The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-21-2017 Agenda Packet Tuesday, February 21, 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 TO REVIEW A COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY PREPARED TO INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE OF CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES (JOHNSON/CARLONI – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Hold a study session and receive a presentation on the draft results of the user and regulatory fee study prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; and 2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding recommended fees and any changes to current policies or practices; and 3. Direct staff to perform outreach to interested parties consistent with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual; and 4. Return on April 18, 2017, with a resolution to implement new cost of service fees as directed by the City Council. NOTE: The Closed Session will take place in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, California 93401. Packet Pg. 1 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Katie Lichtig, Christine Dietrick, Nickole Sutter Represented Employee Organizations: None Unrepresented Employees: Unrepresented Management Employees Unrepresented Confidential Employees ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 3 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Mayor, Dan Rivoire 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). St aff 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 JANUARY 3, 2017 (GALLAGHER) Recommendation Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of January 3, 2017. Packet Pg. 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 4 4. ADOPTION OF A RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A. (STANWYCK/MUDGETT) Recommendation As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt a Recreation Partnership Agreement between the City and the San Luis Obispo County Y.M.C.A. 5. ADOPTION OF SLO TRANSIT’S REVISED TITLE VI PLAN 2017-2020 (GRIGSBY/ANGUIANO) Recommendation Adopt SLO Transit’s Title VI Plan for 2017-2020. 6. AMGEN TOUR OF CALIFORNIA (JOHNSON/CANO/SETTERLUND) Recommendation Receive and file the report regarding the Amgen Tour of California bike race coming through the City on May 16, 2017, and the plans to accomplish this using City staff resources to be reimbursed by the event. 7. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3063-PHASE 1, 3987 ORCUTT ROAD (TR/ER 114-14) (CODRON/DOSTALEK) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution 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)” authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement, Private Drainage Easement Agreement and a Restrictive Covenant for Open Space. 8. PROJECT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE EVALUATION (JOHNSON/HILL) Recommendation Receive and file the Project Plan for Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation. Packet Pg. 4 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 9. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3095 AND ASSOCIATED EXCEPTIONS, TREE REMOVALS, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO CREATE 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO DETENTION BASIN LOTS, AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS ON THE IMEL RANCH PROPERTY WITHIN THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WHICH TIERS OFF THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (3777 ORCUTT ROAD) (CODRON/SCOTT 45 MINUTES) Recommendation As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting an Initial Study- Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 and granting exceptions for height on lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 (limited to 27 feet), road design, rear yard setbacks (limited to lots 6, 8, 9 and 10), and grading and development of access, drainage, and stormwater facilities within the creek setback (SBDV/ER-2586- 2016)” authorizing approval of the project and associated grading, improvements, and tree removals. 10. 2017 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM (DIETRICK 30 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing the City Legislative Action Platform for 2017 and appointing the Council Member and staff person to act as liaison between the City of San Luis Obispo and the League of California Cities”; and 2. Provide direction to staff on the scope and application of the legislative platform related to advocacy for non-legislative items or particular projects; and 3. Appoint the Mayor, City Attorