of this application is appropriate, and crucial, for the project to move forward.
HASLO will be applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, the key source of project
financing, by the March 1st state deadline. The state requires all local funding to be
Packet Pg. 38
4
committed prior to applying for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.
Financial Effectiveness. But for the requested assistance, the project would not be
economically feasible; or AHF funding “leverages” significant additional funding from other
sources, as follows:
The City's Affordable Housing Funds represent less than 15% of project costs, leveraging
at least $6 million in other funds on Bishop Street Studios. Other sources include a
HASLO Tranche B loan, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, a private capital campaign, a
SLO County Housing Trust Fund loan, County Home and CDBG funds, and City CDBG
funding.
Readiness. The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed, as follows:
Bishop Street Studios has all of the necessary City discretionary approvals and is ready to
proceed with detailed construction drawings. They are working with their architecture
and engineering team to prepare and submit these drawings as part of a building permit
application by early June. Should a Tax Credit Award be secured, HASLO/TMHA
anticipates starting construction in December 2017. This schedule is conditional upon the
state awarding Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in June.
STATUS OF THE AHF
A status report on the AHF is attached (Attachment C). The report indicates that if the proposed
allocations are approved by the Cit y Council, the fund will retain $1,060,537 to allocate to future
affordable housing projects.
Staff is recommending funding for the request listed in the table below. The attached resolution
(Attachment D) recommends funding for a total of $850,000. The proposed funding amounts to
approximately 44% of the funds currently available to be allocated to new projects. Based on
approximately four years of building permit activity, this amount of funding will be restored to
the AHF by Winter 2018.
Current Requests/Proposed Allocations AHF Available Balance $1,910,537
Bishop Street Studios 34 Units $850,000
Total Requests 34 Units $850,000
Net Available for New Programs if Current Request Approved $1,060,537
FISCAL IMPACTS
The recommended allocations would be in the form of loans paid out of the AHF, which consists
of in-lieu fees collected under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The AHF may only be
used for projects or purposes that create or support affordable housing within the City. The
project will have no impact on the General Fund. AHF loans typically have a 30-45 year term
Packet Pg. 39
4
with a rate of 3-4% simple interest. The details of each loan will be finalized prior to release of
funds and structured specific to each project’s financing package. Based on prior expenditures
and pending commitments, there will be a balance of $1,060,537 remaining in the AHF after this
award.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project to award affordable housing funds is exempt from environmental review per Section
15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is only an action to award
funding. However, during project entitlements, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact was approved for Bishop Street Studios by the City Council on N ovember
15, 2016.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not authorize an affordable housing fund award for the proposed project. This action
is not recommended because the project appears to meet the criteria for AHF assistance
and are consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan.
2. Approve an AHF award for a different amount. The City Council can approve an award
for a different amount other than the recommendation. This is not recommended as the
project has carefully considered its need for assistance and the amounts requested reflect
what is needed for successful financing of the project.
3. Continue consideration of the proposed award. The City Council can direct staff to
return with additional information regarding the funding request so that a final decision
on the award amount can be made. Staff does not recommend this action because
applications for Tax Credits must be received by March 1, 2017, and must include a letter
of commitment for funding.
Attachments:
a - Council Resolution No. 9263
b - HASLO (Bishop Street Studios) Funding Request
c - Affordable Housing Fund Status Report
d - Draft Council Resolution
Packet Pg. 40
4
Packet Pg. 41
4
Packet Pg. 42
4
Packet Pg. 43
4
H ~SLO
HOUSING AUTHORITY SAN LUIS OBISPO
December 27, 2016
Jenny Wiseman
Acting Housing Programs Manager
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
SUBJECT: Bishop Street Studios -Request for Affordable Housing Funds
Dear Ms. Wiseman,
On behalf of HASLO and Transitions Mental Health Association we are hereby requesting an allocation
of $850,000 in Affordable Housing Funds for the Bishop Street Studios Project. The City's Affordable
Housing Fund consists of funds paid to the City by private developers in lieu of including affordable
housing within their projects under the City's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Bishop Street Studios is a collaboration between HASLO and TMHA, and will provide 34 affordable
assisted living rental units for mental health clients in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project is
located at the old "Sunny Acres" site behind the former General Hospital. It consists of the
rehabilitation of the old Sunny Acres building creating 13 residential units, and the new construction of
21 additional units in three new buildings. One of units will be utilized as an on-site resident manager
unit. The project includes a management office and resident community room.
Bishop Street Studios was unanimously approved by the Architectural Review Commission and Cultural
Heritage Committee in September 2016. One appeal was filed, which was unanimously denied by City
Council in November 2016.
Eligibility
The project is eligible for the Affordable Housing Fund because it increases the City's inventory of
affordable housing, and implements the City's General Plan policies regarding housing.
Need
There is a substantial unmet need for affordable housing in the City as documented by the City's
Housing Element. This need is further evidenced by HASLO's long waiting lists for all of our affordable
housing programs. Transitions Mental Health Association operates housing in the City which is at
capacity. Meanwhile hundreds of clients remain in need of an affordable, supported living similar to
what Bishop Street Studios will provide.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 487 Leff Street
PO Box 1289 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ph (805) 543-4478 fx (805) 543-4992 www.haslo.org Packet Pg. 44
4
Suitability
The project is ideally suited for this location. It is consistent with zoning and land use designations, and
close to health and transportation services for residents. The design is respectful of the site context; it
does an excellent job of renovating the existing brick building while adding new buildings that
complement and retain the restored Sunny Acres building as the center piece of the project. Bishop
Street Studios suitability was reviewed and received unanimous approval by the Cultural Heritage
Committee and Architectural Review Commission.
Timing
The timing is appropriate for this application to the City's Affordable Housing Fund. It is our intention
to apply for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, the final source of project financing, by the March 1st
state deadline. The state requires all local funding to be committed prior to applying for the Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits.
Financial Effectiveness
The City's Affordable Housing Funds represent less than 15% of project costs, leveraging at least $6
million in other funds on Bishop Street Studios. Other sources include a HASLO Tranche B loan, Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits, a private capital campaign, a SLO County Housing Trust Fund loan, County
Home and CDBG funds, and City CDBG funding.
Readiness
Bishop Street Studios has all of the necessary City discretionary approvals and is ready to proceed with
detailed construction drawings. We are working with our architecture and engineering team to
prepare and submit these drawings as part of a building permit application by early June. We
anticipate the City completing its plan review, issuing the building permit, and HASLO/TMHA starting
construction in December 2017. This schedule is conditional upon the state awarding Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits on June 1.
Bishop Street Studios will become a permanent new special needs housing resource in the community,
and we are excited to be part ofthis collaboration.
. )
. f/ I :c•r•~"/1~)
\
\ ', Scott Smith
Executive Director
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg. 45
4
City of San Luis Obispo
Fiscal Status of Affordable Housing Fund
January 16, 2017 - Point in Time Status
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Expenditures
Fiscal Year In-Lieu Fees Interest Rents
BEGIN
funds
reimbursem
ent
BEGIN
reuse
funds*
BEGIN City
matching
funds*Total Beginning Ending
2000-01 193,700 8,200 201,900 201,900
2001-02 464,900 20,000 484,900 201,900 686,800
2002-03 747,800 28,300 776,100 (215,000) 686,800 1,247,900
2003-04 60,500 8,500 69,000 (30,000) 1,247,900 1,286,900
2004-05 323,300 32,500 355,800 (30,000) 1,286,900 1,612,700
2005-06 1,863,700 68,500 1,932,200 1,612,700 3,544,900
2006-07 627,200 160,500 787,700 (530,000) 3,544,900 3,802,600
2007-08 682,400 155,600 838,000 (630,000) 3,802,600 4,010,600
2008-09 465,700 199,700 1,400 666,800 (892,500) 4,010,600 3,784,900
2009-10 (21,300) 32,600 9,000 270,000 290,300 (3,407,600) 3,784,900 667,600
2010-11 332,800 16,000 3,900 30,000 382,700 (39,800) 667,600 1,010,500
2011-12 848,800 21,900 870,700 (112,700) 1,010,500 1,768,500
2012-13 182,700 700 183,400 (30,000) 1,768,500 1,921,900
2013-14 777,300 12,700 100,955 117,857 1,008,812 (47,000) 1,921,900 2,883,712
2014-15 159,602 9,193 86,430 93,121 348,346 (697,000) 2,883,712 2,535,058
2015-16 625,506 34,414 659,920 (636,978) 2,535,058 2,558,000
2016-17 895,000 785 895,785 (399,360) 2,558,000 3,054,425
Cumulative Total 9,229,608 810,092 14,300 300,000 187,385 210,978 10,752,363 (7,697,938) 3,054,425
Commitments Not Yet Funded
Commitment to the General Fund Transfer (52,000)
Commitment for Iron Works Affordable Housing (920,000)
Commitment to remaining BEGIN Downpayment Assistance Loans (171,888)
Total Available for New Progams as of January 16, 2017 1,910,537
Revenues Fund Balance
Packet Pg. 46
4
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FUND AWARD TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AND TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION FOR BISHOP
STREET STUDIOS IN THE AMOUNT OF $850,000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo met in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 7, 2017, for
the purpose of considering multiple requests for Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) assistance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
(HASLO) and Transitions Mental Health Association (TMHA), meet eligibility criteria
established by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element policies and programs encourage and support the
maintenance and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing as well as the construction of new
affordable housing in the City; 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 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The project to award affordable housing
funds is exempt from environmental review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA
Guidelines. The project is only an action to award funding. However, during project
entitlements, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was approved for
Bishop Street Studios by the City Council on November 15, 2016.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council does hereby make the following findings in
support of the proposed AHF awards:
1. Eligibility: Use of the AHF for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City’s
affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies rega rding housing, as
follows:
Bishop Street Studios Project is eligible for Affordable Housing Funds because it increases
the City’s affordable housing inventory, and implements several General Plan policies
regarding housing. The project will increase the supply of affordable housing for very-low
income households with the construction of 34 units. The proposed request is consistent with
General Plan Housing Element Policies 3.1, 3.5, 3.7, 6.18, 8.1, 8.8, 8.11,8.12, and 8.20.
Packet Pg. 47
4
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
2. Need: There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of unit to be assisted, as
follows:
The City of San Luis Obispo has a substantial need for affordable housing to meet goals
stated in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. This need is further evidenced by
HASLO's long waiting lists for all of the affordable housing programs. TMHA operates
housing in the City which is also at capacity, and hundreds of clients remain in need of an
affordable, supported living environment similar to what Bishop Street Studios will provide.
Bishop Street Studios will become a new permanent special needs housing resource for the
community.
3. Suitability: The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location both in terms of land use
and design, as follows:
Bishop Street Studios is ideally suited for this location. It is consistent with zoning and land
use designations, and close to health and transportation services for residents. The design is
respectful of the site context, and will rehabilitate the currently abandoned Sunny Aces
building. The project does an excellent job of renovating the existing brick building, while
adding new buildings that complement the restored Sunny Acres building as the center piece
of the project. Bishop Street Studios suitability received unanimous app roval by the Cultural
Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission.
4. Timing: The project would better serve the City’s needs if it were built immediately as
opposed to later, as follows:
The timing of this application is appropriate, and crucial, for the project to move forward.
HASLO will be applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, the key source of project
financing, by the March 1st state deadline. The state requires all local funding to be
committed prior to applying for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.
5. Financial Effectiveness: But for the requested funding, the project would not be
economically feasible; or AHF funding “leverages” significant additional funding from other
sources, as follows:
The City's Affordable Housing Funds represent less than 15% of project costs, leveraging at
least $6 million in other funds on Bishop Street Studios. Other sources include a HASLO
Tranche B loan, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, a private capital campaign, a SLO
County Housing Trust Fund loan, County Home and CDBG funds, and City CDBG funding.
6. Readiness: The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed, as follows:
Bishop Street Studios has all of the necessary City discretionary approvals and is ready to
proceed with detailed construction drawings. We are working with our architecture and
engineering team to prepare and submit these drawings as part of a building permit
application by early June. Should a Tax Credit Award be secured, HAS LO/TMHA
anticipates starting construction in December 2017. This schedule is conditional upon the
Packet Pg. 48
4
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
state awarding Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in June.
SECTION 3. Affordable Housing Fund Award, HASLO/TMHA (Bishop Street
Studios). The City Council does hereby approve an AHF award in an amount not to exceed
$850,000, subject to the following condition of approval:
1. Prior to release of any portion of the AHF award, the applicant shall enter into an
Affordability Agreement, Deed, and Promissory Note with the City for 34 for-rent affordable
housing units located at 1600 Bishop Street for a term of 55 years, which will be recorded
against the title of the property.
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. 49
4
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
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 of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 50
4
Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: AVILA RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) FORMATION
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for $54,825 with Economic Planning Systems
(EPS) to assist the City with the financial analysis and related tasks necessary for the formation
of a Communities Facilities District (CFD) for the Avila Ranch Project.
DISCUSSION
Background
The purpose of this item is to obtain approval for a contract with Economic Planning Systems
(EPS) to provide financial technical support for the formation of a Community Facilities District
(CFD) to serve the proposed Avila Ranch Project. In addition to financial analysis, EPS will
provide general management for the effort. Specifically, EPS will review existing fiscal analyses
to determine any funding gaps related to ongoing services, estimated costs for the list of facilities
to be maintained with CFD revenues, and prepare documents related to the formation of a CFD
and attending all required City Council hearings. Staff will provide oversight and guidance
throughout the formation process.
The Community Facilities Act was enacted in 1982. CFDs are based on geographic area where
special property tax applies if approved by registered voters within the district or if fewer than 12
residents reside by the landlords as qualified electors. CFDs provide a land based method of
financing for qualified services where another source of financing may not be feasible. Although
CFDs are a common financial tool for both infrastructure and services, the City has not formed
any CFDs in the past. A CFD may be established by any County, City, Special District or Joint
Powers Authority, pursuant to California Government Code §53311-53368.3 (The Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982). A CFD may be initiated by a sponsoring local government
agency or by the request of property owners, as is the case with Avila Ranch.
In the case where CFD boundaries include only those parcels of a single owner or developer, the
consent of the owner is required with ongoing assessments falling to future property owners.
This is the case even if the property is subdivided. A CFD assessment is levied annually for all
parcels within its boundaries, and the term of the assessment may be limited to the amount of
time required to pay off bonds related to capital improvements. If a CFD also funds services, the
assessment may continue indefinitely or until an alternative funding source is available.
The primary reason the City is considering a CFD for the proposed Avila Ranch project area is
the projected gap in revenues compared to expenditures because of the proportion of property tax
the City receives compared to all other agencies. The Avila Ranch property was annexed in
2008 pursuant to a Master Tax Exchange Agreement with the County. This agreement provides
that 100% of existing and future property taxes go to the County for raw land pre-zoned
Packet Pg. 51
5
commercial with all sales taxes going to the City. That same agreement provides that 100% of
existing and 66% of future property taxes go to the County, and 33% of the future property taxes
go to the City for pre-zoned residential land. Since the Avila Ranch property was initially
annexed as commercial, the County will keep existing and future property taxes, despite the fact
that the City is proposing to rezone the property to residential. While there will be a projected
increase in overall sales taxes due to new residents, it is not projected to be enough to cover the
costs of all City services. Residential property does not generate sales tax.
City Staff will be meeting with the County to encourage them to split the property tax to what it
should be for raw residential land. This is entirely a discretionary decision of the County and t he
purpose any potential CFD levy for services is meant to be a “back up” revenue source should
the City not be successful in resetting the distribution of property taxes.
One of the primary reasons for obtaining outside consultant support is that the Avila Ranch
project is a significant land use decision-involving complex ongoing and capital financial issues
for the City. Anticipated actions include a specific plan with related public facilities financing
plan, and the potential to create both a Communities Financing District (CFD) and/or an
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). The combination and relationship of these
agreements, plans, and land based financing mechanisms requires significant expertise.
Scope of Work
EPS’s scope of work is separated into two distinct tasks, as shown in Attachment A. This
includes, 1) Pre-formation advisory services, and 2) Preparation to form the CFD. The scope of
work was crafted in a manner to address the broad range of financial analyses that will be
required to appropriately evaluate the financing tools and strategies that will be used to construct
public facilities and provide services for the project. One of the principal tenants of the City’s
General Plan is that the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development
should be borne by new development1.
It is recommended that the City secure these services from EPS. EPS was selected through a
competitive RFP process in 2013 to lead an effort to evaluate the current development impact fee
programs in the City, and identify options for future land-based financing. As a follow up task,
they have been advising the Community Development Department and City Council during the
past year on the variety of available financing tools, and have developed a policy framework to
approach a comprehensive update of the City’s AB 1600 Fee Program. As directed by the City
Council, these policies will be incorporated into the 2017-2019 Financial Plan per Council action
on December 13, 2016.
EPS’s experience and direct knowledge of the City’s development impact fee program, and their
selection through a competitive process, is aligned with Section 3.24.070 which provides that
1 13.9. Costs of Growth The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new
development be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain
development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City shall consider a range of options for financing measures
so that new development pays its fair share of costs of new services and facilities which are required to serve the
project and which are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the d evelopment.
Packet Pg. 52
5
specialized consultants, like EPS can be approved by the City Council. The co st for the EPS’s
current work for public financing advisory services is $50,000 and the proposed work on the
Avila Ranch Project is $54,825. EPS is advising on the proposed Development Agreement for
the San Luis Ranch Project and that contract is for $60,770. This contract is before the City
Council because the combined contract amounts exceed the City Manager’s purchasing authority
of $100,000 for consultant services.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works, Community Development, and Finance Departments concur with the
recommendations in this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The formation of a Community Facilities District falls within the definition of a “project” under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A draft EIR for the Avila Ranch Project was
released in mid-November. A CFD is intended to be a funding mechanism to fund City services
and the maintenance of infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed work is not to exceed $54,825. It is anticipated that most of the work can be done
remotely and should meetings be required, they will also be billed on a time and materials basis.
The scope of work is being paid by the project applicant. The City’s adopted fee schedule
provides that the City’s mark up of 30% for administrative overhead, which allows the City to
recover its direct costs for forming a CFD. If this agreement is approved, the City shall enter
into a reimbursement agreement with the project applicant so that all costs to form the CFD are
covered per the City’s cost recovery policies.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could modify the scope of work. This is not recommended as the identified
tasks were developed to address the broad range of issues by task that will need to be
addressed to form a CFD. Moreover, the scope of work was drafted to compliment work
being done by the applicant team and maximize synergy and efficiency in forming a CFD.
2. The City Council could reject the item and not approve any contract. This is not
recommended as third party expertise is needed to help evaluate the financing of public
services. The applicant team has its own financial experts advising them on the funding
services and the City needs an expert to represent the City’s interests.
Attachments:
a - EPS Revised Work Program Avila CFD
Packet Pg. 53
5
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 C:\users\kchristi\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\slocityca@slocityca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\2492.docx
EPS Work Program
Avila Ranch Community Facilities District Formation
Project Understanding
Proponents of the Avila Ranch project (Project) are proposing the formation of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund public services within the Avila Ranch Project Area.
The Project Applicant has retained a Special Tax consultant (Kosmont) who has been advising
them regarding the formation of the CFD. The City is in the process of forming a financing team
to advise the City on the formation process and the preparation of CFD formation documents and
has asked EPS to serve as the Special Tax Consultant to the City and assist with the preparation
of CFD formation documents and to review proposals for the structure of the CFD special tax and
authorized services submitted by the Applicant’s Special Tax consultant. The City has identified
special counsel and their current financial advisor (PFM). These initial team members would
assist the City in developing a CFD formation schedule; identifying key documents that need to
be prepared, and structuring the appropriate financing strategy, assuming bond financing will be
pursued.
EPS understands that Kosmont has prepared draft goals and policies, as well as a preliminary
design of a Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA), and a list of public services to be financed
under a CFD. The Kosmont team will also prepare the CFD boundary map. EPS and the City
Team will take primary responsibility for initial drafts of the Resolution of Intention (ROI),
Resolution of Formation (ROF), and the CFD Report for Kosmont’s review. However, the City’s
Team, including EPS, will have final responsibility for these documents, particularly the CFD
Report.
EPS proposes the following Scope of Work to assist the City with the CFD formation process.
Task 1: Pre -Formation Advisory Services
Formation of the CFD will not formally commence until the entitlements for Avila Ranch are in
place. However there are a number of steps that can be taken to position the City so that
formation can begin upon Project approval.
Subtask 1.1: Review Fiscal Analysis
A fiscal analysis of Avila Ranch is being prepared by Applied Development Economics (ADE)
based on the fiscal impact analysis that was prepared for the LUCE. EPS will review the
assumptions memo being prepared by ADE and will provide comment on the structure and
framework of the analysis to make sure it provides the flexibility to determine the level of public
services expenditures that may need to be reflected in the CFD.
Subtask 1.2: Confirm List of Public Services and Estimated Costs
The Project Applicant will circulate an updated list of facilities to be maintained with revenues
generated from the CFD which the City will review to make sure it is complete. This review will
include confirmation of select mitigation recommendations. The City’s Public Works Department
will review and confirm the list of public services and the estimated costs. EPS will assist the City
Packet Pg. 54
5
Revised Work Program
January 9, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 C:\users\kchristi\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\slocityca@slocityca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\2492.docx
and the Applicant with reviewing the list to ensure that the services are appropriate for inclusion
in the CFD based on the City’s land-secured financing policies.
Subtask 1.3: Resolution of Intention
EPS will work with the City to prepare the Resolution of Intention which can be adopted by
Council prior to Task 2.
Task 1 Meetings
The budget for Task 1 includes EPS attendance at two (2) in-person meetings, to be scheduled at
the City’s request.
Task 2 : Prepare Project C FD
Subtask 2.1: Conduct Project Initiation and Analyze CFD Structuring
Following project entitlements, EPS will meet with the City staff to review features of the CFD as
proposed by the Project Applicant and preliminary documents provided by the Project Applicant.
The City should have a draft goals and policies, preliminary special tax structure, list of items to
be financed and the CFD boundary map. EPS will review these documents prior to the meeting
and be prepared to discuss the suggested structure with City staff at project initiation.
While the City does not anticipate any changes to the proposed land use program, the special tax
structure should be flexible enough to anticipate any possible land use changes that may occur
throughout build out of the project, to the extent that the phasing of development changes or
development takes longer than anticipated. The special tax structure should ensure that
regardless of the development at build out of the project that there is no net loss of special tax
revenues. Special features like partial prepayment of the maximum special tax should be
included to allow for potential land use changes throughout build out of the project. Such
features allow for land use or density changes without causing the special tax burden to become
so onerous that it prevents the feasible development of alternative land uses. Such features
were very useful as project were entitled prior to the Great Recession but had to be changed to
respond to the new market reality post-recession.
Upon review of all documents, EPS will discuss possible implication of the proposed special tax
structure, consistent with adopted City policy and industry-based special tax and underwriting
standards. EPS will work closely with City staff and its Financing Team to identify any problems
with the proposed special tax structure and provide advice regarding modifications that will meet
the Proponent’s objectives while being consistent with City policy and professional standards.
Once the City has reviewed and approved the resulting Financing Plan (that identifies what will
be funded and in what amounts), Special Tax structure, and pro forma cash flow feasibility
analysis, EPS, in coordination with other Team members, will prepare and/or review the required
CFD formation documents and assist the City with the necessary legal proceedings and public
hearings.
Subtask 2.2: Prepare CFD Formation Documents
Following review of the Applicant’s suggestions, EPS will prepare a Rate and Method of
Apportionment of Special Tax (RMA) that describes the features of the CFD, the amount of the
special tax by land use, and the method of apportionment of the special tax. The RMA initially
Packet Pg. 55
5
Revised Work Program
January 9, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 C:\users\kchristi\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\slocityca@slocityca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\2492.docx
will be delivered to the City and its Financing Team for review and comment. Once all requested
edits and revisions have been made, the RMA will be presented to the property owners for
review and comment. If further edits are required, EPS will prepare a final draft of the RMA for
consideration by the City Council.
EPS also will assist the City and other City CFD Financing Team consultants by preparing all CFD
formation documents (e.g., Resolution of Formation).
Subtask 2.3: CFD Hearing Report
EPS, again in collaboration with the Applicant and other members of the Financing Team, will
prepare the CFD Report. EPS may recommend the preparation of a more detailed report that
discusses in detail the features of the CFD and RMA. This becomes a handy document as the
City administers this CFD through termination of the CFD. As new staff is hired and others leave,
or retire, this document provides guidance for future staff in administering the CFD.
Task 2 Meetings
Task 2 anticipates five (5) in person meetings: one as part of Task 2.1; one as part of Task 2.2;
one as part of Task 2.3; and two others to be scheduled as needed.
Budget
EPS estimates that the level of effort required will cost $54,825, including meetings but not
including the cost of the other Financing Team members. Please see Table 1 for a task-by-task
budget.
Packet Pg. 56
5
Revised Work Program
January 9, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 C:\users\kchristi\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\slocityca@slocityca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\2492.docx
Table 1 Proposed Budget
Task/Staff Cost Direct Total
Description Kieser Kanat Powell Subtotal Costs Cost
Senior
Principal
Executive
Vice
President
Senior Vice
President Production
Task 1: Pre-Formation Advisory Services
Subtask 1.1: Review Fiscal Analysis 2 8 0 0 $2,470 $0 $2,470
Subtask 1.2: Confirm List of Public
Services and Estimated Costs 2 6 0 0 $2,010 $0 $2,010
Subtask 1.3: Resolution of Intention 1 0 16 2 $4,095 $0 $4,095
Task 1 Meetings [1]12 12 0 0 $6,540 $1,000 $7,540
Subtotal, Task 1 17 26 16 2 $15,115 $1,000 $16,115
Task 2: Prepare Project CFD
Subtask 2.1: Conduct Project Initiation
and Analyze CFD Structuring 8 8 12 2 $7,240 $0 $7,240
Subtask 2.2: Prepare CFD Formation
Documents 4 6 8 2 $4,620 $0 $4,620
Subtask 2.3: CFD Hearing Report 12 8 16 2 $9,400 $0 $9,400
Task 2 Meetings [2]18 6 24 0 $12,450 $5,000 $17,450
Subtotal, Task 2 42 28 60 6 $33,710 $5,000 $38,710
Total Project Hours 59 54 76 8
Billing Rates [3]$315 $230 $225 $90
Total Project Costs $48,825 $6,000 $54,825
[1] Task 1 assumes two (2) in-person meetings - six (6) hours per attendee, plus direct costs of $500 per trip.
[3] Billing rates shown are applicable during 2017 and are subject to annual increases.
EPS Staff
[2] Task 2 assumes five (5) in-person meetings - three for Walter Kieser (18 hours), one for Ashleigh Kanat (6 hours), and four for Russ
Powell (24 hours), with some staffing overlap.
Packet Pg. 57
5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 58
5
Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY LYDIA MOURENZA & RICHARD
RACOUILLAT) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT
THAT INCLUDES GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 27
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS (22 CHORRO
STREET).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission’s approval of the new four-story mixed-use project that includes ground floor
commercial/retail space, 27 residential units, and mechanical parking lifts.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Data:
Applicant San Luis Development Group, LLC
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Zoning C-C-SF (Community Commercial
with a Special Focus Overlay)
General Plan Commercial
Site Area 0.55 acres (24,033 s.f.) (3 parcels)
Environmental
Status
Use permit deemed exempt on October 18, 2016, Notice of Exemption filed on
December 12, 2016 as Document No 40-12122016-260
Design review is Categorically and Statutorily Exempt from environmental review
under Sections 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) and 15195 (Residential Infill
Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant is proposing to construct a new four-story mixed-use project with 1,600 square
feet of ground floor commercial/retail space and 27 residential units, 118 bicycle parking spaces
and 33 vehicle parking spaces that utilize mechanical parking lifts. The project is zoned
Community Commercial (C-C) and located within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special
Packet Pg. 59
6
Planning Area. A Use Permit (USE-2882-2016) was approved by the City Council on October
18, 2016 that allows a maximum height of 43-feet (where normally 35 feet is allowed), a 40%
parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking lifts.
New commercial projects within the City require review by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) (Community Design Guidelines Section 1.2).
Procedural History Regarding the Use Permit:
On August 24, 2016, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed use permit for the
project and voted to deny the use permit based on various findings relating to impacts to the
health, safety and welfare due to the height of the development and lack of on-site parking.
On August 31, 2016, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the use permit. The City
Council reviewed the appeal on October 18, 2016 and voted 4:1 (Ashbaugh voting no) to uphold
the appeal and approve the use permit. The Use Permit (USE-2882-2016) allows a maximum
height of 43-feet (where normally 35 feet is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of
mechanical parking lifts (Attachment G, City Council Resolution). After the vote, the City
Council briefly discussed the architecture and design of the project. Comments were focused on
the roof-top deck, concerns about overlook/privacy and noise, and the outdoor patio at the corner
of Chorro and Foothill due to its proximity to the intersection. The time to challenge the approval
of the use permit and underlying CEQA determination expired on January 16, 2017. To date, the
City has not received notice of any such challenge.
Procedural History Regarding the Design Review:
On December 5, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) held a public hearing to
review the proposed architecture of the project, which includes modifications in response to
Council’s comments when they approved the Use Permit. These changes included: widening the
planter that circles the roof deck so that persons utilizing the deck cannot hang over the edge and
to provide more significant landscaping to buffer noise and overlook, a gate that can be locked to
prevent access to the roof deck, and the corner, ground floor patio was modified to include
concrete planters in place of a solid concrete wall to create a better transition between the patio
and the public sidewalk. The ARC determined the project was consistent with the Community
Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. The ARC voted 4:1 (Sol voting
no) to approve the project (Attachment H, ARC Staff Report & Attachment I, ARC Draft
Meeting Minutes).
On December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard Racouillat filed an appeal of th e ARC’s
decision to approve the project (Attachment C, ARC Appeal). The appeal states that the ARC
failed to consider and as directed by City Council, to take action on additional project conditions
code requirements including inconsistencies and/or violations of applicable laws submitted to
the ARC.
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.
Packet Pg. 60
6
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 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
Zoning C-C-SF (Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay)
Site Size 0.55 acres (24,033 s.f.)
Present Use & Development Vacant
Topography Flat
Access Chorro Street and Foothill Blvd
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-R-SF (University Square Shopping Center)
South: R-1 (Single family residences)
East: C-C-SF (G. Brothers Restaurant)
West: C-C-SF & R-1 (Jamba Juice, Starbucks, Single family residences)
Project Description
The project proposes to construct a new four-story mixed-use project with:
1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space;
27 residential units (23 two-bedrooms and 4 studios restricted for very-low income
households);
Affordable housing incentives including a 35% density bonus and increased building
height of 43 feet.
A 40% shared/mixed-use/bicycle parking reduction to reduce the required parking from
55 parking spaces to 33 parking spaces;
113 bicycle parking spaces (80 long-term and 33 short-term); and
A landscape plan that includes 10 new street trees and new trees and shrubs along the
south border of the parcel (Attachment E, Project Plans).
Figure 1: Perspective view of the project looking southeast from Foothill Blvd.
Packet Pg. 61
6
The project includes various materials including wood grain Italian walnut finished Trespa (high-
pressure laminate) panels, vertical metal siding (corrugated metal), ceramic tiles, smooth stucco,
metal trellises, canopies and awnings, and aluminum clad windows. Colors include blue, gray,
and white (see Attachment E, Project Plans, Sheet A6.0).
Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setback
Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 10 feet 5 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 43 feet 35 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 72% 75%
Density Units (DU) 25 DU 18 DU
Parking Spaces
Vehicle 33 55
Bicycle (long-term) 80 58
Bicycle (short-term) 33 5
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 11/11/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant initially submitted the project for City review on March 10, 2016. During the
course of review, staff provided feedback to the applicant regarding the proposal. The original
proposal included a structure with a height of 50 feet, a parking layout that did not comply with
City standards, and the project design was inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines.
The applicant responded by reducing the height seven feet to a maximum height of 43 feet,
redesigning the parking to meet City standards and redesigned the project with new colors,
materials and articulation. The entitlements for this project are twofold: (1) a Use Permit for the
proposed use and requested exceptions to certain development standards; and (2) design review.
On August 24, 2016, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the Use Permit for the proposed
project and voted to deny the project based on various findings relating to impacts to the health,
safety and welfare due to the height of the development and lack of on-site parking.
On August 31, 2016, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the Use Permit. The City
Council reviewed the appeal on October 18, 2016 and voted 4:1 to uphold the appeal and
approve the Use Permit (Attachment 5, City Council Final Resolution). The Use Permit (USE-
2882-2016) allows a maximum height of 43-feet (where normally 35 feet is allowed), a 40%
parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking lifts. After the vote, the City Council
briefly discussed the architecture and design of the project. Comments were focused on the roof-
top deck, concerns about overlook/privacy and noise, and the outdoor patio at the corner of
Packet Pg. 62
6
Chorro and Foothill due to its proximity to the intersection. The applicant made changes in
response to the Council’s comments, including widening the planter that circles the roof deck so
that persons utilizing the deck cannot hang over the edge and will provide significant
landscaping to buffer noise and overlook, a gate that can be locked to prevent access to the roof
deck, and the corner ground floor patio was modified to include concrete planters in place of a
solid concrete wall to create a better transition between the patio and the public sidewalk.
On December 5, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) held a public hearing to
review the proposed architecture of the project at 22 Chorro Street. The ARC determined the
project was consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and
standards and voted 4:1 to approve the project.
Appeal
On December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza & Richard Racouillat filed an appeal of the ARC’s
decision to approve the project (Attachment C, Appeal Letter). The appeal expresses concern
that the project:
Failed to meet the Categorical Exemption for CEQA for Infill
Did not include a traffic study
Miscalculated the parking space reduction
Failed to receive approval for a zero setback along Chorro Street
Blocks viewsheds along Foothill Boulevard – a scenic route
Staff Analysis
Staff has provided an analysis below of the points outlined in the Appeal Letter. Most of the
concerns noted are associated with the Council approval for the Use Permit for 22 Chorro Street,
that approved a mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special planning area, a 40% parking
reduction and the use of mechanical parking lifts, including approval of a height exception as an
affordable housing incentive. After the use permit was approved, the project was reviewed by the
ARC.
The Role of the ARC
The ARC has a specific role within the development review process. The Community Design
Guidelines (CDG) state that the ARC has four responsibilities:
1. Review proposed development for compliance with CDG, applicable City regulations,
the General Plan and, where appropriate, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA);
2. Update the design guidelines, when necessary;
3. During regular meetings, advise developers, designers and the City on how to apply the
guidelines; and
4. Develop design guidelines for specific areas within the city, and specific design issues.
The ARC is responsible for reviewing project architecture and often reviews requests for
modifications to development standards (height, setback, etc.), including parking design and
Packet Pg. 63
6
reductions. In this particular case, the exceptions to the development standards (i.e. height
exception, parking reduction, etc.) were approved by the City Council as part of the approved
Use Permit and were not part of the ARC review. Other issues raised in the appeal are also
related to the use of the project, which was reviewed by the City Council as part of the Use
Permit process and approved. The ARC determined that the project was consistent with the
City’s Community Design Guidelines as described in the attached ARC staff report (Attachment
H) and approved the project.
Many of the points made in the appeal are not within the ARC’s purview, as described above,
but rather seek to revisit components of the Use Permit already approved by the City Council.
The approved Use Permit is an entitlement held by the property owner, and as a result the scope
of its review relative to the appeal is limited to the Architectural Review Commissions approval
of the building design. Furthermore, as an affordable housing project with a qualifying density
bonus, the project is protected by State law from changes through the City’s review process that
would result in lower density or other impacts to the project’s financial feasibility.1
Categorical Exemption for CEQA for Infill
The appeal letter states that the project failed to meet the Categorical Exemption for CEQA for
Infill because the project does not follow two of the conditions set forth in Government Code
§15332: 1) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designations and all
applicable general plan policies as well as applicable zoning designation and regulations and 2)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
Staff determined that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. This Section states that a
project is considered infill if:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plans designation and all
applicable general policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and
regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project
site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The
project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) The site can be adequately served
by all required utilities and public services.
As proposed, the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations and
will not result in a significant impact on traffic as asserted by the appellant (see the discussion is
the next section); thus the project complies with the criteria of an infill project and for a
categorical exemption as defined by CEQA Section 15332.
1 State Density Bonus law requires a City to waive or modify development and zoning standards that would
physically preclude the utilization of the density bonus, incentives, and concessions that the applicant is entitled to
on a particular site and may only be denied if the findings above are met (Gov Code section 65915(e)). In other
words, State law requires a public agency to relax its development standards to allow for the physical construction of
the additional “density units” unless the relaxation of such standards will result in specific adverse impacts.
Packet Pg. 64
6
The argument that the height exception that was approved as part of the Use Permit renders the
project inconsistent with Zoning Regulations was specifically addressed in the case of Wollmer
v. the City of Berkeley, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329 (2011). In that case, the City of Berkeley approved
a project that included a height, floor area ratio and setback standard. The City applied the same
CEQA infill exemption as this project. Project opponents argued that the City could not apply
this CEQA exemption because the requested exemptions made the project inconsistent with the
City’s applicable zoning standards. The Court determined that the concessions to the
development standards were not “applicable” within the meaning of CEQA. Specifically, the
court stated:
Wollmer asserts that by applying the exemption in a way that harmonizes with
relevant law, the City in effect amended the exemption, improperly expanded its
definition, and exceeded its jurisdiction. There is no support for this misguided
assertion. The City properly applied the plain meaning of Guidelines section
15332, subdivision (a) to its own codes in a manner that was in harmony with the
state's density bonus law, and so applied, properly found that the project was
exempt from CEQA. On its face the exemption only requires consistency with
applicable general plan designations and policies and applicable zoning
designations and regulations. (Guidelines, § 15332, subd. (a).) The density bonus
statute in turn requires a waiver of development standards that physically
preclude construction of a density-bonus qualifying project. (§ 65915, subd.
(e)(1).) And the City's own zoning ordinance generally requires the grant of a
density bonus upon a complete application. (Berkeley Mun.Code, §
23C.12.050.A.) Taking these laws together as they operate in the context of a
density bonus project, it is clear that the waived zoning standards are not
“applicable” and that the requirements of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision
(a) were met.
As this case clearly illustrates, the appellants’ argument is inconsistent with the manner in which
concessions or waivers under the Density Bonus Law are to be applied to CEQA review.
Moreover, these arguments relate to a CEQA determination for the underlying Use Permit,
which is not within the purview of the ARC and therefore not part of this appeal.
Traffic Study
The appeal letter states that: 1) the project will be adversely impacted by surrounding
transportation patterns, 2) the City’s Circulation Element specifically requires a circulation
analysis for the Chorro & Foothill intersection and the redevelopment of University Square, and
3) Chorro/Foothill is a high crash location and is already operating below established Multi-
Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) standards.
Discussion regarding traffic study requirements came up during the Use Permit review process.
City Staff reviewed the project and determined that the proposed mix of residential and
commercial of the project did not require a traffic impact study. The project, as proposed, will
have 23 peak hour trips. This is well under the requirement that triggers a traffic study per the
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines when a project is anticipated to have 100 or
Packet Pg. 65
6
more peak hour trips. Additionally, the project was found to be consistent with the 2014
Circulation Element (CE).
The appellant’s letter discusses that per the CE that the redevelopment of University Square will
require additional circulation, safety & access management analysis.2 The proposed project is not
part of the redevelopment of University Square.
The intersection of Chorro and Foothill will be modified with the construction of the project. A
condition of the Use Permit requires that the project shall redesign the intersection on Chorro
Street to include a bike box and expand the current right turn lane consistent with the Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The Plan states that this modification is to reduce conflict possibility
between left (west) turning bike traffic, and straight through motor vehicle traffic. Additionally,
the addition of the project is anticipated to maintain the current Level of Service (LOS) of
Foothill Boulevard (LOS D) which is consistent with the Circulation Element3.
Again, these issues all relate to the underlying Use Permit which has already been approved by
the City Council. The only issues that legally are subject to this appeal is the design of the
project.
Parking Space Miscalculation
Parking space calculations is another concern raised in the appeal. The letter states:
“In calculating the shared parking and mixed-use parking reductions, two critical
facts were ignored: the 27 spaces included in the mechanical parking lift cannot
be shared and cannot be used by anyone other than residents in violation of
SLOMC 17.16.060.B & C; and the Applicant was granted an exemption from the
common use requirement for the mechanical parking lift in violation of SLOMC
17 .16.060.K.3. As a result, when corrected, the Applicant is entitled to a parking
reduction of not more than 12 spaces rather than the 22 spaces granted.”
The applicant requested and the Council approved a 40% parking reduction for a total of 33
required spaces. This request was based on a combination of two separate provisions in the
Zoning Code which allow for the reduction of on-site parking requirements: (1) Mixed Use
Parking Reductions; and (2) Bicycle Space Reduction. Per the SLOMC 17.16.060.C , a project
that has a mix of uses may request up to a 30% parking reduction. Additionally, a project may
also ask for up to a 10% parking reduction by providing additional bicycle parking. These
reductions were requested and approved by the City Council as part of the Use Permit and are
not within the purview of the ARC. As a result, this issue is not justly before the City Council.
See the attached City Council Staff report for a thorough discussion on the parking reduction
analysis (Attachment F).
Zero setback along Chorro Street
The appeal letter states that “The City Council's approval of the Project set forth in Resolution
No. 10749 (2016 Series) failed to grant [the] Applicant any setback along Chorro Street as [the]
2 Circulation Element. Table 5, Project #24: Reconfigurations: Chorro, Broad, & Boysen Realignments .
3 Circulation Element. Table 4. Arterial Streets.
Packet Pg. 66
6
Applicant requested. The ARC also failed to grant [the] Applicant's zero setback request.”
The City Council and the ARC discussed the setback along Chorro Street. At both meetings,
staff explained its interpretation of the zoning regulations that require setbacks within the
Community Commercial (C-C) zone to follow the setback established for adjacent property, if
any. In this case the site is adjacent to a R-1 property that requires a 20-foot setback and property
zoned C-C that has setback requirements provided by the adjacent zoning. Because of the
triangular nature of the site and the adjacent zoning, the property requir ed an interpretation of
how the setbacks should apply. The City Council made this interpretation in the approval of the
Use Permit. To the extent that that setbacks are still considered as part of the design review
process, providing a 20-foot setback along Chorro Street would otherwise be inconsistent with
the Community Design Guidelines that state that “…buildings should generally be oriented
parallel to streets and should be placed as close to the street as required setbacks and consistent
building placement permit”.4 The Design Guidelines also further state that “The visual impact of
parking lots should be minimized by locating these facilities to a portion of the site least visible
from the street and by providing adequate screening and parking lot landscaping.”5 With a 20-
foot setback, the project would be required to place parking within the setback, resulting in a less
desirable site design. By approving the project, the ARC concurred with this interpretation.
Blocks viewsheds along Foothill Boulevard
Views from Foothill Boulevard was noted as a concern in the appeal letter. The letter states that
“The project is in the viewshed of the Foothill Boulevard scenic highway and is designated a
sensitive" site that requires architectural review.”
This issue was addressed by the City Council in regards to the requested height exception, which
was approved via the Use Permit and as a result is not consistent with the purview of the ARC
and not appropriately subject to this appeal. By way of background regarding that decision,
Foothill Boulevard is considered a scenic roadway in the Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE). The COSE also identifies various “cones of view” that are to be protected. As discussed
in the Council Report for the Use Permit (Attachment F), Cerro San Luis is not identified with a
“cone of view” from Foothill Boulevard. The COSE provides policy for the protection of views
from public areas such as streets, parks, etc., but the City does not regulate private viewshed
rights.
The CDG has limited standards regarding the protection of views. More specifically, the
Community Design Guidelines indirectly discusses views by providing standards on how a
structure’s height, scale and massing should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
In this particular instance, the Use Permit approved the height exception and the Design
Guidelines are used to evaluate the proposed project’s exterior design so that it is compatible
with the neighborhood.
Other considerations
The proposed project is a “housing development project” as defined under the State’s Housing
Accountability Act, Gov. Code § 65589.5. Subsection (d)(1) prohibits a local agency from
4 Community Design Guidelines. Chapter 3 – Commercial and Industrial Project Design: Section 3.1.C(2).
5 Community Design Guidelines. Chapter 3 – Commercial and Industrial Project Design: Section 3.1.C(2i).
Packet Pg. 67
6
disapproving such a project for very low, low or moderate income households, or condition
approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low,
low or moderate income households, including through the use of design review standards,
unless it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence, that the project would have a
“specific adverse impact.” For purposes of this State law, “specific, adverse impact” is defined as
“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.”
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 infill property and is served by required utilities and public services.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied b y 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.
Packet Pg. 68
6
ALTERNATIVE
Uphold the appeal and return the project to the ARC with specific direction. The Council finds
that the architectural design of the project is not consistent with the City’s the General Plan,
Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines and applicable City regulations and requires
a redesign with direction provided by Council and review by the ARC. An alternative resolution
has been provided in case the City Council wishes to take this action.
Attachments:
a - Resolution A (deny the appeal)
b - Resolution B (uphold appeal)
c - Appeal Letter
d - Vicinity Map
e - Project Plans
f - Council Agenda Report 10-18-2016
g - Council Resolution (R-10749) 10-18-2016
h - ARC Staff Report (ARCH-2794-2016) 12-5-2016
i - ARC Resolution (ARC-1027-16) 12-5-2016
Packet Pg. 69
6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY LYDIA
MOURENZA & RICHARD RACOUILLAT) THEREBY APPROVING THE
DESIGN OF A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT
INCLUDES GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 27
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS, WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2017 (22 CHORRO STREET,
APPL-4278-2016)
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2016, the City Council approved a Use Permit (USE-2882-2016)
for a new mixed use project with 27 units a maximum height of 43-feet (where normally 35 feet
is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking lifts; 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 December 5, 2016, with a four-one vote approving the design of the project, subject
to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1027-16 pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-2794-2016, San Luis Development Group, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard Racouillat, the
appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on December 5, 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 February
7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4278-2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard
Racouillat, 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-4278-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission
decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-2794-2016):
Packet Pg. 70
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
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 site and the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 8.6 the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area of the Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations
because the project provides a mixed use project that accounts for high pedestrian and bike
access.
3. The mechanical lift parking is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because the
lifts are adequately screened and compatible with the building and site design of the proposed
project.
4. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the proposed
project incorporates similar materials and architectural features to the surrounding
neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The design approval of the project is both statutorily
exempt under Section 15195 and 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 infill property and is served by required utilities and public
services.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission’s action to approve the design of the proposed project, thereby granting final
approval of the application APPL-4063-2016 for new four-story mixed-use project with ground
floor commercial/retail space, 27 residential units, and mechanical parking lifts, subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions
Planning
1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
2. The Architectural Review Commission’s approval of this project will expire after three years
if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant
a single, one-year extension.
Packet Pg. 71
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
3. The construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance
with use permit #USE-2882-2016 (Resolution No. 10749).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
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 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
Packet Pg. 72
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 4
R ______
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.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
10. All underlying lots shall be merged or lot lines shall otherwise be adjusted prior to building
permit issuance unless otherwise approved for deferral by the Building Division. Contact the
Planning Division to initiate the Voluntary Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, or subdivision
process.
11. 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
12. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed public and private easements
and dedications for reference, easements shall be recorded in a format approved by the City
of San Luis Obispo prior to building permit issuance.
13. The building plan submittal shall show any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter,
sidewalk, or driveway approach to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department.
14. Public improvement plans will be required for the work located within the public right -of-
way and/or areas with proposed Offer of Dedication. A separate plan review base fee per the
fee resolution in effect at the time of plan submittal will be required for review of
improvement plans by the Engineering Development Review Division. A separate
encroachment permit and inspection fees will be required based on the encroachment permit
fee schedule in effect at the time of construction. Separate review fees may be required by
the Transportation/Traffic Division and Utilities Department. The on-site and off-site civil
plans may be included in the building plan for review consistency. Separate improvement
plan sets and record drawing submittal shall be provided in accordance with the City
Engineering Standards.
15. The building plan submittal shall show a new curb ramp at the corner of Chorro and Foothill
per ADA and City Engineering Standards.
16. The building plan submittal shall show the existing driveway approaches to be abandoned and
replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per city engineering standards. The new driveway
approach shall comply with current City and ADA standards. The current standards require
a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
17. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
Packet Pg. 73
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 5
R ______
materials are recommended for water quality 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 materials shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
18. The building plan submittal shall show all parking spaces that are adjacent to a post, column,
or wall to be one additional foot in width for each obstruction per City Engineering Standard
2220.
19. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking
per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project specific
conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details
and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or racks. The
building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and
clearances to obstructions per city standard.
20. The final plan for short-term bike racks shall be approved by the City. The bike rack layout,
orientation, and locations shall honor any exit paths, minimum pedestrian circulation
requirements, and the limits of the public right-of-way. If allowed to encroach within the
public right-of-way and/or public pedestrian easements, the racks would need to be covered
under an encroachment agreement in a format approved by the City of San Luis Obispo.
21. The building plan submittal shall show the proposed bus stop and turnout to be in compliance
with ADA and City Engineering Standards.
22. 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. All
wire services to the building shall be underground. Underground service requirements shall
be completed with no new utility poles unless otherwise specifically approved by the City.
All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted on the plans.
23. The utility plan shall include all required utility abandonments and/or relocations per City
Engineering Standards.
24. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality.
25. The proposed solid waste management plan including containment, access, and pick-up shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Planning Division, and
SLOGC. Internal access and pick-up within the on-site driveway may be required rather than
using a trash ramp and pick-up within a designated travel lane.
Packet Pg. 74
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 6
R ______
26. The building plan submittal shall show the location, extent and nature of all proposed site
retaining walls. Show the location of the property line on the wall detail for reference. Wall
footings shall not cross the property line unless otherwise approved by the City for
encroachment into the public right-of-way.
27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The
grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the
property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic
offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the
improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff
from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across
adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or
existing waterways.
28. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The final
analysis and pre vs. post development plan shall clearly identify and account for the previous
planter/pervious areas. The final drainage report and Post Construction Stormwater
Regulations compliance summary shall clarify the developed site history and shall
substantiate that this is a re-development project. Include a complete Post Construction
Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website.
29. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater
improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and
shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals.
30. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are
required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. Tree species
and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards.
Transportation – Public Works Department
31. Architectural plans submitted for building permit shall clearly show layout and dimensions of
a bike box on Chorro Street and shall be consistent with use permit #USE-2882-2016
(Resolution No. 10749). This will require modifications to the existing pedestrian refuge
island. Design shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Utilities Department
32. 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. 75
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 7
R ______
33. 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)).
34. All proposed residential units are to be individually metered. Privately owned sub-meters may
be provided upon approval of the Utilities Director or her/his designee. The CCR’s for the
property association shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association (or contracted
service) and each unit billed according to water use.
35. The project (residential units and retail uses) is required to implement off-site sewer
rehabilitation (private lateral repair/ replacement) that results in quantifiable inflow and
infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system to offset the project’s base
wastewater flow increase. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project
will be approved by the Utilities Director.
36. The project’s road improvements along Chorro Street and Foothill Boulevard will need to
include provisions, including but not limited, to adjust existing water valves, water mains,
fiber cables, service laterals, and pressure reducing station with traffic rated covers.
37. Sufficient clearance will need to be provided to meet the line-of-sight requirements for the
relocation of the pressure reducing station’s control panel located in the southeast corner of
the intersection. If the required clearance falls outside of the public right of way, an easement
dedication will be required for placement of the panel and related controls.
Code Requirements
Building Division – Community Development Department
38. Projects submitted for building permit application after January 1st, 2017 will be subject to
the requirements of the 2016 California Series of Codes.
Utilities Department
39. 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
40. It is unclear if any existing sewer laterals are present the property. Any existing laterals
identified during project construction must be abandoned at the City main consistent with City
standards.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote:
Packet Pg. 76
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 8
R ______
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
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. 77
6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND REQUIRING
THE PROJECT BE REDESIGNED PER DIRECTION AND REVIEWED
BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION, AS REPRESENTED IN
THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
FEBRUARY 7, 2017 (22 CHORRO STREET, APPL-4278-2016)
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2016, the City Council approved a Use Permit (USE-2882-
2016) for a new mixed use project with 27 units a maximum height of 43-feet (where normally 35
feet is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking lifts; 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 December 5, 2016, with a four-one vote approving the design of the project,
subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1027-16 pursuant to a
proceeding instituted under ARCH-2794-2016, San Luis Development Group, LLC, applicant;
and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard Racouillat, the
appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on December 5, 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 February
7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4278-2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard
Racouillat, 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 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 uphold the appeal (APPL-4278-2016) of the Architectural Review
Commission decision, thereby requiring the project be redesigned per direction and reviewed by
Architectural Review Commission (ARCH-2794-2016), based on the following findings [NOTE:
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FINDINGS TO UPHOLD
THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROJECT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
GOVERNMENT CODE § 65589.5(d)(2)]:
Packet Pg. 78
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
1. That the project is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working
at the site or in the vicinity because the project is not compatible with site constraints and the
scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The mechanical lift parking is not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because
the lifts are not adequately screened and compatible with the building and site design of the
proposed project.
3. The project is not consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the
proposed project does not incorporate similar materials and architectural features to the
surrounding neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The design approval of the project is both statutorily
exempt under Section 15195 and 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 infill property and is served by required utilities and public
services.
SECTION 3. Action. Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support
thereof, the City Council does hereby uphold the appeal thereby requiring the project (application
APPL-4278-20160 be redesigned per direction and reviewed by Architectural Review
Commission.
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
Packet Pg. 79
6
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 of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 80
6
Packet Pg. 81
6
Packet Pg. 82
6
Packet Pg. 83
6
Packet Pg. 84
6
Packet Pg. 85
6
Packet Pg. 86
6
Packet Pg. 87
6
Packet Pg. 88
6
Packet Pg. 89
6
R-1
C-R-S
C-C-SF
R-1
C-C-SF
O-PD
PF
R-1
R-4
C-C-SF
FOOTHILLCH
O
R
R
O
ROUGEOT
VICINITY MAP APPL-4278-201622 Chorro Street ¯
Packet Pg. 90
6
Packet Pg. 916
Packet Pg. 926
Packet Pg. 936
Packet Pg. 946
Packet Pg. 956
Packet Pg. 966
Packet Pg. 976
Packet Pg. 986
Packet Pg. 996
Packet Pg. 1006
Packet Pg. 1016
Packet Pg. 1026
Packet Pg. 1036
Packet Pg. 1046
Packet Pg. 1056
Packet Pg. 1066
Packet Pg. 1076
Packet Pg. 1086
Packet Pg. 1096
Packet Pg. 1106
Packet Pg. 1116
Packet Pg. 1126
Packet Pg. 1136
Packet Pg. 1146
Packet Pg. 1156
Packet Pg. 1166
Packet Pg. 1176
Packet Pg. 1186
Packet Pg. 1196
Packet Pg. 1206
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS GASGAS
GAS
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W WXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXW
SSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTEW
W
W
W
E
E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEESSSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSD252.6FS252.4FS251.9FS252.4FS252.6FS249.1FS247.9FS252.6 FF252.4 FF251.9 FFMAX
1.5%250.6FS252.4FS3%250.0 TPMATCH EXIST247.5 TPMATCH EXIST251.4 TPMATCH EXIST252.9 TPMATCH EXIST252.4FS252.4FS250.7 TW250.0 FS250.1FS8%252.3 TW249.6 FS249.3FS249.3FS1.5%251.6BSW/FL248.0FL252.4TC/FL252.9FS251.4 TCMATCH EXIST251.7TC252.2TC1.5%252.4TC251.2 TPMATCH EXIST252.7TC252.8 TPMATCH EXIST251.0TC252.8FS252.1FS249.6TC250.4TC248.2 BSWMATCH EXIST2%2%4.2%4.2%5%2%PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT1.5%
1.5%252.6FS1.5%Ashley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A LSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:DRIVEWAY APPROACH AND RAMP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110.EXISTING WALL TO REMAINTRASH ENCLOSURE PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 9110.VEGETATED SWALE FLOWLINE. ROOF DRAINS AND DOWNSPOUTS TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD SWALE.SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD SIDEWALK PER DETAIL 4110, 4120 AND 4910.STRUCTURAL COLUMNSBUILDING WALLSAWCUT AND REPLACE 24" MIN PAVEMENT SECTION, MATCH EXITING STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTION.SEE SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 7110 FOR REFERENCE.SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 3415.CURB AND GUTTER PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4030INSTALL 12" CATCH BASIN WITH ATRIUM GRATE.6" PVC STORM DRAINCURB RAMP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4440 AND APPENDIX A.BUS TURN IN PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4920.BUS STOP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4930.RESET LID TO GRADERELOCATE VAULT AND RESET TO GRADERELOCATE UTILITY BOX AND RESET LID TO GRADEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED SITE RETAINING WALL4' PAINTED BIKE LINERE-STRIPE CROSS WALKUNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERSPROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT010 10 20HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNCHORRO STREETFOOTHILL BLVD1236TYP22DRAINAGE NOTE: MAJORITY OF HARDSCAPE IS COVERED BY MULTISTORY BUILDING. STORMRUNOFF WILL BE ROUTED TO THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS THROUGH ASERIES OF 2ND AND 3RD STORY ROOF DRAIN SYSTEMS OUTLETTING TO VEGETADEDSWALES AND STORM DRAINS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR 2ND AND 3RD STORYLAYOUT.SITE STATISTICS:21,874 SF AREAEARTHWORK:2,000 CY CUT50 CY FILL11' MAX CUT2' MAX FILLLID STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, TIER 2PROJECT UTILIZES:xUNDERGROUND RETENTIONxDISCONNECTED DOWNSPOUTSxVEGETATED SWALES455557TYP7TYP411888888910101010101010101414151313161616161617161818191919192020202121222323PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT2412STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS:BSW BACK OF SIDEWALKFF FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONFG FINISHED GRADEFL FLOWLINEFS FINISHED SURFACETC TOP OF CURBTG TOP OF GRATETP TOP OF PAVEMENTTW TOP OF WALLTYP TYPICAL202020PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT252525PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENTPROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENTPacket Pg. 1216
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS GASGAS
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
WXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXW
SSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELW
W
W
W
E
E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ESSSSSSSSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDWAshley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L010 10 20HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNSITE UTILITY NOTES:MECHANICAL ROOM4" FIRE WATER. CONNECT TO BUILDING PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6590.6" SDR 35 PVC SEWER LATER PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6810.SEWER CLEANOUT PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6710.INSTALL NEW 1.5" COMMERCIAL WATER METER IN PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED WATER METER BOXINSTALL NEW 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER AND 3/4" IRRIGATION METER PER CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6210, 6220, AND 6260.2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANT6" SDR 35 PVC STORM DRAIN.STORM TECH SC-740 UNDERGROUND STORAGE CHAMBERSEXISTING MANHOLE, CLEANOUT AND SEWER LOCATED IN THIS AREA NOT SHOWN IN TOPO.SEWER TO BE ABANDONED, CONTRACTOR SHALL SEVER AND PLUG TIE-IN LOCATION ATDOWNSTREAM MANHOLE.122346588247.6 TG244.6 INV94710STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS:INV INVERTTG TOP OF GRATEGENERAL NOTES:ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE BEST KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE. ANYEXISTING SEWER LATERALS TO SITE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEABANDONED. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL POINTS OF CONNECTION AND VERIFY ALLCLEARANCES. MATERIAL DEPTH AND LOCATION SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. IFTHERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCES FROM PLAN WITH ANY OF THESE ITEMS, ENGINEER OF WORKSHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.11Packet Pg. 1226
Packet Pg. 1236
Packet Pg. 1246
Meeting Date: 10/18/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION
TO DENY A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH GROUND
FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE AND 27 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR A 40% PARKING REDUCTION WITH
MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS. 11% OF THE UNITS IN THE PROJECT
WILL BE AFFORDABLE FOR VERY-LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES ARE REQUESTED, INCLUDING A
35% DENSITY BONUS, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 43-FOOT TALL
STRUCTURE WHERE 35 FEET IS NORMALLY ALLOWED.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission denied approval of a use permit for a mixed-use project in the
Foothill Boulevard special planning area. Staff has included a resolution (Attachment A) denying
the appeal, which would affirm the Planning Commission action to deny the project, based on
required findings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of
a use permit for a mixed-use project at 22 Chorro Street, thereby approving the use permit for a
mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special planning area, a 40% parking reduction and
the use of mechanical parking lifts, including approval of a height exception as an affordable
housing incentive.
SITE DATA
Applicant San Luis Development Group, LLC
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Zoning C-C-SF (Community Commercial
with a Special Focus Overlay)
General Plan Commercial
Site Area 0.55 acres (24,033 s.f.) (3 parcels)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under Section
15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Packet Pg. 125
6
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant submitted an application for approval of a project for a new four-story mixed-use
project with 1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space and 27 residential units.
The project includes a 35% density bonus as mandated by State law, because 11% of the units
are designated for very-low income households. As one of its affordable housing incentives, the
applicant is requesting a 43-foot maximum height for the structure where 35 feet is allowed. The
project also includes a request for a combined 40% parking reduction and the use of mechanical
parking lifts, as allowed by the Zoning Regulations with the approval of a use permit.
The project is located within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area and,
therefore, required Planning Commission (PC) review and approval (Zoning Regulations,
Chapter 17.53: Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone). The project also requires architectural
review by the Architectural Review Commission.
On August 24, 2016, the PC reviewed the proposed project and voted to deny the project based
on various findings relating to impacts to the health, safety and welfare due to the height of the
development and lack of on-site parking (Attachment C, PC Resolution).
On August 31, 2016, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the project (Attachment F,
PC Appeal and Supplemental Letter).
While the staff recommendation is to uphold the appeal and approve the project (as more fully
explained below), the City Council may choose to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the
Planning Commission decision. If the City Council chooses to deny the appeal, special findings
are needed as required by State law to form an adequate basis for the denial. Staff has provided
findings for project denial for the Council’s consideration which are set forth in Attachment A.
The staff recommendation to uphold the appeal is reflected in Attachment B. The following
discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The project site is an existing 24,033 square foot lot located at the corner of Chorro Street and
Foothill Boulevard (Attachment D, Vicinity Map). The site is zoned Community Commercial
(C-C) and has a 36 density units per acre, the highest density allowed in the City. The site is
relatively flat, currently vacant, and was last utilized as a gas station. The site is surrounded by
the following uses and zoning:
North: C-R-SF (University Square Shopping Center)
South: R-1 (Single family residences)
East: C-C-SF (G. Brothers Restaurant)
West: C-C-SF & R-1 (Jamba Juice, Starbucks, Single family residences)
The project proposes to construct a new four-story mixed-use project as described below
(Attachment E, Project Plans):
1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space;
Packet Pg. 126
6
27 residential units (23 two-bedrooms and 4 studios restricted for very-low income
households);
A request for a 40% shared/mixed-use/bicycle parking reduction to reduce the required
parking from 55 parking spaces to 33 parking spaces; and
113 bicycle parking spaces (80 long-term and 33 short-term).
Background
The areas discussed below provide important background information on the policy and
regulatory environment that shape the review of the project. Although approval of this use permit
would result in a building that is taller than adjacent development, staff’s analysis of the project
shows that it can be found consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. In this case,
the policy and regulatory structure favor the production of housing by enabling concessions for
height and reductions in parking. Taken together with the project’s central location and the
incentives and strong protections afforded by State law for housing projects (especially
affordable housing), the proposed mixed use project that uses an affordable housing density
bonus and height exception to provide more housing than would otherwise be allowed, and
which is situated along a major transit, bike, and pedestrian corridor, is on balance consistent
with City policies and regulations. These issues are more fully discussed in the followed six
subsections.
1. Land Use Element, Chapter 8: Special Focus Area
On December 9, 2014, the City Council adopted the new Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE) of the General Plan. As a part of the update, a new section was added to the Land Use
Element (LUE) that identified Special Planning Areas. The proposed project is located in the
Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area,1 which includes property on both sides of
Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa currently developed as commercial centers
that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. The Foothill Boulevard/Santa
Rosa Special Planning Area encourages the development of mixed-use projects, adjustments in
parking and height requirements and improving intersections along Foothill Boulevard. Below is
a copy of Policy 8.2.1 from the LUE.
1 Land Use Element Section 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area.
Packet Pg. 127
6
2. Housing Element
The Housing Element (HE) outlines a series of goals and policies to encourage the development
of housing production for all financial strata of the City's population. The City has outlined in
HE Goal 2 that housing should be in-line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the
2014 - 2019 planning period (see Table 1). The project is proposing to construct four very-low
income units which are some of the more challenging units to be provided within a private
development. The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not
segregated by economic status and encourages housing development that meets a variety of
special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students,
veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy
or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing
Element also states that preference for residential be given over commercial uses (Policy 11.1).
Packet Pg. 128
6
In addition, the Housing Element further states:
That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state
density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and
extremely low income households (Policy 2.17); and
That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density
bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial
assistance (Program 6.19).
Table 1: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units approved,
under construction or built (January 1, 2014 to October 11, 2016)
Income Category
A B A-B
New
Construction
Need
(RHNA)
Dwelling Units
Approved, Under
Construction or Built
Remaining RHNA
Need, Dwelling
Units
Extremely-Low (< 31% of
AMI)
142 5 137
Very Low (31-50% of AMI) 143 53 90
Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 81 98
Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 95 107
Above Moderate (>120% of
AMI)
478 4781 0
TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7121 432
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 2016
1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA. Actual above moderate units =
1,350.
3. Circulation Element
The Circulation Element (CE) states the City’s goals and objectives to increase multi-modal
transportation within the City. The CE includes the following Transportation Goals (Section
1.6.1.):
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.
Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as
walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
One of the Transportation Objectives states, Encourage better transportation habits… Increase
the use of alternative forms of transportation and depend less on the single-occupant use of
vehicles (Section 1.7.1). The use of public transit, walking and biking are specifically supported
by numerous policies in Chapters 3 through 6 of the CE. Further details on the project’s
Packet Pg. 129
6
consistency with Transportation policies and the provision of multi-modal transportation is
discussed in the Parking section under Staff Recommendation below.
4. Major City Goal
Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over 2015-17 financial year. The goal states: Implement the Housing Element,
facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options, including support
for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share.
5. State Housing Density Bonus Law
California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density
bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. In addition to a density
bonus, by providing a certain percentage of affordable units within a project (as outlined in
Section 17.90.060 of the Zoning Regulations), a developer may receive alternative incentives or
concessions for the project. For this project, the developer is setting aside four units for very-low
income (11%) which equals a mandated 35% density bonus in accordance with State law and the
City’s Zoning Code.
Under the State Density Bonus law (Gov. Code section 65915), a public agency is required to
grant the incentive or concession unless it makes a written finding, based on substantial
evidence, that the concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public
health and safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable. “Specific adverse impact”
within this statute 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 In addition, the State Density Bonus
law requires a City to waive or modify development and zoning standards that would physically
preclude the utilization of the density bonus, incentives, and concessions that the applicant is
entitled to on a particular site and may only be denied if the findings above are met (Gov Code
section 65915(e)).
In other words, State law requires a public agency to relax its development standards to allow for
the physical construction of the additional “density units” unless the relaxation of such standards
will result in specific adverse impacts within the meaning defined above.
6. Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects” which includes
mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses in which non-
residential 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(d)(2) of
the Act states that:
2 Gov. Code section 65589.5(d)(2).
Packet Pg. 130
6
(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project…for very low, low-, or
moderate-income households…or condition approval in a manner that renders the project
infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income
households…including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written
findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(2) The development project…as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income household…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. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall
not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
Planning Commission Action
At the August 24, 2016 meeting, the PC evaluated the proposed mixed-use project and voted 4:1
Commr. Dandekar absent) to deny the use permit (Attachment C, PC Resolution; Attachment H,
PC Meeting Minutes).
Public Testimony
The public provided comments on the project during the PC hearing as well as through written
correspondence. A series of repeated themes/concerns were shared by several different
individuals. Concerns included: that the project, as proposed, was out of scale and character with
the neighborhood and overall too tall; the project interfered with the privacy of the next door
neighbors; the site had too many units; the project had too few parking spaces and that the
project should have 100 parking spaces to accommodate the “real” number of people living on
the site; residents of the project would park on the neighborhood streets that are already
impacted; that the project would drive down adjacent property values; and would increase the
traffic and congestion at the intersection of Chorro and Foothill. Others shared support for the
project stating that it provided much needed housing, made the best use of the corner lot,
provided a buffer between Foothill and the residential neighborhood and promoted multi-modal
transportation.
Planning Commission Findings
Following significant public testimony and deliberation, the PC denied the use permit based on
the following findings:
1. That the project will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity because the proposed parking reduction is excessive and the
height is inconsistent with the General Plan.
2. That the request for reduced parking is inconsistent with San Luis Obispo Municipal
Packet Pg. 131
6
Code section 17.16.060 in that the requested parking reduction is excessive for the
proposed use and that the times of the proposed mixed-use parking demand from the
various uses will coincide in such a way that it will have detrimental impacts on the
surrounding area.
3. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with Conservation and Open Space
Element Policy 9.2.1 because the project will block views from Foothill Boulevard which
is designated as having moderate scenic value.
4. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy
2.3.9.E Compatible Development: Architecture; the project’s height and scale does not
provide a smooth transition between the existing and proposed development.
5. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines
sections 5.3.A.1 and 5.3.C: the project’s height and scale does not provide a smooth
transition between the immediate neighborhood.
6. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy 2.3.9.F
Compatible Development: Privacy and Solar Access; the project will overlook onto
adjacent properties and does not respect the privacy of neighboring building and outdoor
areas.
Applicant Appeal
On August 31, 2016, the applicant, San Luis Development Group, LLC, filed an appeal of the
PC’s decision to deny the project. The appeal form and supplemental letter express concerns that
the Planning Commission’s decision for denial was not justified because it is inconsistent with
and/or violates local, Federal and/or State laws and policies (Attachment F, PC Appeal and
Supplemental Letter). The letter from the applicant highlights that the proposed project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan, in particular LUE Section 8.2.1 which describes
development within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, the Major City
Goal regarding housing, Zoning Regulations regarding parking reductions (Section 17.16.060),
and the California Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff carefully evaluated the Planning Commission’s decision and the applicant’s appeal in the
context of City Council General Plan goals and policies, the City’s Zoning Code, the State
Density Bonus law and Housing Accountability Act. Based on these combination of factors, staff
is recommending the City Council uphold the appeal and approve the project. It should be noted
that the project will require architectural review and modifications to the project design may be
considered by the ARC to the extent that they do not reduce height/density to the point that
would render the project infeasible.
Packet Pg. 132
6
1. Height
The applicant is requesting a height exception as a Density Bonus incentive for including four
studios for very-low income households within the project (11% of the project is affordable).
According to Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.90: Affordable Housing Incentives, the developer
may request an incentive or concession, such as a height increase, when providing at least 10%
of the units for very-low income households.3
Staff’s rationale for recommending approval of the height exception is several fold:
1. State Density Bonus law allows a developer to request a concession such as a height
exception and a public agency must grant that exception unless it can make certain
findings.
2. State Density Bonus law further requires a public agency to relax development standards
to allow for the physical construction of the “density units.” In this case, the project
includes 7 density bonus units, 5 of which are on the top floor. Stated differently, the
additional maximum height allowance to accommodate the top floor is needed to build
the density units.
3. The request for additional height is consistent with the Land Use policy discussion on
building height adjustments for the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning
Area. In regards to staff’s analysis on this issue, it should first be noted that the 35-foot
height restriction is based on current zoning from the prior General Plan. The policy
language in the updated LUE suggests that higher height limits are desired for this area
when development is in conjunction with mixed use developments.4 This policy states
that building height adjustments are appropriate on both sides of Foothill, although the
language itself overlaps (“…in this area…” and “…on the North side of Foothill…”).5
Based on this combination of factors, staff is recommending the Council approve the height
exception.
3 Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.060.A(2): Alternative or additional incentives. When a developer agrees to
construct housing for households of very-low, lower or moderate income households… and desires an incentive
other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.040 of this chapter… the developer shall receive the
following number of incentives or concessions: (2) Two incentives or concessions for housing developments that
include at least twenty (20) percent of the total units for lower income households, at least ten (10) percent for very-
low income households, or at least twenty (20) percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common
interest development.
4 Once the zoning code update comes forward later on this year, the City Council will tackle the issue of
implementing this policy.
5 The Planning Commission had considerable debate on the applicability of this policy within the LUE, especially
with regard to building height incentives and whether such incentives were appropriate for the entirety of this
planning area or just the area on the north side of Foothill.
Packet Pg. 133
6
2. Neighborhood Compatibility
The project site is located in a neighborhood with an eclectic collection of architecture, building
heights and site design. The neighborhood includes two large shopping centers, commercial
structures separated from the street by parking, gas stations, single family residential units and
multi-family structures. The Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area describes
redevelopment should include mixed-use development and encourages pedestrian and bike
access. Set at the back of sidewalk, the proposed building fosters a pedestrian environment along
the project and Foothill. The project is designed to provide a transition between a commercial
area and the R-1 residential area by setting the tallest portion of the structure along Foothill
Boulevard and provides residential uses adjacent to existing residential uses.6. The proposed
project further supports the transition between the R-1 and C-C zone by incorporating various
design elements consistent with LUE 2.3.97 which requires compatible development for new
housing built within existing neighborhoods. The project provides: an inviting façade towards
the street; preserves privacy between the R-1 properties and the subject site by providing
landscaping (Attachment E, Project Plans, Sheet L-1) and excluding balconies along the south
and east elevations (Attachment E, Project Plans, Sheets A2.1-A2.3 and A3.2-A3.3); preserves
solar access for adjacent the R-1 properties (Attachment E, Project Plans, Sheet A5.0); provides
street trees and parking is designed to minimize its visual impact from the public street.
6 Land Use Policy 2.3.5. Neighborhood Pattern: The City shall require that all new residential development be
integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should
create new neighborhoods.
7 Land Use Policy 2.3.9. Compatible Development: The City shall require that new housing built within an existing
neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
Figure 1: Rendering of the project as viewed from the commercial property across Chorro Street looking towards
University Square shopping center.
Packet Pg. 134
6
3. Views
Concern was expressed that the
project would have an impact on
viewsheds, in particular the
views of Cerro San Luis.
Foothill Boulevard is identified
within the Conservation and
Open Space Element (COSE) as
a street with moderate scenic
value. Policy 9.2.1. states in part
that development projects shall
not wall off scenic roadways and
block views.8 Figure 2 is a
portion of the Scenic Roadways
and Vistas map of the COSE and
Cerro San Luis is not identified
with a “cone of view” from
Foothill Boulevard. It is
important to note that COSE provides policy for the protection of views from public areas such
as streets, parks, etc. The project will interrupt a small portion of the view of Cerro San Luis
from Foothill Boulevard going westbound. For clarification in response to public comment
regarding private views, the project would not impact the existing residential views toward Cerro
San Luis and views from the residential properties towards Foothill Boulevard would change
because the project site is currently vacant. However, to be clear the City’s policies address
views from public spaces and the City does not create or regulate any private viewshed rights.
Echoing staff’s reasoning in the height discussion above, various General Plan policies and State
law incentivize and otherwise encourage housing development projects to “go up.” Further, the
Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area emphasizes that, at least within this
particular segment of Foothill, that height adjustments on top of the 35-foot maximum height
already established for this zone should be considered. In addition, one significant concern is the
extent to which the City’s viewsheds policy identified above constitutes an “objective” standard
for purposes of the Density Bonus law and Housing Accountability Act. As a result of these
factors, staff recommends that the Council approve the height exception.
8 Conservation and Open Space Element 9.2.1: Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The
City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other
agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and
roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 are designated as
scenic roadways. (A) Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
Figure 2: Excerpt of Figure 11 of the COSE. The star marks the
approximate location of the project site; v) represents "cone of view"
Cerro San
Luis
Packet Pg. 135
6
4. Parking
The project requires 55 spaces (50 spaces for 27 residential units and 5 spaces for 1,600 square
feet of commercial space). The residential parking calculation is based on Government Code
Section 65915(p)(B) which states that a city cannot require a vehicular parking ratio that exceeds
one on-site parking space for a studio or one bedroom and no more than two onsite parking
spaces for two to three bedroom units. The applicant is requesting a 40% parking reduction to
have a total of 33 required spaces. This request is based on a combination of two separate
provisions in the Zoning Code which allow for the reduction in the on-site parking requirements:
(1) Mixed Use Parking Reductions; and (2) Bicycle Space Reduction.
Mixed Use Parking Reductions (Up to 30%)
SLOMC 17.16.060.C states that where two or more uses share common parking areas, the total
number of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10%, with approval of an
administrative use permit. Section 17.16.060.C further states that by approving an administrative
use permit, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects sharing parking by up
to 20%, in addition to the shared parking reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of
30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not
coincide.
Bicycle Space Parking Reductions (Up to 10%)
The project also includes 30 additional bicycle parking spaces to allow for an additional 10%
parking reduction. Section 17.16.060.G(2) states that projects which provide more bicycle and/or
motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space
for each five bicycle spaces, up to a 10% reduction, subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director. All bicycle parking that exceeds the required number of spaces shall be
apportioned between short-term and long-term bicycle spaces as stipulated by Table 6.5. The
project is required to provide 63 bicycle spaces (58 long term and 5 short term). The applicant is
providing 30 bicycle parking spaces for the 10% reduction plus an additional 20 more above and
beyond all the requirements for a grand total of 113 spaces (80 long term and 30 short term).
This is not an unreasonable inclusion of bicycle parking spaces as the project is anticipated to
have an expected occupancy of 100 residents. The design of the project includes a bike lounge, a
bike repair area (“bike shop”) and indoor bike storage to incentivize bicycle use by tenants
(Attachment F, Project Plans, A2.0).
Table 2: Parking calculations proposed and required by code
Parking Spaces Proposed1 Standard2
Vehicle 33 55
Bicycle (long-term) 80 58
Bicycle (short-term) 33 5
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 5/20/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
Parking was a highly discussed component of the project during Planning Commission review.
Discussion included whether there was sufficient off-set between the shared parking for the
Packet Pg. 136
6
commercial space and the residential units to justify the 30% parking reduction. The City’s
parking requirements are conservatively based on nationwide parking studies (Institute of Traffic
Engineers parking generation manual) which reflects reductions for combinations of uses and
multi-modal access to those facilities such as those found in neighborhood commercial areas.
The commercial space is expected to have sufficient spaces as it is expected be used at alternate
hours during the day when residents are away at work and/or school. All together the project
provides 33 vehicle spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces, 33 short-term bicycle spaces and 80 long-term
bicycle spaces (a total of 149 spaces). These spaces are available to residents, visitors and
customers of the site.
The reduction in parking spaces is consistent with the Transportation Goal discussed in the
Circulation Element to reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting
alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.9 Reductions in
parking and a heavy emphasis on bicycle mobility serve this goal and further the objectives of
this policy. In addition to putting an emphasis on bicycle mobility, the project is uniquely
situated and is located in proximity to grocery stores, restaurants, entertainment, schools,
employment and two bus stops, and is easily accessible by walking or public transportation. One
bus stop is located right in front of the project and another is directly across the street, allowing
service to and from the site. This arrangement encourages better transportation habits and
increases the use of alternative forms of transportation and less dependence on the single-
occupant use of vehicles (Section 1.7.1).10 The project includes improvements to the existing bus
stop with a bus turn out and the construction of a bus stop shelter as a part of the building design
(Attachment F, Project Plans, Sheets A2.0 & A3.0). The project location provides residents as
well as customer’s various opportunities to access the site and nearby destinations without a
vehicle.
The applicant is also requesting to incorporate mechanical parking lifts as part of the project. The
project is proposing to use a Klaus TrendVario 4100 lift system which places vehicles
subterranean with other vehicles parked above, at grade (Attachment F, Project Plans, Sheet 5.1).
As proposed, the system parks 27 vehicles, one for each of the residential units. The dimensions
of the system allow for a large variety of car models as listed within the Project Plans, Sheet 5.1
(Attachment F). Those vehicles that do not fit into the lift system, have the ability to park in the
regular parking stalls provided in the parking garage. The project complies with the findings of
approval with added Conditions of Approval No. 4 and 5; (4) The mechanical parking lift shall
be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with Community Design
Guidelines for compatibility with the building and site design and (5) Prior to building plan
approval, the applicant shall record an agreement that runs with the land that mechanical
parking systems will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception
of limited periods of maintenance (Attachment A, Draft Resolution A).
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
9 Circulation Element Transportation Goals, Section 1.6.1.
10 Circulation Element Transportation Objectives, Section 1.7.1
Packet Pg. 137
6
if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is both statutorily exempt under Section 15195 and 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, within one-half a mile of a
transit stop and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. It should be
noted that modifications to zoning regulations as required by State Density Bonus law noted
above, do not disqualify a project from claiming this exemption. See Wollmer v. City of
Berkeley, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1338 (2011). 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. Deny the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project by upholding
the PC’s decision and denying the appeal, based on findings of inconsistency with the
General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations.
2. Uphold the Appeal and provide direction to the ARC. The Council may uphold the appeal
and approve the use permit, but provide additional direction to the ARC regarding issues it
should consider during its review of the project’ s design.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution A
b - Draft Resolution B
c - PC Resolution (denial) - August 24 2016
d - Vicinity Map
e - Project plans
f - Planning Commission Appeal and Supplemental Letter
g - PC Staff Report - August 24 2016
h - PC Meeting Minutes - August 24 2016
Packet Pg. 138
6
RESOLUTION NO. 10749 (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A MIXED-
USE PROJECT IN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIAL PLANNING
AREA, A 40 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION AND THE USE OF
MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS INCLUDING A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FROM CEQA AND A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL OF A HEIGHT EXCEPTION AS AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVE AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 18, 2016
22 CHORRO, USE -2882-2016)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 24, 2016 for the purpose of considering a use permit application USE -2882-2016 for a
mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special focus area, a 40 percent parking reduction and
the use of mechanical parking lifts, and a height exception as an affordable housing incentive to
accommodate the development of the proposed project at 22 Chorro Street; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Development Group, LLC, the applicant, filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission's action on August 31, 2016; 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 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 in support of the project approval that includes a use permit for a mixed-use project in the
Foothill Boulevard special focus area, a 40 percent parking reduction and the use of mechanical
parking lifts and recommends approval of a height exception as an affordable housing incentive of
the proposed project:
That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working
or residing in the vicinity because the proposed project is consistent with the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area of the Land Use Element and Zoning
Regulations.
R 10749
Packet Pg. 139
6
Resolution No. 10749 (2016)
Findinzs for Affordable Housing Incentives:
Page 2
1. That the project is consistent with Housing Element, Goal 2 because the project includes units
for very -low income households which helps meet the City's affordable housing objectives.
2. That with 11 percent of the units restricted for very -low income households, the applicant is
entitled up to a 35 percent maximum density bonus under State law and the City's Municipal
Code, Chapter 17.90. Therefore, the proposed density bonus for the project of 35 percent is
consistent with established criteria for density bonuses.
3. That the proposed height of 43 feet to accommodate the development of the proposed project
is appropriate as an incentive consistent with the Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.060.B(1)
that a reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning code requirements or
architectural design requirements that exceeds the minimum building standards approved by
the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with
Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code.
Findines for 40 Percent Parkine Reduction:
4. That the proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section
17. 16.060.A, Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which
is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands
may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the
requirement for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 17.16.060.B because there are multiple uses that share common parking areas. In
addition, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.16.060.C, the times of maximum
parking demand from the proposed uses will not coincide.
5. That the proposed project is consistent with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section
17.16.060.G and provides 30 additional bicycle parking spaces (above the bicycle parking
required for the project) for a 10 percent parking reduction at the rate of one car space for each
five bicycle spaces provided.
6. That the proposed parking reduction will safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding
area or cause a decline in quality of life because project is located close proximity to grocery
stores, restaurants, entertainment, schools, employment and two bus stops allowing for
alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking or taking public transportation.
Findin s for Mechanical Parki= Lifts:
7. That the use of mechanical lift parking results in superior design and implementation of City
goals and policies for infill development by placing parking within the structure and screening
it from public view.
R 10749
Packet Pg. 140
6
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 3
8. That the mechanical lift parking is adequately screened and, as conditioned, shall be reviewed
by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with Community Design Guidelines
for compatibility with the building and site design.
9. That the mechanical lift parking systems complies with all development standards including
but not limited to height and setback requirements, and Parking and Driveway Standards with
the exception of minimum parking stall sizes which are established by lift specifications.
10. That, as conditioned, the mechanical parking systems will be safely operated and maintained
in continual operation with the exception of limited periods of maintenance.
11. That there are no circumstances of the site or development, or particular model or type of
mechanical lift system which could result in significant impacts to those living or working on
the site or in the vicinity.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is both statutorily exempt under Section
15195 and 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, within one-half a mile of a transit stop 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.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Planning
Commission's action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final approval of the application
USE -2882-2016 for a mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special focus area, a 40 percent
parking reduction and the use of mechanical parking lifts and recommends approval of a height
exception as an affordable housing incentive at 22 Chorro Street subject to 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 City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
2. The proposed use shall operate consistent with the project description, approved plans,
and other supporting documentation submitted with this application unless otherwise
conditioned herein.
3. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the
project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and the Mixed
R 10749
Packet Pg. 141
6
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 4
Use project design standards (Zoning Regulations section 17.08.072). Specific
attention shall be given to the compatibility between the adjacent commercial uses and
the residential uses. The Architectural Review Commission shall be responsible for
taking action on additional project conditions and code requirements as applicable.
4. The mechanical parking lift shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission
for compliance with Community Design Guidelines for compatibility with the building
and site design.
5. Prior to building plan approval, the applicant shall record an agreement in a form
subject to the approval of the City Attorney that runs with the land that mechanical
parking systems will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the
exception of limited periods of maintenance.
6. All regular (non-mechanical lift) parking spaces shall be available for residential
tenants, employees and customers free from restrictions. No regular parking spaces
shall be individually labeled or allocated.
7. All mechanical lift parking spaces shall be available for all residential tenants.
8. The project shall include 33 parking spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces and 93 required
bicycle parking spaces (70 long-term and 23 short-term).
9. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current
parking calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal of
Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or improvements to ensure the site
does not become under -parked.
10. The project shall have a maximum height of 43 feet. The tallest part of the project shall
be located along Foothill Boulevard as shown on the submitted project plans. Any
alterations increasing the proposed height or the location of the height on the site will
require a modification to the use permit.
11. Plans submitted for building permit review shall show the location of all 93 required
bicycle parking spaces (70 long-term and 23 short-term) and include product sheets of
the proposed bike racks to be used. All bicycle parking spaces included as part of the
project shall comply with City's Municipal Code Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 and the
Community Design Guidelines Section 6.3.F.
Transportation
12. Consistent with the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan, the project shall install a bike
box on Chorro Street, south of Foothill Boulevard. Building plans shall include the
layout and design of the bike box and right turn lane according to design guidance
within the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guidelines and design shall be reviewed
and approved by City Transportation & Engineering Division prior to installation. The
installation may require modifications to the existing pedestrian refuge island.
R 10749
Packet Pg. 142
6
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 5
13. In regards to the bus turnout and facilities, project plans submitted for the building
permit shall be consistent with the plans submitted for the use permit.
14. The applicant shall record a public access easement along the Foothill Boulevard
frontage of the project which also allows the City to place and maintain bus facilities
such as benches, signs, maps, etc.
On motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Rivoire and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Christianson and Rivoire,
Vice Mayor Carpenter and Mayor Marx
NOES: Ashbaugh
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 181h day of October 2016.
Mayor . 1l Marx
ATTEST:
1 -04J,
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
R 10749
Packet Pg. 143
6
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this (Qt' h day of ic, _ r , -am-1 [-f .
0 Lvvt"-&UA
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
R 10749
Packet Pg. 144
6
Meeting Date: December 5, 2016
Item Number: 1
2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Design review of a new four-story mixed-use project that includes ground floor
commercial/retail space, 27 residential units and mechanical parking lifts.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 22 Chorro Street BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2794-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant San Luis Development Group, LLC
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Submittal Date March 10, 2016
Complete Date June 20, 2016
Zoning C-C-SF, Community Commercial
with a Special Focus Overlay
General Plan Commercial
Site Area .55 acres (24,033 s.f.) (3 parcels)
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 project with 1,600 square feet of
ground floor commercial/retail space and 27 residential units, 118 bicycle parking spaces and 33 vehicle
parking spaces that utilize mechanical parking lifts. The project is zoned Community Commercial (C-
C) and located within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area. A Use Permit (USE-
2882-2016) was approved by the City Council on October 18, 2016 that allows a maximum height of
43-feet (where normally 35 feet is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking
lifts.
Packet Pg. 145
6
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 2
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.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant initially submitted their project on March 10, 2016. During the course of review, staff
provided feedback to the applicant regarding their proposal. The original proposal included a structure
with a height of 50 feet, a parking layout that did not comply with City standards, and the project design
was inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The applicant responded by reducing the
height 7 feet to a maximum height of 43 feet, redesigning the parking to meet City standards and
redesigned the project with new colors, materials and articulation.
On August 24, 2016 the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed project and voted to deny
the project based on various findings relating to impacts to the health, safety and welfare due to the
height of the development and lack of on-site parking.
On August 31, 2016, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the project. The City Council
reviewed the appeal on October 18, 2016 and voted 4:1 to uphold the appeal and approve the project
(Attachment 5, City Council Final Resolution). The Use Permit (USE-2882-2016) allows a maximum
height of 43-feet (where normally 35 feet is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical
parking lifts. After the vote, the City Council briefly discussed the architecture and design of the project.
Comments were focused on the roof top deck and concerns of overlook/privacy and noise and the
outdoor patio at the corner of Chorro and Foothill and its nearness to the intersection. The applicant
made minor changes in response to the Council’s comments and these are provided with additional
information in Section 4.7 below for ARC discussion.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
Zoning C-C-SF (Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay)
Site Size 0.55 acres (24,033 s.f.)
Present Use & Development Vacant
Topography Flat
Access Chorro Street and Foothill Blvd
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-R-SF (University Square Shopping Center)
South: R-1 (Single family residences)
East: C-C-SF (G. Brothers Restaurant)
West: C-C-SF & R-1 (Jamba Juice, Starbucks, Single family residences)
3.2 Project Description
The project proposes to construct a new four-story mixed-use project with:
1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space;
27 residential units (23 two-bedrooms and 4 studios restricted for very-low income households);
A 40% shared/mixed-use/bicycle parking reduction to reduce the required parking from 55
parking spaces to 33 parking spaces;
Packet Pg. 146
6
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 3
113 bicycle parking spaces (80 long-term and 33 short-term); and
A landscape plan that includes 10 new street trees and new trees and shrubs along the south
border of the parcel (Attachment 3, Project Plans).
The project includes various materials including wood grain Italian walnut finished Trespa (high-
pressure laminate) panels, vertical metal siding (corrugated metal), ceramic tiles, smooth stucco, metal
trellises, canopies and awnings, and aluminum clad windows. Colors include blue, gray, and white (see
Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A6.0).
3.3 Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setback
Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 10 feet 5 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 43 feet 35 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 72% 75%
Density Units (DU) 25 DU 18 DU
Parking Spaces
Vehicle 33 55
Bicycle (long-term) 80 58
Bicycle (short-term) 33 5
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 5/20/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project is a mixed-use project that includes both commercial and residential spaces within the
Community Commercial (C-C) zone. The Community Design Guidelines (CDG) do not specifically
Figure 1: Perspective view of the project looking southeast from Foothill Blvd.
Packet Pg. 147
6
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 4
discuss design objectives for mixed-use projects. As such, staff reviewed the project using design
guidelines for commercial projects since the project is located within a commercial zone, but also looked
to multi-family project design for residential building characteristics.
4.1 Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed architecture of the project is unique and not a “canned” or “trademark” building design.1
The CDG discuss that new designs should incorporate elements of the surrounding neighborhood
character without duplicating it, stating that it is important for each site to both maintain its own identity
and be complementary to its surroundings. Thus, a new building can be unique and interesting and still
show respect for and compatibility with the architectural styles and scale of other buildings in its
vicinity.2 The project includes four-sided architecture that uses a mix of traditional exterior materials
such as smooth finished stucco and tile and contemporary materials such as corrugated/vertical metal
siding and Italian walnut finished Trespa siding. The surrounding structures in the neighborhood include
the use of stucco, CMU blocks, cement, composite siding, and glass. The proposed project contains
similar materials and architectural features that have been included in the renovation of University
Square and Foothill Plaza including the use of metal awnings and canopies and composite siding. The
proposed colors also complement the surrounding colors of the neighborhood.
4.2 Design Consistency
The CDG Chapter 3, section B(3) states designs should demonstrate a consistent use of colors, materials,
and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. Elevations which do not directly face a street
should not be ignored or receive only minimal architectural treatment. Each building should look like
the same building from all sides. The project provides four-sided architectural and maintains consistent
use of materials and colors (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A3.0-A3.3).
4.3 Form and Mass
The CDG state that a building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion.
Horizontal and vertical wall articulation should be expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed
windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades.3
The proposed mixed-use project has a maximum height of 43 feet and is taller than the surrounding
structures in the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood contains a range of single and two-story
residential buildings and commercial structures. The project places the tallest portion of the structure
along Foothill Boulevard and a lower height of approximately 33 feet closest to the nearest single family
residence as shown in Figure 2 (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A4.0). The mass of the proposed
project is setback 15 feet from the adjacent residential project. Stairs that access the building are setback
10 feet. Figure 2 also illustrates that the front façade of the structure steps away from Foothill Boulevard
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(1): Architectural style. No particular architectural style or design theme is
required in the City nor can San Luis Obispo be defined by any particular architectural style. A wide range of architectural
characteristics adds to the City’s overall image. While variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new
projects with the existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to preserve not only the historic flavor of th e
community but, equally important, its scale and ambience. “Canned” or “trademark” building designs used by franchised
businesses in other cities may not be acceptable in San Luis Obispo, as they can collectively have the effect of making the
commercial areas of the City look like anywhere in California.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(2). Neighborhood compatibility.
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(4). Form and mass.
Packet Pg. 148
6
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 5
as the building reaches its maximum height. This is consistent with the design standards for multi-family
structures which states structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor
level and/or upper levels (stepped-down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent
properties or visually dominate the neighborhood.4 The project incorporates vertical and horizontal wall
articulation through changes in wall off-sets and materials. The first floor entries are recessed and
highlighted as an important element of the structure by the use of metal awnings as well as column
features for the commercial portion of the building.5
4.4 Building Materials and Colors
The CDG state building materials shall be carefully chosen to enhance the consistency of the
architectural theme and design.6 As mentioned in Section 4.1 above, the project proposes to use a mix
of four materials: smooth stucco, vertical metal siding, Trespa panels with an Italian walnut finish, and
glazed tile. The materials do not have a “stuck on” or “thin” appearance and are integrated into the
architecture of the building and logically wrap with the building’s off-sets and setbacks.
ARC Discussion: The CDG do not specifically discuss a limit to the number of materials used on a
building façade. The ARC may want to discuss if the use of all the proposed exterior materials contribute
to an integrated design or if fewer types of exterior materials would be more successful.
Colors as well as materials play an important role in building design and the CDG state that colors should
be compatible with the existing colors of the surrounding area but need not duplicate existing colors.7
The proposed color scheme uses cool grays with accents of white and blue and wood grain Italian walnut
(Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A6.0 and A8.3 & A8.4). These colors coordinate well within the
4 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4: C(2). Scale.
5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(8). Entries.
6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(10). Building materials.
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(12). Colors.
Figure 2: Section view of the project as seen looking west towards the project site
Packet Pg. 149
6
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 6
project as well as with the surrounding neighborhood, especially the recently remo deled University
Square Shopping Center.
4.5 Site Planning
The CDG give specific guidelines for project site planning for Commercial projects within Chapter 3,
Section C. The project, as discussed above, maintains the required setback from adjacent residential
structures, protects privacy of adjacent properties by placing all balconies and decks towards Foothill
Boulevard, and protects solar access due to the project siting and orientation (Attachment 3, Project
Plans, Sheet A5.0). The overall structure is oriented parallel to Foothill and is placed behind the sidewalk.
This is consistent with the CDG which state that buildings with high pedestrian use should face and be
directly accessible from the sidewalk.8 The site plan layout is also consistent with direction in the CDG
to provide parking interior to the lot. In this case, the project has enclosed all vehicle parking spaces
within a parking garage on the first floor of the project.
4.6 Mechanical Parking Lifts
The project requires 55 spaces (50 spaces for 27 residential units and 5 spaces for 1,600 square feet of
commercial space). The City Council as part of the use permit appeal granted a 40% parking reduction,
allowing a total of 33 required spaces. As part of the parking strategy, the applicant has included the use
of a Klaus TrendVario 4100 lift system which places vehicles subterranean with other vehicles parked
above, at grade (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet 5.1). As proposed, the system parks 27 vehicles. The
dimensions of the system allow for a large variety of car models as listed within the Project Plans, Sheet
5.1 (Attachment 3). Condition No. 4 of the use permit requires that the ARC review that the mechanical
parking lift is compatible with the building and site design (Attachment 5, City Council Final
Resolution). As described above, the mechanical parking lifts are fully enclosed and are consistent with
the CDG and do not detrimentally impact the design of the project.
4.7 Balconies, patios and rooftop decks
The CDG state that 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.9 The applicant has designed the project
to include several balconies, a roof deck and a patio area. The City Council provided feedback that the
ARC should review the rooftop deck and the patio located at the corner of Foothill and Chorro.
Comments were focused on overlook/privacy and the nearness of the patio to the intersection. The
balconies all face Foothill Boulevard with the exception of one small balcony off of a second floor studio
unit that faces Chorro Street in order to protect privacy of adjacent properties while being able to provide
outdoor space for many of the units. The rooftop deck has been modified in response to the City
Council’s comments. The applicant increased the planter that circles the deck to a width of 7 feet so that
persons utilizing the deck cannot hang over the edge (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A8.0).
Additionally, the additional landscaping will help buffer any potential noise from those using the deck.
The modified design also includes a gate that can be locked to prevent access to the deck. The corner
patio has been modified to include concrete planters in place of a solid concrete wall between the patio
and the public sidewalk. The landscaping is intended to soften the corner and provide a better transition
8 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: C(2.b). Building and parking location.
9 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: C(3). Balconies, porches, and patios.
Packet Pg. 150
6
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 7
between the patio and the sidewalk.
ARC discussion: The ARC should discuss if the rooftop deck and corner patio are appropriate
amenities/elements for the project.
5.0 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 infill property
and is served by required utilities and public services.
6.0 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 Cit y 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.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines or
applicable City policies and standards.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Plans
4. City Council Agenda Report 10-18-2016
5. City Council Final Resolution 10-18-2016
Packet Pg. 151
6
Packet Pg. 152
6
Packet Pg. 153
6
Packet Pg. 154
6
Packet Pg. 155
6
Packet Pg. 156
6
Packet Pg. 157
6
Packet Pg. 158
6
Packet Pg. 159
6
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 160
6
Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Prepared By: Rico Pardo, Accounting Manager/Controller
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT,
SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND ANNUAL AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR 2015-16
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the
Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2015-16.
DISCUSSION
The accompanying Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) has been prepared as required
by the City’s Charter and applicable State laws requiring financial reporting. The CAFR provides a
final and audited representation of the City’s financial condition across all funds for the fiscal year
that ended June 30, 2016. The CAFR was also published on the City’s website by December 31,
2016, as required by City Charter, and hard copies were provided to the City Council in January
2017.
As required by City Charter, the financial statements have been audited by independent certified
public accountants Glenn Burdette. The objective of a financial audit is to provide users of the
financial reports with reasonable assurance from an independent source that the reports are reliable.
The auditor issued the financial statements with an unqualified opinion which means that they are
presented fairly and in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (see pages 1-3 of
the CAFR).
The accompanying Single Audit Report provides information about the City’s expenditures of
federal awards for the period ended on June 30, 2016.
The Transportation Development Act annual audit was prepared by the same independent
certified public accounting firm and provides information on the City’s compliance with statutes,
rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), the California Code of
Relations, and instructions and resolutions of San Luis Obispo Council of Government for the
period ended on June 30, 2016. This report did not reflect any negative findings regarding the
City’s administration of the TDA monies.
During fiscal year 2014-15, the City adopted the following two Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) Statements related to pension activities:
Statement No. 68, “Accounting and Financial Reporting or Pensions – an amendment of
GASB Statement No. 27,” and
Statement No. 71, “Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the
Packet Pg. 161
7
Measurement Date – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68.”
GASB Statement No. 68 establishes standards of accounting and financial reporting, but not
funding or budgetary standards, for the City’s defined benefit pension plans. This statement
replaces the requirements of prior GASB statements impacting accounting and disclosure of
pensions.
The significant impact to the City of implementing GASB Statement No. 68 is the reporting of the
City’s unfunded pension liability on the full accrual basis of accounting in the government-wide
financial statements. There are also note disclosure requirements and supplementary schedules
required by the Statement. The measurement date for the pension liabilities is a one-year lag and is
reflected as of June 30, 2015. Activity (i.e. pension contributions made by the City) occurring
during fiscal year 2015-16 are reported as deferred outflows of resources in accordance with
Statement No. 71.
A representative from Glenn Burdette, the City’s independent certified public accountants firm, will
attend the February 7, 2017 Council meeting to present the results of the audits and to respond to
any questions the Council may have relating to these audits.
Financial Results Highlighted in the CAFR
Within the CAFR, the Transmittal Memorandum and Management’s Discussion and Analysis
provide a comprehensive analysis of the City’s financial position as of June 30, 2016, as well as
summaries of significant City fiscal policies, practices and financial results. Key variances from
projected ending balances for 2015-16 are also highlighted in the Transmittal Memorandum.
Financial results for the year compare favorably with budget estimates in virtually all areas of the
City’s operations. For the General Fund, financial results for the year were better than final
estimates for revenues by $2.8 million, or 4%. Expenditures were $5.4 million, or 9%, b elow
final estimates. The net result of the overall difference leads to the ending fund balance of $29.6
million, which is an increase of $8.8 million over the anticipated fund balance at the time the
2015-16 budget was adopted.
From the ending General Fund fund balance, the following are commitments (also known as
prepaid items, encumbrances when a contract has been executed, appropriations and funds
assigned by City fiscal policy):
$50,020 are non- expendable and represent prepaid items;
$489,056 are restricted for Debt service;
$7.1 million is committed for General government programs;
$11.5 million is assigned and includes $11.1 million for the 20% operating reserve
(Contingency Fund); and
$10.4 million is classified as unassigned at 2015-16 fiscal year-end and includes the net
balance of the Local Half Percent Sales Tax. Of this amount, $5.8 million in one-time
funds is allocated with the adopted 2016-17 Supplemental Budget. The remaining $4.6
million includes $640,000 in unassigned balance in the Local Half Percent Sales Tax
sub-fund.
Packet Pg. 162
7
Per City Council direction and in conjunction with adopted Council policies, staff will provide a
recommendation for the use of any available fund balance for one-time allocations. This will be
based on fund balance analysis, the Five-Year forecast and Financial Plan goals and objectives.
In other words, staff may recommend at Mid-year Budget consideration that the funds in excess
of the 20% reserve be allocated and appropriated through the 2017-19 Financial Plan process
since that timing will allow the City Council to consider the range of community input and
proposed Major City Goals when allocating these funds.
Changes in 2015-16 2015-16
General Fund Balance Estimated Actual Amount %
Fund balance, beginning of year 24,566,807 23,857,187
Revenues 65,270,043$ 68,084,438$ 2,814,395$ 4%
Expenditures 60,889,578 55,463,911 5,425,667 9%
Other sources (uses)(7,361,111) (6,852,182) 508,929 -7%
Excess of revenues and sources
over (under) expenditures & uses (2,980,646) 5,768,345 8,748,991
Prior Year restatement 0 0
Fund balance, end of year 21,586,161$ 29,625,532$ 8,748,991$
Less:
Nonspendable (56,020)
Restricted/Committed (7,674,453)
Assigned (11,475,178)
Unassigned Fund Balance, end of year 10,419,881$
Variance
The City’s top three key revenue sources, Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy
Tax (TOT), substantially exceed the per capita average for the County. These revenue sources
also account for 50% of all funding sources in the General Fund.
The City’s efforts to control costs have been successful and are ongoing. The Cit y also
implemented 2nd and 3rd tier retirement benefit programs and now 34% of the workforce is
enrolled in the 2nd and 3rd tiers of the retirement plans. Since fiscal year 2013-14, the City
Council has also approved lump sum prepayments against the safet y side fund retirement
liability to begin making reductions to the unfunded liability of retirement.
Of the types of proprietary funds, the City maintains enterprise funds which include the Water,
Sewer, Parking, and Transit Funds. All four funds are considered major funds and are presented as
business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The total operating revenue in
the Water Fund, decreased by $562,000. General water impact fees which are collected for
infrastructure to support new development also decreased by $929,000 or 38% compared to prior
year. Sewer charges within the Sewer Fund experience an overall decrease of $1.6 million
compared to prior year due to a water reduction affected by the drought. Parking fees within the
Parking Fund received $2.6 million for in-lieu payments from the Chinatown development project.
CAFR Organization
In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for state and local governments, the
City’s CAFR is organized into three major sections: Introduction, Financial Reports and Statistical
Tables. The following is a brief summary of the contents of each of these sections.
Introduction. The Transmittal Memorandum and other information of general interest are
Packet Pg. 163
7
presented in this section, including: directory of officials, advisory bodies, and organization chart.
Financial Reports. This section includes the City’s primary financial statements in five major
parts:
1. Auditors’ opinion regarding the financial statements.
2. Management’s discussion and analysis providing a narrative overview of City-wide finances.
3. The basic financial statements presenting the government-wide results combining the activities
of the major funds (General, Capital Outlay and all Enterprise Funds) into governmental and
business-type categories; the fund financial statements; and the notes to the financial statements.
4. Required supplementary information presenting the General Fund actual results with both the
original and final adjusted budgets.
5. Other supplemental schedules and financial statements providing financial information for each
of the City’s non-major governmental and agency funds. This includes a financial schedule
presenting Half Percent Sales Tax Measure revenues and uses in 2015-16.
Statistical Tables. This section provides demographic and financial tables showing current and
historical trend information for the City and is organized into six major parts:
1. Statistical overview. General information about the San Luis Obispo community.
2. General financial trends. Ten-year summary information on net assets, governmental
revenues and expenditures and fund balances.
3. Revenue capacity. Ten-year summary information on property and sales tax trends.
4. Debt capacity. Ten-year summary information on debt service requirements.
5. Economic and demographic trends. Ten-year summaries of taxable sales, building permits
and valuations, housing, population and other demographic trends.
6. Operating information. Ten-year trend information on operating indicators by function.
Recognition for Excellence in Financial Reporting
Beginning in fiscal year 1983-84, all of the City’s CAFR has been awarded the certificate of
achievement for excellence in financial reporting from the Government Finance Officers
Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA). This is a prestigious national award
recognizing the City’s use of the highest standards in preparing our annual financial report. The
City received the award for its 2014-2015 CAFR and has submitted the award application for the
2015-2016 CAFR.
Additional Reporting
The Federal Single Audit Act requires agencies expending $500,000 or more of Federal assistance
funding to undergo organization-wide audits of their internal controls. Accordingly, the
accompanying Single Audit Report provides a Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters. In the findings section of this report, the auditors noted a
deficiency in the recording of capital assets and in cash reconciliation. In response to both findings,
staff has already taken the steps necessary to address these issues in the future.
In the Recommendations of the Report, the auditors recommended the following:
The newly implemented capital asset software continue to be maintained and reviewed by
Packet Pg. 164
7
management and any discrepancies be reconciled in order to accurately capture depreciation
expense and capital activity.
Bank reconciliation procedures be reviewed and revised to ensure monthly reconciliations
are complete and unreconciled items are processed timely.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting and filing the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the Transportation Development Act
Funds for fiscal year 2015-16.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could decide to revise or not accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the Transportation Development Act Funds for
fiscal year 2015-16. This is not recommended as the reports have been prepared in conformance
with a variety of accounting and other reporting requirements and represent the professional
evaluation and analysis by the City’s independent auditors. They have rendered an unqualified
opinion which means that they are presented fairly and in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
Attachments:
a - City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-16
b - City of SLO Federal Awards Reports Final FS 6-30-16
c - Council Reading File - City of SLO 2016 CAFR
Packet Pg. 165
7
City of San Luis Obispo
Tr an sportation
De velopment Act Funds
Repor t and Financial
Statements Ye ar End
June 30,2016 and 2015
Packet Pg. 166
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act Funds
Report and Financial Statements
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015
Packet Pg. 167
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act Funds
Report and Financial Statements
Year Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015
Table of Contents
Page
Transit Fund
Independent Auditors’ Report 5-6
Statements of Fund Net Position –June 30, 2016 and 2015 7
Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position –
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 8
Statements of Cash Flows –Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 9-10
Notes to Financial Statements 11-18
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Independent Auditors’ Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance
and State Bond Compliance 21-22
Independent Auditors’ Report 23-24
Balance Sheets –June 30, 2016 and 2015 25
Statements of Revenues, Other Uses and Changes in Fund Balance –
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 26
Notes to Financial Statements 27-29
Independent Auditors’ Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance 30-31
TDA Fund Supplementary Information
Schedule of Revenues and Other Uses –Budget and Actual –
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 32
2
Packet Pg. 168
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015
3
Packet Pg. 169
7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4
Packet Pg. 170
7
Packet Pg. 171
7
The Honorable City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California
and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Page 2
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position
of the Transit Fund of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, and the changes in financial
position and cash flows thereof for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.
Change in Accounting Principle
As discussed in Note 9 to the financial statements, in 2015 the City adopted new accounting guidance, GASB Statement
No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions –An Amendment of GASB Statement No. 27 and GASB
Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date –An Amendment
of GASB Statement No. 68. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Transit Fund of the City of San Luis Obispo, California
and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, as of
June 30, 2016 and 2015, the changes in its financial position, or, where applicable, its cash flows for the years then
ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not
modified with respect to this matter.
Glenn Burdette Attest Corporation
San Luis Obispo, California
December 19, 2016
6
Packet Pg. 172
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Fund Net Position
June 30, 2016 and 2015
2016 2015
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents 7,285$ 487,957$
Investments 722,236 1,439,683
Accounts receivable 38 170
Interest receivable 1,884 3,356
Due from other governments 2,481,470 1,107,522
Total current assets 3,212,913 3,038,688
Capital assets:
Infrastructure 110,972 110,972
Buildings and improvements 4,905,259 4,905,259
Transit operating equipment 7,727,129 7,633,648
Construction in progress 67,220 60,038
Total capital assets 12,810,580 12,709,917
Less accumulated depreciation (6,680,559) (5,821,456)
Total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 6,130,021 6,888,461
Total assets 9,342,934 9,927,149
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred pensions 96,501 42,732
Liabilities
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable 205,016 239,831
Accrued salaries and compensated absences 24,184 22,937
Total current liabilities 229,200 262,768
Noncurrent liabilities:
Compensated absences, net of current portion 4,352 4,844
Net pension liability 551,065 532,344
Total noncurrent liabilities 555,417 537,188
Total liabilities 784,617 799,956
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred pensions 83,004 69,181
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 6,130,021 6,888,461
Restricted - subsequent year expenditures 1,552,730 57,480
Unrestricted 889,063 2,154,803
Total net position 8,571,814$ 9,100,744$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
Packet Pg. 173
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015
2016 2015
Operating revenues:
Passenger fares 230,948$ 234,217$
Special transit fares 427,653 415,197
Total operating revenues 658,601 649,414
Operating expenses:
Purchased transportation 1,909,992 1,842,760
Other transportation services 469,078 390,771
Fuel and lubricants 240,297 335,970
Other materials and supplies 56,090 31,673
Salaries and wages 207,741 163,525
Fringe benefits 68,793 68,104
General and administrative 277,329 290,742
Depreciation 859,103 866,670
Total operating expenses 4,088,423 3,990,215
Operating loss (3,429,822) (3,340,801)
Nonoperating revenues:
Transportation Development Act operating grants 1,475,134 2,014,541
Federal Transit Administration operating grants 1,413,686 1,134,111
Interest 11,202 7,613
Other nonoperating revenues 870 486
Total nonoperating revenues 2,900,892 3,156,751
Loss before transfers (528,930) (184,050)
Transportation Development Act capital contributions 60,063
Transfers (1,400)
- 58,663
Change in net position (528,930) (125,387)
Net position - beginning of year 9,100,744 9,783,560
Prior Year Restatement (557,429)
Net assets - beginning of year, as restated 9,100,744 9,226,131
Net position - end of year 8,571,814$ 9,100,744$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
8
Packet Pg. 174
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Cash Flows
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015
2016 2015
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 658,733$ 599,340$
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (2,710,272) (2,731,418)
Cash payments to General Fund for interfund services (277,329) (290,742)
Cash payments to employees for services (297,004) (214,350)
Other nonoperating cash receipts 870 486
Net cash used in operating activities (2,625,002) (2,636,684)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Operating grants received 1,514,872 2,488,902
Transfers (1,400)
Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 1,514,872 2,487,502
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Capital grants received 60,063
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (131,999) (36,190)
Disposition of capital assets 31,336
Net cash provided by (used in) capital and related financing activities (100,663) 23,873
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest on investments 12,674 6,005
Net cash provided by investing activities 12,674 6,005
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents and investments (1,198,119) (119,304)
Cash and cash equivalents and investments - beginning of year 1,927,640 727,444
Cash and cash equivalents and investments - end of year 729,521$ 1,927,640$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
9
Packet Pg. 175
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Cash Flows, Continued
Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015
2016 2015
Reconciliation of operating loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Operating loss (3,429,822)$ (3,344,780)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation 859,103 887,944
Other revenues 870 486
Changes in operating assets, deferred outflows, liabilities, and deferred inflows:
Accounts receivable 132 4,487
Accounts payable (34,815) (130,244)
Unearned revenue (54,561)
Accrued salaries and compensated absences 755 15,915
Deferred pensions and net pension liability (21,225) (15,931)
Net cash used in operating activities (2,625,002)$ (2,636,684)$
Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents and investments to the statement
of fund net position:
Cash and cash equivalents 7,285$ 487,957$
Investments 722,236 1,439,683
Total cash and cash equivalents and investments 729,521$ 1,927,640$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
10
Packet Pg. 176
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 1: The Reporting Entity
The City of San Luis Obispo (the City) operates a fixed route public transportation system within the City limits and
to the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). Vehicle operations and vehicle maintenance are provided
under contract by a private transportation company. Nonvehicle-related support and administrative services are
provided by City staff.
The Transit Fund (the Fund) is an enterprise fund of the City created by resolution of the City Council to account for
the revenues received pursuant to the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Federal Transit Authority (FTA) and
the revenues received from the transit operations described above. Such revenues are allocated under specific
statutes and are legally restricted to finance expenditures made for transit operations, the development of public
transportation systems and transportation planning. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available
for the same purpose, it is the City’s policy to use restricted funds first.
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Basis of Presentation
The Fund’s financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual
basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred regardless
of the timing of related cash flows. The Fund distinguishes operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating
items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services in connection with the Fund’s
principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the Fund are charges to customers for transit
services. Operating expenses for the Fund include cost of services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on
capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and
expenses, including non-exchange transactions such as TDA and FTA grants.
Nonexchange transactions, in which the Fund receives value without directly giving equal value in return, include
grants. Revenue from grants is recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied.
Eligibility requirements include timing requirements, which specify the fiscal year when the resources are to be used
or the fiscal year when use is first permitted; matching requirements, in which the Fund must provide local resources
to be used for a specific purpose; and expenditures requirements, in which the resources are provided to the Fund
on a reimbursement basis.
Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments
Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash on hand, cash balances in checking and money market accounts and short-
term in vestments, with an original maturity of three months or less. Investments which are in the City’s internal
investment pool are also treated as cash equivalents for the purposes of the statement of cash flows.
11
Packet Pg. 177
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Amounts Due from Other Governments
Generally, amounts due from other governments are recorded as revenues when earned. However, when the use
of funds is the prime factor for determining eligibility for grants, revenue is accrued when the related expenses have
been made on an approved grant.
Capital Assets
Capital assets are recorded at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives,
ranging from 5 to 20 years. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost of more
than $25,000. Detailed capital assets can be found in Note 5.
Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows and Deferred Inflows
The City recognizes a net pension liability, which represents the City’s proportionate share of the excess of the total
pension liability over the fiduciary net position of the pension reflected in the actuarial reports provided by the
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) plans (Plans). The City has allocated a proportionate share
of the net pension liability, deferred outflows, deferred inflows and pension expense to the Transit Fund. The net
pension liability is measured as of the City’s prior fiscal year-end. Changes in the net pension liability are recorded,
in the period incurred, as pension expense or as deferred inflows of resources or deferred outflows of resources
depending on the nature of the change. The changes in the net pension liability that are recorded as deferred inflows
of resources or deferred outflows of resources (that arise from changes in actuarial assumptions or other inputs and
differences between expected or actual experience) are amortized over the weighted average remaining service life
of all participants in the respective pension plan and are recorded as a component of pension expense beginning
with the period in which they are incurred.
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to pensions,
and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s CalPERS Plans and additions
to/deductions from the Plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported
by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when
due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Projected earnings
on pension investments are recognized as a component of pension expense.
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts
and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
12
Packet Pg. 178
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Subsequent Events
Events subsequent to June 30, 2016 have been evaluated through December 19, 2016,which is the date the financial
statements were available to be issued. Management did not identify subsequent events that required disclosure.
Note 3: Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments
At June 30, 2016 and 2015, cash and cash equivalents consisted of the following:
2016 2015
Deposits:
Cash in bank 7,285$ 487,957$
Custodial Credit Risk –Deposits
Custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City’s deposits may not be returned to it. Cash
balances held in banks are insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation. For custodial
credit risk associated with deposits, the City follows California Government Code, which requires California financial
institutions to secure the City’s deposits by pledging government securities as collateral. The market value of the
pledged securities must equal 110% of the City’s deposits. California law also allows financial institutions to secure
the City’s deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes equal to 150% of the City’s deposits. All deposits held
by financial institutions are fully insured or collateralized with securities, held by the pledging financial institutions’
trust departments in the City’s name.
At June 30, 2016 and 2015, investments consisted of the following:
2016 2015
Pooled Investment Funds:
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)722,236$ 1,439,683$
The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments for all funds under its direct daily control. Funds held
by outside fiscal agents under provisions of bond indentures are maintained separately.
Interest earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated quarterly to the various funds based on the respective
fund’s average quarterly cash balance. Interest earned from cash and investments with fiscal agents is credited
directly to such funds.
13
Packet Pg. 179
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 3: Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments (Continued)
Interest Rate Risk
This is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rates. In
accordance with its policies in the Investment Management Plan, the City mitigates interest rate risk by:
Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing
operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market before maturity.
Investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities.
The City’s investment policy also includes portfolio maturity targets. A minimum of 20% of the portfolio will be
invested in securities maturing in one year or less. Up to 80% of the portfolio can be invested in securities with a
maturity over one year, with no more than 10% of the portfolio invested in securities with a maturity over five years.
Credit Risk
This is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or backer. The City’s policies to mitigate credit risk
include:
Limiting investments to the safest types of securities. The California Government Code limits the investment
vehicles available to local agencies. The credit risk of these securities is measured by the assignment of a
rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.
Pre-qualifying the financial institutions, broker/dealers, intermediaries and advisors with which the City will
do business.
Concentration of Credit Risk
The City’s policies contained in the Investment Management Plan provide guidelines (by type of investment that
limits either the dollar amount, the percent of the portfolio or the maturity term) for diversifying the investment
portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will be minimized.
The City’s Investment Management Plan outlines the following criteria related to portfolio diversification:
No more than 5% of the City’s portfolio (exclusive of government agency issues or LAIF) shall be placed with
any financial institution.
14
Packet Pg. 180
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 3: Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments (Continued)
No more than 25% of the City’s portfolio shall be invested in collateralized certificates of deposit issued by
financial institutions.
Certificates of deposit (negotiable and collateralized) placed by the City shall not constitute more than 15%
of the total assets of the institution; and negotiable certificates of deposit will only be placed with
institutions with total assets in excess of $200 million and that maintain a ratio of equity to total assets of
at least 5%.
Additional Cash and Investment Disclosures
See the City of San Luis Obispo June 30, 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for additional cash and
investment disclosures.
Note 4: Due from Other Governments
At June 30, 2016 and 2015, the amounts due from other governments were as follows:
2016 2015
Federal Transit Administration - capital and operating grants 2,481,470$ 1,107,522$
2,481,470$ 1,107,522$
Note 5: Capital Assets
Capital assets activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, was as follows:
Balance Balance
June 30, 2015 Additions Deletions June 30, 2016
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Construction in progress 60,038$ 67,219$ (60,037)$ 67,220$
Capital assets being depreciated:
Infrastructure 110,972 110,972
Buildings and improvements 4,905,259 4,905,259
Transit operating equipment 7,633,648 64,780 28,701 7,727,129
Total capital assets being depreciated 12,649,879 64,780 28,701 12,743,360
Less accumulated depreciation (5,821,456) (859,103) (6,680,559)
Total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 6,888,461$ (727,104)$ (31,336)$ 6,130,021$
15
Packet Pg. 181
7
City of San Luis Obispo,California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
16
Note 5:Capital Assets (Continued)
Capital assets activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015,was as follows:
Balance Balance
June 30,2014 Additions Deletions Ju ne 30,2015
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Construction in progress 39,038$21,000$$60,038$
Capital assets being depreciated:
Infrastructure 110,972 110,972
Buildings and im provements 5,016,142 (110,883)4,905,259
Transit operating equipment 7,618,590 15,190 (132)7,633,648
Total capital assets being depreciated 12,634,732 126,162 (111,015)12,649,879
Less accumulated depreciation (4,954,829)(887,944) 21,317 (5,821,456)
Total capital assets,net of accumulated depreciation 7,718,941$(740,782)$(89,698)$6,888,461$
Note 6:Intergovernmental Allocations
The City has been allocated the following funds from the State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF)and Local
Transportation Fund (LTF)for the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015.The amounts have been used for both
operating expenses and capital assets.
Article Section 2016 2015
LTF 4.0 99260 1,312,716$1,837,504$
STAF 6.5 99313 124,828 142,833
STAF 6.5 99314 37,590 34,204
Total Transportation Development Act revenue 1,475,134$2,014,541$
Applicable
Allocating TDA Statute Amount
The City also directly allocated for the years ended June 30,2016 and 2015,with $673,290 and $744,023,
respectively of LTF Article 4.0,Section 99260 funds to San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA),which
are not shown in the accompanying financial statements.
Packet Pg. 182
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 7: Fare Revenue Ratios
For the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 the City had fare revenue ratios of 22% and 23%, respectively, computed
as follows:
2016 2015
Operating revenues - fares 658,601$ 649,414$
(a) Net Operating revenues - fares 658,601 649,414
Net operating costs, net of depreciation and vehicle lease costs 3,229,320 3,106,250
Exclude capital expenses under uniform system of accounts
for purposes of calculating fare revenue ratios but
treated as operating expenses for financial statements (264,010) (234,615)
(b) Adjusted operating costs for purposes of calculating fare revenue ratios 2,965,310$ 2,871,635$
(c) Fare revenue ratio [(a) / (b)]22%23%
The City is in compliance with applicable TDA regulations pertaining to acceptable fare revenue ratios which require
a minimum ratio of 20%.
Note 8: Pensions
The City contributes to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for its employees and
participates in an agent-multiple employer plan (Miscellaneous Plan) for its miscellaneous employees.The City has
allocated a portion of the Miscellaneous Plan that relates to the Fund. The portion of the net pension liability
allocated to the Fund for the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 was $551,065 and $532,344, respectively. The
portion of the deferred outflows of resources allocated to the Fund for the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 are
$96,501 and $42,732, respectively. The portion of the deferred inflows of resources allocated to the Fund for the
years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 are $83,004 and $69,181, respectively. The portion of the pension expense
allocated to the Fund for the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 is $32,832 and $15,931, respectively, and is shown
as a part of total salaries and wages in the related fiscal year.
Additional Pension Disclosures
See the City of San Luis Obispo June 30, 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for additional pension
disclosures as well as required supplementary information.
Note 9: Prior Year Restatements
In the prior year, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 68, Financial Reporting for Pensions –an amendment
of Statement No.27, and GASB Statement No. 71, Pension Transitions for Contributions Made Subsequent to the
Measurement Date –an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68, for the year ended June 30, 2015. An adjustment
17
Packet Pg. 183
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 9: Prior Year Restatements (Continued)
of $557,429 to reduce beginning net position was made in 2015 to reflect the cumulative impact of implementing
these standards.
During 2016, a prior year restatement was recorded to properly restate deferred inflow of resources related to
pensions that had been amortized during the year ended June 30, 2015 rather than amortized during the
measurement period ending June 30, 2015. The effect was to increase deferred inflows of resources related to
pensions and increase pension expense by $17,295 for the year ended June 30, 2015.
In the current year, the City performed a reconciliation between its capital asset software and the general ledger.
During this process, the City identified misclassifications of assets in the Transit Fund among categories as well as
excess depreciation recorded on the general ledger. The prior year has been restated to properly show capital asset
categories and related accumulated depreciation balances by decreasing prior year accumulated depreciation and
depreciation expense by $21,317 and $21,274, respectively.
18
Packet Pg. 184
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
June 30, 2016 and 2015
19
Packet Pg. 185
7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
20
Packet Pg. 186
7
Packet Pg. 187
7
The Honorable City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California
and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Page 2
Opinion
In our opinion, the funds allocated to and received by the Transit Fund of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant
to the TDA were expended and accounted for in compliance with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the
TDA, the CCR and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, in all
material respects,for the year ended June 30, 2016.
The purpose of this report over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results
of that testing based on the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the TDA, the CCR,and the allocation instructions
and resolutions of San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as required by Section 6662 of the CCR. Accordingly, this
report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Glenn Burdette Attest Corporation
San Luis Obispo, California
December 19, 2016
22
Packet Pg. 188
7
Packet Pg. 189
7
The Honorable City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California
and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Page 2
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit
opinion.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position
of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, as of June 30, 2016 and
2015, and the changes in financial position and cash flows thereof for the years then ended in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the TDA Fund of the City of San Luis Obispo, California and
do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, as of June 30,
2016 and 2015, the changes in its financial position, or, where applicable, its cash flows for the years then ended in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified
with respect to this matter.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund of the City of San Luis Obispo, California’s basic financial statements. The
schedule of revenues and other uses –budget and actual is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a
required part of the financial statements. The schedule of revenues and other uses –budget and actual is the
responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records
used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied
in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling
such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements
or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of revenues and other uses –budget
and actual is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Glenn Burdette Attest Corporation
San Luis Obispo, California
December 19,2016
24
Packet Pg. 190
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Balance Sheets
June 30, 2016 and 2015
2016 2015
Assets
Total assets -$ -$
Liabilities
Total liabilities -$ -$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
25
Packet Pg. 191
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Statements of Revenues, Other Uses and Changes in Fund Balance
June 30, 2016 and 2015
2016 2015
Revenues - intergovernmental allocations 40,531$ 54,808$
Other financing uses - operating transfers to City of
San Luis Obispo (40,531) (54,808)
Excess of revenues over other financing uses - -
Fund balance - beginning of year - -
Fund balance - end of year - $ - $
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
26
Packet Pg. 192
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 1: The Reporting Entity
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund (the Fund) of the City of San Luis Obispo, California (the City) is a
special revenue fund created by resolution of the City Council to account for the revenues received pursuant to the
TDA. Such revenues allocated under specific state statutes are legally restricted to financial expenditures made of
the development and construction of local streets and roads, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting
The Fund’s financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the
modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when measurable and available. Revenues are
considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay the
liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers interest and grant revenues earned but not
received as susceptible to accrual under this method. Expenditures are generally recognized at the time liabilities
are incurred.
Fund Equity
The Fund’s financial statements report fund balance in classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the
extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purpose for which amounts in the funds can be
spent. The Fund does not have a fund balance in the current fiscal year, therefore classification is not necessary.
However, GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, identifies five
components of fund balance –nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned.
Nonspendable. This component includes amounts that cannot be spent because they are either (a) not in spendable
form or (b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact.
Restricted. This component consists of amounts that have constraints placed on them either externally by third-parties
(creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments) or by law through constitutional
provisions or enabling legislation. Enabling legislation authorizes the City to assess, levy, charge or otherwise mandate
payment of resources (from external resource providers) and includes legally enforceable requirements (compelled by
external parties) that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation.
27
Packet Pg. 193
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Committed. This component consists of amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints
imposed by minute order authorized by the City Council. Also included in this component are encumbrances which
represent legal and binding obligations for the acquisition of future goods and services. Those committed amounts
established by minute order cannot be used for any other purpose unless the City Council adopts a new minute order so
directing. With respect to encumbered amounts, the City may take steps to cancel the order for goods or services and
thereby terminate the obligation.
Assigned. This component consists of amounts that are constrained by the City’s intent to be used for specific purposes,
but are neither restricted nor committed. The City Manager or Director of Finance are authorized to assign amounts to
a specific purpose. Constraints imposed on the use of assigned amounts can be removed with no formal Council actions.
Unassigned. This classification represents amounts that have not been restricted, committed or assigned to specific
purposes.
Fund Balance Spending Policy
The City follows a practice in which restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balances are spent when
more than one amount is available for a specific purpose. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are
available for use, it is the City’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources (committed,
assigned and unassigned) as they are needed. When unrestricted resources (committed, assigned and unassigned)
are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use committed resources first, then assigned, and then unassigned as
they are needed.
Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
The City has received national recognition for its use of a two-year Financial Plan and budgetary process that
emphasizes long-range planning and effective program management. Significant features of the City’s two-year
Financial Plan include the integration of Council goal-setting into the budgetary process and the extensive use of
formal policies and measureable objectives. The Financial Plan includes operating budgets for two years and a
capital improvement plan (CIP) for five years.
Under this multi-year approach, appropriations continue to be made annually; however, the Financial Plan is the
foundation for preparing the budget for the second year. Additionally, unexpended operating appropriations from
the first year may be carried over for specific purposes into the second year with the approval of the City Manager.
28
Packet Pg. 194
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts
and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
Subsequent Events
Events subsequent to June 30, 2016 have been evaluated through December 19,2016,which is the date the financial
statements were available to be issued. Management did not identify subsequent events that required disclosure.
Note 3: Intergovernmental Allocations
For the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, the City has been allocated the following funds from the Local
Transportation Funds (LTF):
Amount
Article Section 2016 2015
3.0 99233.3 40,531$ 54,808$
Allocating TDA Statute
Applicable
Note 4: Operating Transfers
The City expends all amounts for alternate transportation projects in its General Fund or Capital Outlay Fund. LTF
monies received by the City are initially deposited in the Fund and subsequently transferred to the General Fund,
where such funds are expended or transferred to the Capital Outlay Fund to be expended on designated
transportation projects.
29
Packet Pg. 195
7
Packet Pg. 196
7
The Honorable City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California
and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Page 2
During our audit, we performed to the extent applicable the tasks contained in Section 6667 of the CCR. Such audit
tests would not necessarily disclose all instances of noncompliance because they were based on selective tests of
accounting records and related data.
Opinion
In our opinion, the funds allocated to and received by the TDA Fund of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
pursuant to the TDA were expended and accounted for in compliance with the applicable statutes, rules and
regulations of the TDA, the CCR and the allocation instructions and resolutions of San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments, in all material respects, for the year ended June 30, 2016.
The purpose of this report over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the
results of that testing based on the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the TDA, the CCR,and the allocation
instructions and resolutions of San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as required by Section 6662 of the CCR.
Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Glenn Burdette Attest Corporation
San Luis Obispo, California
December 19, 2016
31
Packet Pg. 197
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Supplementary Information
Schedules of Revenues and Other Uses –Budget and Actual
June 30, 2016 and 2015
Variance with
Final Budget
2016 Original Final Actual Positive (Negative)
Revenues - intergovernmental allocations 41,100$ 41,100$ 40,531$ (569)$
Other financing uses - operating transfers
to City of San Luis Obispo (41,100) (41,100) (40,531) 569
Excess of revenues over other financing uses - $ - $ - $ - $
Variance with
Final Budget
2015 Original Final Actual Positive (Negative)
Revenues - intergovernmental allocations 54,800$ 54,800$ 54,808$ 8$
Other financing uses - operating transfers
to City of San Luis Obispo (54,800) (54,800) (54,808) (8)
Excess of revenues over other financing uses - $ - $ - $ - $
Budget
Budget
32
Packet Pg. 198
7
Packet Pg. 199
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Federal Awards
Reports and Schedule
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Packet Pg. 200
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Table of Contents
June 30, 2016
Page
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 3-4
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on Internal
Control Over Compliance and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Required by the Uniform Guidance 5-7
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 8
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 9
Findings and Recommendations Section
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs and Status of Prior Audit Findings and
Questioned Costs 10-13
2
Packet Pg. 201
7
Packet Pg. 202
7
The Honorable City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California
San Luis Obispo, California
Page 2
A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a
material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free of material
misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant
agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial
statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our
audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of
noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City of San Luis Obispo’s Responses to Findings
The City’s responses to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying schedule of audit
findings and questioned costs. We did not audit the City’s responses and, accordingly, we express no opinion on
them.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results
of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This
report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the
entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purposes.
Glenn Burdette Attest Corporation
San Luis Obispo, California
December 19, 2016
4
Packet Pg. 203
7
Packet Pg. 204
7
The Honorable City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California
San Luis Obispo, California
Page 2
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to
above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30,
2016.
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with
the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance,we
considered the Corporation's internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct
and material effect on each major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and
report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does
not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A
material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal
control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of
compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal
control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a
material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of
this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that
we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal
control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance.
Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
6
Packet Pg. 205
7
The Honorable City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California
San Luis Obispo, California
Page 3
Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund,
and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the related
notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. We issued our
report thereon dated December 19,2016, which contained unmodified opinions on the financial statements. Our
audits were conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the
City’s financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes
of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements.
Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to
the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including
comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare
the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule
of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as
a whole.
Glenn Burdette Attest Corporation
San Luis Obispo, California
December 19,2016
7
Packet Pg. 206
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Federal Pass-Through Expenditures
CFDA Grantor's Federal to
Number Number Expenditures Subrecipients
Major Programs:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Urban Mass Transportation -
Section 9 Capital and Operating
Assistance Formula Grants 20.507 N/A 1,373,948$ -$
Total Major Programs 1,373,948 -
Non-Major Programs:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Passed through the State of California
Highway and Bridges Rehabilitation
and Replacement Program 20.205 84-088-1648 57,771
U.S. Department of Justice
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 16.804 N/A 10,200
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Passed through the County of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Block Grant 14.218 95-6000939 304,404
U.S. Office of Emergency Services
Assistance to Firefighters Grant 97.044 N/A 100,635
Total Non-Major Programs 473,010 -
Total Expenditures of Federal Awards 1,846,958$ -$
Program Title
Federal Grantor/
Pass-Through Grantor/
See independent auditors’ report.
See the accompanying note to schedule.
8
Packet Pg. 207
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Note 1: Basis of Presentation
The purpose of the accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the schedule) is to present a summary
of those activities of the City of San Luis Obispo (the City) for the year ended June 30, 2016, which have been financed
by federal awards. For purposes of the schedule, federal awards include all federal grants received directly from the
federal government and sub-awards from nonfederal organizations made under federally sponsored agreements.
Because the schedule presents only a selected portion of the activities of the City, it is not intended to and does not
present either the financial position or changes in net position of the City.
The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards (Uniform Guidance). Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented
in the basic financial statements.
Note 2: Expenditures
For new awards or modifications of existing awards after December 26, 2014, the expenditures reported in the
Schedule follow the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance. For existing awards prior to December 26,
2014, the expenditures follow the cost principles contained in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and
Indian Tribal Governments and Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and
Local Governments (OMB Common Rule). The cost principles indicate that certain types of expenditures are not
allowable and certain allowable costs are limited as to reimbursement.
Note 3: Indirect Cost Rate
The City has not elected to use the ten percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under the Uniform Guidance,
but rather the rates established directly with the respective federal agencies.
9
Packet Pg. 208
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
and Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Section I: Summary of Auditors’ Results
Financial Statements
(a) Type of auditors’ report issued on financial statements: Unqualified.
(b) Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es)identified: Yes. See Finding 2016.100 and 2016.200.
Significant deficiencies identified not considered to be material weaknesses: None reported.
(c)Noncompliance material to financial statements noted: No.
Federal Awards
(d) Internal control over major programs:
Material weakness(es) identified: No.
Significant deficiencies identified not considered to be material weaknesses: None reported.
(e) Type of auditors’ report issued on compliance for major programs: Unqualified.
(f) Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with 2 CFR Section 200.516(a):No.
(g) Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs: $750,000.
(h) Major Programs:
Urban Mass Transportation –Section 9 Capital and Operating Assistance Formula Grants (CFDA Number 20.507)
(i) Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee: No.
10
Packet Pg. 209
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
and Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Page 2
Section II: Findings Relating to the Financial Statements which are Required to be Reported in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
Finding 2016.100: Capital Assets (Material Weakness)
Criteria: Generally accepted accounting principles for state and local governments require governments to report
capital assets, related depreciation and depreciation expense at the fund-financial statement level for proprietary
funds and at the government-wide financial statement level for governmental funds.
Condition:The City has established and follows procedures to ensure that capital asset additions are properly
capitalized, capital asset disposals are properly released, and current year depreciation expense for capital assets are
recorded at the fund and government-wide financial statement level. During the year, the City converted to a new
module in Finance Plus in order to track their capital asset activity. As part of the conversion process, from their
previously used system (Fox Pro), a reconciliation and review was performed to verify the integrity and accuracy of
information which resulted in the identification of historical differences between the capital asset module and the
City’s general ledger.
Effect: Due to these historical errors differences, the prior year financial statements and general ledger did not
properly reflect the City's capital assets. As a result, the City recorded a prior year restatement to each of the
proprietary funds this year, as well as a prior year restatement on the government-wide level, in order to properly
reflect capital assets as of fiscal year-end.The effect was to decrease beginning net position by $399,643 for
Governmental Activities and increase beginning net position by $672,141 for Business-Type Activities for the year
ended June 30, 2015. The majority of the prior year difference was attributable to the Parking Fund. Although
considered immaterial, the remaining differences were applied to all other funds to resolve any historical differences.
Recommendation: We recommend that the capital asset software continue to be maintained and reviewed by
management on a timely basis and any discrepancies between the software and the City's general ledger are timely
reconciled in order to accurately capture depreciation expense and capital activity in the current period.
City Response: The City agrees with this finding. In 2015-16, the City implemented a new capital asset module in its
existing financial software system. This module replaced the previous method of recording capital assets, which was
done by way of a 10+ year old tracking system. In order to convert to the improved method of tracking capital assets,
a reconciliation was performed to properly reflect capital asset beginning balances in the new system. The new
capital asset module significantly improves the accuracy and efficiency of reporting the City’s capital assets. In
addition, the City will continue to monitor any differences between the capital asset module and the City’s general
ledger and adjust as necessary.
11
Packet Pg. 210
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
and Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Page 3
Finding 2016.200: Cash Reconciliations (Material Weakness)
Criteria: Monthly bank reconciliations should be performed and completed, and remaining unreconciled items should
be processed in a timely manner.In addition, voided checks should be applied on or after the date the initial check is
issu ed.
Condition: Although the City performs regular monthly cash account reconciliations, during our testing of cash we
noted each month had an unreconciled balance comprising items that cleared the bank but staff were unable to
identify them and left them unrecorded.The net annual amount of unreconciled items is not material, but there were
instances of monthly net amounts being material. The potential material impact at an individual level is unknown.
In addition, several voided checks were included on the bank reconciliation at June 30, 2016 although the original
check had not been issued. One of these voided checks was material with the initial check issued after year end. The
voided amount was inaccurately added to the June bank reconciliation causing cash and accounts payable to be
overstated by $195,616.
Effect: If bank reconciliations are not properly performed, internal financial reports may not be reliable.Also, the
chance of accounting errors being caught is less likely if the reconciliations are not consistently and timely completed.
It is common for posting errors or other differences to occur in any accounting entity; however, allowing significant
periods of time to pass before identifying and resolving those differences is a fundamental tenant of internal controls.
In addition, if voided checks are recorded in a period prior to when the initial check was issued, cash and the related
accounts will be overstated.
Recommendation: We recommend bank reconciliation procedures be reviewed and revised to ensure monthly
reconciliations are complete and unreconciled items are processed in a timely manner, and to prevent voided checks
from being applied to bank reconciliations before the initial check issuance date.
City Response: The City agrees with this finding. As of June 30, 2016, the City use various systems that interface to
record cash transactions to the City’s general ledger. These systems create inherent bank reconciliation complexities,
such as transaction timing differences and tracking intricacies. This complexity has caused a delay in processing a
timely bank reconciliation. The City underwent a study in 2015-16 with the Governmental Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) to increase efficiencies in the area of bank reconciliations. As such, the Finance Department has hired a
contract accountant in November 2016 and has assigned that position, as part of their duties, to bring the bank
reconciliations current, review the existing reconciliation process, and to ultimately improve the process.
12
Packet Pg. 211
7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
and Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2015
Page 4
Section III: Findings and Questioned Costs for Federal Awards
None.
Section IV: Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs –2014/15
Finding 2015.1: Improper Classification of Revenue –Material Weakness
Finding: During audit testwork it was noted that the City was recording excess development service fee revenues and
transit TDA grant revenues as unearned revenue instead of revenue when received. This resulted in a prior year
restatement to the General Fund and Transit Fund to reduce the unearned revenue liability and increase net position.
In addition, an audit adjustment was required in the General Fund to record development service revenues as current
year revenues rather than unearned revenue.
Recommendation: We recommended that the City record all development service fee revenue and transit TDA grant
revenue as revenue when received and at the point the fee becomes nonrefundable or the grant eligibility
requirements have been met. We also recommended that the City track any unspent development service and grant
revenue that is restricted for specific programs and record the remaining balance in restricted net position. As the
project costs are incurred, the restricted net position would be reduced.
Status: Implemented
13
Packet Pg. 212
7
Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE
CITIES OF ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER BEACH,
MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, AND PISMO BEACH TO JOINTLY
FINANCE AND CONSTRUCT A REPLACEMENT ANIMAL SERVICES
SHELTER
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement in substantial conformance as shown in
Attachment A with the County of San Luis Obispo, and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero,
Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach and Paso Robles to jointly finance and construct the
replacement of an animal services shelter.
DISCUSSION
Under state law, each incorporated City has the option of contracting with the County or
providing their own animal services consistent with the standards outlined under state law. All
seven cities in the County have, in turn contracted with the County for those services. Under this
service contract, all seven cities and the County share the cost of animal services based on a
formula that factors the agencies' proportionate use of field services and shelter services. The
City of San Luis Obispo approved a three-year contract for field services and shelter services at
its June 21, 2016 meeting. Services provided under that contract include: 1) Emergency and
non-emergency response of Animal Services Officers for injured and stray animals 2),
Investigative services for animal bites, abuse, and neglect, 3) Sheltering and quarantine services,
4) Dog licensing, 5) Animal adoption and other services as required either by State law or City
Municipal Code. Capital costs for the replacement of the shelter are not included in the costs
charged to Cities for field services or shelter services.
Background
The County Animal Services Division (“Division”) provides animal field services/ care and
shelter services throughout the unincorporated regions of the county, as well as within each of
the seven incorporated communities. Each city contracting with the Division is assessed an
annual service fee based upon their proportionate use of both field services and animal sheltering
together with the operational costs associated with each of these functions. The City’s current
contract for these services expires in July 2020. Costs charged to the city are $146,307 and are
included in the Police Department’s budget for 2016-2017. The County recently indicated that
these costs are estimated to increase to approximately $175,000 for the 2017 -2018 Fiscal Year
due to operational cost increases and a minor increase in field services by City residents.
The Division operates a single animal shelter to house and care for stray and owner relinquished
animals. This shelter, located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in San Luis Obispo, is the county 's only
open intake animal shelter and receives approximately 4,500 animals annually. Dogs and cats
account for roughly 92% of the animals handled at the shelter with the remainder comprised of a
Packet Pg. 213
8
wide variety of animals ranging from rabbits, alligators, and emus to guinea pigs, monkeys, and
snakes.
Existing Shelter
The Animal Services shelter was constructed in approximately 1975 on a site which had
formerly been a landfill utilized in the 1940's by the US Army and Camp San Luis Obispo. As
initially designed, the structure totaled 6,600 square feet and was intended primarily for the
kenneling of dogs, with less than 38 square feet dedicated to the care and housing of cats; no
accommodations were made for other types of animals. Since then, additional building
modifications were constructed to accommodate dog runs adjacent to the kennels, corrals for
ranch animals, a small structure for cats, night drop-off kennels, an expansion for staff
administration, and renovation for the public lobby.
Current industry standards and public expectations of animal shelters have shifted substantially
and many of the shelter's original design features and characteristics are now outdated or
inconsistent with the current understanding of humane animal sheltering. The consequences of
these design issues relative to their impact on humane animal care are further compounded by
the effects of deferred maintenance, healthy utilization, and harsh environmental conditions.
Over time, roofing leaks have developed, walls and door frames have begun to deteriorate, and
the capacity of electrical and drainage systems have been overloaded. The lack of heating, poor
ventilation, and general facility layout promotes stress, illness, and behavioral problems in
sheltered animals. The austere and unwelcoming environment often discourages the general
public from visiting and is believed to have an adverse impact on adoption and stray reclaim
rates.
In 2010, the County contracted with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates to develop design plans for
Phase I of the remodel. Quickly, it became apparent that the scope of this project exceeded the
available funding and the dog kennel remodel component of the remodel was dropped. The
ability to design a remodel which could be constructed within budget was further complicated by
soil stability and potential methane off-gassing issues resulting from the shelter's location on an
abandoned landfill. During the environmental permitting process, it was determined that a permit
was required through CalRecycle1, adding additional time and cost to the development process.
Since then, the project received a post landfill closure permit through CalRecycle, and a permit
from the Air and Water Quality Control Boards.
In November 2013, the County received five construction bids from contractors· for the Animal
Services Cattery and Lobby Expansion project. Bids ranged between $1,245,200 and $1,382,000.
The lowest bid received exceeded the estimated construction cost or budget by $350,250, which
was 39% above the engineers estimated construction cost. In January 2014, staff recommended
and the Board of Supervisors rejected all bids for the Animal Services Cattery and Lobby
Expansion project. In light of the significant disparities between the project budget, operational
needs, and projected construction costs, the project was reassessed and an effort was made to
identify design modifications and alternative operational measures which might bring
construction costs within budget. During this reassessment, the identification of additional
structural problems, including the development of a large sinkhole directly adjacent to the
1 CalRecycle oversees the permitting of land use or other activities on active or abandoned land fill sites.
Packet Pg. 214
8
building, caused concern that further investment and attempts to rehabilitate the facility would be
fiscally irresponsible.
The County explored a potential partnership with Woods Humane Society to build and operate a
replacement facility. The County concluded the it was infeasible due to a number of factors with
the primary one being that that Woods was not amendable to managing an expansion of services
that they provided to the community. In April 2015, the County Board of Supervisors concluded
based on the totality of factors that remodeling the existing facility would be imprudent,
partnerships unlikely and therefore directed staff to pursue the development of a replacement
facility.
Proposed Shelter and MOA
The Board of Supervisors directed staff to pursue the construction of a new 15,000 square foot
facility (approximate) to fully address the facility needs and implement many of the
recommendations contained in the Humane Society of the United States and (HSUS) and SPA
report (Attachment B-Council Reading File). Further programming was required to define the
proper size for the facility and ultimately landed on the program description that is generally
outlined in Exhibit A to the proposed Agreement.
Staff is recommending the approval of the Agreement as it provides a mechanism to:1) share
costs based on proportionate use 2) clarifies service and shelter governance, and 3) contains
mechanisms to control construction costs and is a most efficient way to const ruct a shelter
consistent with state law and local service preferences and standards.
The issue of governance is a topic that the Cities believed should be a role that the Cities have in
terms of containing costs given the significant investment that each City was making. Moreover,
the timing of the completion of the facility will impact future budgets.
An important issue is one of how to best apportion capital costs associated with the replacement
facility and ensuring that the type of construction selected is the most economically and
efficiently one to meet existing and future needs of the region. Ultimately, through extensive
discussions with the County and Cities, the recommendation was made to distribute all costs for
the proposed shelter based on the proportional use percentage of Shelter use set forth in Exhibit
C of the Agreement.
CONCURRENCES
The Police Department concurs with the recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The County of San Luis Obispo is the lead agency under the California Env ironmental Quality
Act (CEQA). This means that will complete all required environmental review for the project
and the City as a responsible agency relies on the County’s environmental determination to meet
the City’s statutorily required CEQA mandates.
Packet Pg. 215
8
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Agreement would apportion 12.09% of the estimated costs of $13.176 million,
plus a proportional share of $176,033(costs to be shared proportionately by cities only) to the
City of San Luis Obispo based on the average use of the shelter from 2013-2016. This amounts
to an estimated payment of approximately $100,000-$130,000/ year over the next 25 years with
the first year estimated at $186,000. Per the proposed Agreement, this amount could adjust
upward or downward based on a three year look back of actual shelter usage and Staff’s analysis
is that shelter usage has been fairly consistent and that actual future payments will be near the
amount established for the first three years.
Additionally, the Agreement contains cost containment provisions with respect to actual costs
and provides a mechanism to reduce costs or allow a participating City to terminate the
agreement if costs exceed the estimated capital budget of $14.5 million. In the unlikely event
that costs exceed $14.5 million, Staff would return to the City Council for direction. The options
would be to either authorize a change in the Agreement for costs in excess of $14.5 million or
exit the Agreement and pay City’s proportionate share of all costs incurred when the Council
votes to exit. Remaining parties to the agreement would recalculate their ongoing share of costs
and the City would need to provide its own services and shelter. If the Agreement is approved,
the annual payments to the County will be incorporated into the 2017-2019 financial plan.
ALTERNATIVES
The City of San Luis Obispo could choose not to approve the agreement. That would leave the
City in the position of having to provide its own sheltering and field services as required by State
law in early 2020 at its sole expense. These costs are estimated to be significantly higher than
partnering with the other six cities and County. This would mean that the City would not benefit
from the economies of scale of sharing both capital and service costs. St aff has determined that
the City cannot provide its own animal field and shelter services and/or build its own facility for
less than approximately $305,000 2per year.
Attachments:
a - Animal Services Agreement
b - Council Reading File - SPoA Needs Assessment
2 Approximately $175,000 for field and shelter services and $130,000 per year for the proposed shelter capital costs.
Packet Pg. 216
8
Page 1 of 12
AGREEMENT FOR ALLOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING COSTS FOR AN
ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER AT 865 OKLAHOMA AVENUE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO,
CALIFORNIA, BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ATASCADERO, ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER
BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference as of February 1, 2017 (the “Agreement”), is entered into by
and between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (the “County”), and the cities of ATASCADERO,
ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND
SAN LUIS OBISPO (each, a “City,” and collectively, the “Cities,” and, together with the County, the
“Parties”, or individually “Party”).
RECITALS
The County and each of the Cities are parties to a separate but similar Contract for Animal Care and Control
Services (“Services Contract”) effective as of July 1, 2016 and expiring, unless sooner terminated, on June
30, 2019, pursuant to which the County provides animal control services throughout San Luis Obispo
County, including within the jurisdictional boundaries of each of the Cities.
In conjunction with and pursuant to the Services Contract, the County operates an existing Animal Services
Shelter located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in San Luis Obispo, California. Owing to the obsolescence of the
existing shelter, it is necessary to construct a new Animal Services Shelter (“Shelter” or “Project”) as
generally described in Exhibit A, at an address preliminarily identified as 865 Oklahoma Avenue, and as
generally depicted in Exhibit B (“Shelter Property”).
The Parties acknowledge the benefit of collaborative and joint efforts in constructing the Shelter.
The Parties enter into this Agreement to memorialize their participation and corresponding obligations with
regards to the allocation and repayment of the construction and financing costs for the Shelter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals.
The above Recitals are true and correct.
2. Estimated Project Construction Costs.
a) The Project construction costs, excluding the portion of the Oklahoma Ave./Utility Extension costs
to be borne solely by the County, and excluding the County-only costs of the remaining
depreciation value of the existing facility, demolition of the existing facility, and land costs, and
excluding costs to be shared proportionally only by the Cities, for the Shelter are estimated at this
time to be Thirteen Million One Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($13,176,500) as shown in Exhibit D (the “Estimated Project Construction Costs”). The Estimated
Project Construction Costs include expenses for soft costs, such as architectural and engineering
services; County costs for administration, project management service, environmental review,
planning and building fees, and inspections; and hard costs, such as actual construction costs.
b) The Estimated Project Construction Costs shall only include those expenses and costs generally
described above, which are incurred by the County specifically for the Shelter construction project.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary below, the total Project Costs, as defined in Paragraph
5(a) below shall not exceed Fourteen Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($14,500,000)
without a written amendment to this agreement signed by all Parties.
Packet Pg. 217
8
Page 2 of 12
c) The Project will be managed as a “Design / Build” project, as approved by the County of San Luis
Obispo Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2016.
3. Excess Construction Costs
a) Prior to Authorization for Construction to Begin (“Construction Contract”).
(i) If the County receives information in the design or bidding process indicating that the
Estimated Project Construction Costs for the Shelter will exceed $13,176,500 by less than ten
percent (10%), the County shall provide written notice to each member of the Executive Board
(as defined in Section 9(b) below) of the revised estimated construction costs within a
reasonable period of time before such additional construction costs are incurred. The Executive
Board shall either approve or disapprove the additional construction costs, if any, by written
notice to the County, delivered within ninety (90) days after receipt of the County’s notice of
the revised construction costs. If any Executive Board member fails to timely approve in
writing, the Executive Board shall be deemed to have not approved and the County shall
promptly confer with all Cities regarding the additional construction costs and any means by
which such additional construction costs may be minimized.
(ii) If the County receives information as part of the design or bidding process indicating that the
Estimated Project Construction Costs for the Shelter will exceed $14,500,000, the County shall
immediately provide written notice to each City of the revised estimated construction costs
(“Excess Construction Costs”) and confer with the Cities as to whether to authorize the
Construction Contract or reject all bids. Each City shall either approve or disapprove the Excess
Construction Costs resulting in Estimated Project Construction Costs exceeding $14,500,000
by written amendment delivered to the County within ninety (90) days after receipt of the
County’s written amendment. If the decision is to authorize the contract, the County shall
prepare and deliver to the Cities a written amendment to this Agreement amending Section 2(b)
to increase the not-to-exceed amount. If any City fails to timely approve in writing, the City
shall be deemed to have disapproved. Should a City(ies) disapprove the Excess Construction
Costs, the County will immediately confer with all Cities in an attempt to reconcile the
disagreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the measures shall be taken to
reduce the costs below $14,500,000 and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Excess
Construction Costs absent a written amendment to this agreement.
(iii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
b) Authorization for Construction to Begin
(i) Upon County’s authorization for Construction to begin, total costs for the Project including any
incurred or future hard costs, soft costs, contingencies, and other miscellaneous costs related to
Shelter construction will be added to the estimated final construction costs (“Estimated Final
Construction Costs”). The Estimated Final Construction Costs will not exceed the Estimated
Project Construction Costs (or Excess Construction Costs), unless agreed to in writing by all
of the Parties in a written amendment to this Agreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach
agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the costs below $14,500,000 and in no such event
Packet Pg. 218
8
Page 3 of 12
shall the Parties be liable for Excess Construction Costs absent a written amendment to this
agreement.
(ii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
c) After Authorization for Construction to Begin
(i) If the County becomes aware, after its authorization for Construction to begin, that the costs of
construction will exceed the Estimated Final Construction Costs due to unforeseen or other
conditions, the County shall provide written notice, to each City of the revised estimated
construction costs within a reasonable period of time before such additional construction costs
are incurred. Each City shall either approve or disapprove the additional construction costs, if
any, by written notice to the County, delivered within ninety (90) days after receipt of the
County’s notice of the revised construction costs. If any City fails to timely approve in writing,
the City shall be deemed to have not approved and the County shall promptly confer with all
Cities regarding the additional construction costs and any means by which such additional
construction costs may be minimized. No additional construction costs shall be incurred that
exceed $14,500,000 without a written amendment signed by all the Parties. Should the Parties
be unable to reach agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the costs below $14,500,000
and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Excess Construction Costs absent a written
amendment to this agreement.
(ii) If a City chooses to not participate in the shelter construction at that time, the City is allowed
to withdraw from this agreement and pay its proportionate share of all costs incurred as of the
date of withdrawal. The date of withdrawal shall be defined as the date that written notice is
received by the County of the City's desire to withdraw due to Excess Construction Costs
beyond amounts previously agreed. The County will recalculate future payments of the
remaining Parties using revised percentages of shelter use with the methodology in Section
6(a).
4. Financing
a) County Advance of Funds. The County shall advance funds required to pay for the costs of
construction of the Shelter. The County intends to finance the funds it advances, including County
in house soft costs.
i) County Sole Discretion as to Financing Terms. The County, at its sole discretion, shall
determine financing terms based on market rates and terms available at the time of financing.
The anticipated financing interest rate is estimated to be between 3.5%-5%, based on a 25-year
term, see Exhibit D. The County may finance the Estimated Final Construction Costs (hard,
soft, design, etc.) for the Shelter in addition to customary out of pocket costs to obtain
financing, if any. The County may choose to provide in-house financing, provided the interest
rate charged to the Cities does not exceed commercially available rates for like projects and
terms of financing are equal to or more favorable to Cities than terms otherwise available to
the County.
(1) The County will provide notification to the Shelter Executive Board of its intentions
regarding external or in-house financing at least 30 days prior to taking action on
Packet Pg. 219
8
Page 4 of 12
financing. Said notification will include final estimates of financing costs and anticipated
interest rates.
(2) Should the Cities desire to have costs identified as “Costs Shared Proportionally by Cities
Only” in Exhibit D included in any financing, the Cities shall provide written notification
to the County by October 31, 2017. Should all Cities fail to provide written notice, the
“Costs Shared Proportionally by Cities Only” will be proportionally allocated to each of
the Cities as shown in Exhibit C and billed accordingly, with a payment due date of
January 1, 2018.
ii) Estimated Project Financing Costs. The financing costs are estimated to range from $7,556,392
to $11,618,328, as shown in Exhibit D, depending on the applicable interest rate and whether
there are out of pocket costs to obtain financing (collectively “Estimated Project Financing
Costs”). If the actual interest rate is higher or lower than that estimated on Exhibit D, the actual
financing costs will vary.
5. Total Estimated Project Costs/Total Project Costs.
a) The Estimated Final Construction Costs and the Estimated Project Financing Costs are jointly
referred to as the Total Estimated Project Costs. Once the Shelter has been constructed and
financed, the County will prepare a final cost summary of the actual construction and financing
costs incurred by County in connection with the Shelter, excluding any costs that this Agreement
expressly provides shall be excluded from the calculation, to establish the total project costs and
annual repayment schedule based on the financing. Upon request, a City may review back up
material for the summary. After review and adjustment (if any) of the final cost summary by all
Parties, the approved final cost summary shall be known as the Total Project Costs. No City shall
unreasonably delay or disapprove the Total Project Costs.
6. Allocation of Total Project Costs.
(a) Allocation Based on Percentage of Shelter Use. Each Party shall pay its share of the Total Project
Costs, based on the annual repayment schedule associated with the financing. Each Party’s share
shall be based upon that individual Party’s percentage of shelter use. Shelter use is defined as the
number of shelter services (impounds, quarantines, animal surrenders, confiscations, euthanasia
requests, etc.) originating from, or requested by, an individual Party’s jurisdiction and/or its
residents. Each Party’s share shall be determined annually by the County as part of their normal
record keeping processes. The individual Party’s shelter use percentage shall be calculated using
the total number of shelter services allocated to an individual Party over the preceding three full
fiscal year periods, divided by the total number of all shelter services provided to all Parties over
the same preceding three full fiscal year periods.
%𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑟𝑒=( 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦#𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟1 +𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 2 +𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 3 )
(𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙#𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 +𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 2 +𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 #𝑆�𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣�ℎ𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 3)
Exhibit C indicates the percentage of each Party's actual use of the existing Animal Services shelter
for the Fiscal Years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Adjustments to each Party’s annual allocation
of Total Project Costs shall be adjusted annually based on the previous 3-year trailing average of
the percentages of shelter use.
b) Reallocation in the Event of Withdrawal or Termination. In the event that a Party withdraws or
terminates under Section 8 below, the allocation of each Party’s share of Total Project Costs shall
be adjusted upward for the remaining parties for the subsequent calendar year. The annual
calculation and any associated adjustments shall be made by December 31st of each year and shall
be due on July 1st of the next fiscal year.
Packet Pg. 220
8
Page 5 of 12
7. Use of Shelter
a) The Shelter shall only be used as an Animal Services facility. No other County department or
agency or other person or entity shall use any portion of the Shelter without the prior written consent
of the Operations Committee (as defined in Section 9 (a) below). Such use shall be accompanied
by the payment of an appropriate rental charge.
8. Termination and Withdrawal
a) Withdrawal Prior to Authorization of Construction/Payment of Allocation of Soft Costs.
i) Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement prior to County’s authorization of the
Construction to begin by giving a minimum of one (1) year’s written notice to all Parties and
by payment of its share, based on the allocation set forth in Section 6, above, of costs incurred
by County prior to date of receipt of notice of withdrawal. Notice shall be deemed received on
the date of personal delivery, or if mailed by U.S. mail, five (5) days after date of mailing.
Such costs shall be reasonably determined by County and a majority of the Parties of the
Executive Board, excluding any Party(ies) electing to withdraw. Any withdrawing Party shall
pay its share by the effective date of its withdrawal. A withdrawing Party who withdraws prior
to October 31, 2017 shall not be required to pay any portion of financing costs, regardless of
whether outside financing or in -house County financing is ultimately provided. Any payment
of soft or hard costs by a withdrawing Party shall be deleted from the amount to be financed.
The County will recalculate future payments of the remaining Parties using revised percentages
of shelter use with the methodology in Section 6(a).
b) Withdrawal After Construction Begins /Payment of Allocation.
i) Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement after the County’s authorization of construction
begin, by providing a minimum of one (1) year’s written notice to all of the other Parties and
prepaying its entire allocation of the Total Project Costs by the effective date of its withdrawal.
If a Party withdraws from this Agreement prior to October 31, 2017, any estimated financing
costs shall be deducted from the Total Project Costs before calculating the withdrawing Party’s
Total Project Costs share. If County provides in-house financing, any finance or interest charge
accruing or payable after the withdrawal shall be deducted from the Total Project Costs before
calculating the withdrawing Party’s share of the Total Project Costs. Withdrawal from the
Agreement shall be effective as of December 31 of the year stated in the written notice. The
County will recalculate future payments of the remaining Parties using revised percentages of
shelter use with the methodology in Section 6(a).
c) The County shall not terminate a City’s access to or use of the Shelter if the City is not in default
of its payment obligations. For the purposes of this Agreement, a City shall be deemed to be in
default if said City is sixty (60) calendar days or more in arrears o n any payment required under
this Agreement.
(i) Should the County desire to terminate a City’s access or use of the Shelter for default of its
payment obligations, the County shall include any non-defaulted Cities, at the non-defaulted
Cities’ sole discretion, in negotiations with the defaulted City, prior to their termination.
(ii) The County shall retain final decision authority to terminate any City’s access to or use of the
Shelter for default of said City’s payment obligations.
9. Animal Shelter Operations
a) An Operations Committee comprised of the County’s Health Agency Director or his/her designee
and a subset of City Managers or their designees shall be formed. At their sole discretion, all Parties
may be represented on the Operations Committee.
Packet Pg. 221
8
Page 6 of 12
b) An Executive Board composed of the County Administrative Officer (CAO) and a subset of the
City Managers (2-3) for each of the Cities, or their designees, shall consider significant policy or
budget changes and make recommendations prior to policy implementation or budget adoption for
the Shelter.
c) The Executive Board meetings shall be held as needed and in conjunction with the existing monthly
City Manager/CAO meeting. At a minimum, “Animal Services” shall be a standing item that is
considered twice in a calendar year. While any Party may request that “Animal Services” be added
to the agenda of any City Manager/CAO monthly meeting, it will be the responsibility of the chair
of the meeting to ensure Animal Services is placed on the agenda and satisfies the minimum number
of meetings required by this Agreement.
d) If the City Managers’ recommendation is different from that of the CAO on budget or policy
matters, the County shall include the City Managers’ recommendation in any related staff report to
the Board of Supervisors and provide a summary of the nature of any disagreement.
e) Final policy and budgetary authority for Shelter operations reside with the County Board of
Supervisors.
f) Future Services Contracts shall be for 3-year terms.
g) If a City chooses to provide its own field services, it must provide to all Parties, a one (1) year’s
written notice of its intent to provide its own services and to terminate, or (if applicable) not to
renew, its Services Contract with the County, except as otherwise expressly provided in its Services
Contract with the County,
h) Service Contracts shall be separate from the Parties’ obligations to finance and pay their
proportional and allocated shares of Total Project Costs for the Shelter.
i) The County’s repayment obligation of its share of the Total Project Costs shall not be included in
the calculation of the Shelter’s operating costs. The County shall charge no rent for the Shelter or
Shelter Property or otherwise attempt to obtain compensation from the Cities for those items
identified in Appendix D as “County Only Costs”.
j) Any City shall have the ability to provide its own separate field services. The costs for accessing
the Shelter shall be reasonably determined by the County after consulting with the Executive Board
and shall only be for the fair share reasonable operating costs for Shelter operations.
k) Any City that elects to not participate in Shelter Total Project Costs shall immediately cease as a
Party to this Agreement and the County shall not be required to provide any animal services to such
City. Such City shall be required to provide its own animal services and shelter, in accordance with
all applicable laws and statues, effective on a date mutually agreed to by the City and the County.
If the City and the County are unable to mutually agree to a date, termination will be effective upon
the expiration of the City’s existing Service Contract or the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued
for the new Shelter, whichever occurs first.
10. Animal Shelter Planning
a) The Parties agree to form an ad-hoc value engineering team consisting of up to three (3) City
representatives and a minimum of two (2) County representatives. City representatives shall fully
participate with the County to assist with investigating and identifying the most effective and efficient
methods to construct a Shelter that meets all Parties’ existing and future animal service’s needs. The
value engineering team shall meet as needed and provide input with architects, designers, construction
managers, and engineers during the development of plans and specifications for the Shelter.
b) Prior to the authorization of the Construction Contract, the Executive Board shall be presented
project plans and estimated budgets, and provide a recommendation that will be included in the
CAO staff report to approve the contract by the Board of Supervisors.
Packet Pg. 222
8
Page 7 of 12
11. Effective Date
a) Except as set forth above, this Agreement shall be effective for the period from January 5, 2017
until each Party has made the last payment required under Section 6 or, if applicable, Section 8, of
this Agreement
12. Entire Agreement
a) This is the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the Project and supersedes any prior
written or oral agreements with respect to the Project. In the event of a conflict between the terms
of this Agreement and the Services Contract, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
13. Assignability
a) Except as otherwise expressly provided for herein, no Party shall assign any of its obligations or
rights hereunder without the written consent of all Parties.
14. Notices
a) Any notices required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be
mailed to all Parties to the Agreement, directed to the County Administrative Officer and County
Counsel, and to the City Manager or City Administrative Officer and City Attorney of each City.
15. Audit
a) The Cities may inspect and/or audit all records and other written materials used by County in
preparing the Total Project Costs and annual invoices to each City.
16. Good Faith Efforts
a) The Parties shall each act in good faith in performing their respective obligations as set forth in this
Agreement and shall work diligently to maintain their longstanding cooperative relationships.
17. Amendment
a) This Agreement may only be amended in writing, signed by all Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by their execution below, the Parties agree to be bound to the obligations stated
herein, and the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO has authorized and directed
the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors to execute this Agreement for and on behalf of the County,
and the Cities of ATASCADERO, ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO
ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO have caused this Agreement to be subscribed by
each of their duly authorized officers and attested by their Clerks.
Dated: _______________ COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
_____________________ ____________________________
Clerk of the Board
Dated: _______________ CITY OF ATASCADERO
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Packet Pg. 223
8
Page 8 of 12
Dated: _______________ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF GROVER BEACH
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF MORRO BAY
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF PASO ROBLES
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF PISMO BEACH
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Packet Pg. 224
8
Page 9 of 12
EXHIBIT A
Animal Services Facility
The quantities listed below were derived from a review of the existing Animal Services facility, the 2010
"Needs Assessment, Feasibility, and Building Program Study" by Shelter Planners of America, and
meetings with Animal Services Manager Eric Anderson.
Building Floor Area: 16,000 square feet
Outdoor Runs: 3,000
Incinerator, Cold Storage: 2,000
Sally Port, Truck Wash, Truck Parking (8 trucks): 4,200
Disaster Response Equipment: 1,200
Visitor Parking (15 spaces): 5,300
Staff Parking (20 spaces): 7,000
Large Animal Pens: 27,000
Subtotal: 65,700
Additional 20% for Circulation, Landscaping: 13,140
TOTAL: 78,840 square feet
Packet Pg. 225
8
Page 10 of 12
EXHIBIT B
865 Oklahoma Ave
Packet Pg. 226
8
Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT C
(Number of Shelter Service Provided)
Cities City Name 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total Percent
Full Yr. Full Yr. Full Yr.
1 Arroyo Grande 286 7% 427 11% 291 8% 1,004 8.39%
2 Atascadero 476 12% 600 15% 643 17% 1,719 14.37%
3 Grover Beach 167 4% 142 4% 135 4% 444 3.71%
4 Morro Bay 126 3% 143 4% 118 3% 387 3.23%
5 Paso Robles 724 18% 734 18% 792 21% 2,250 18.81%
6 Pismo Beach 57 1% 61 2% 54 1% 172 1.44%
7
San Luis
Obispo 482 12% 486 12% 479 12% 1,447 12.09%
99 Unincorporated 1,745 43% 1,464 36% 1,332 35% 4,541 37.96%
4,063 4,057 3,844 11,964 100.00%
Packet Pg. 227
8
Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT D
Packet Pg. 228
8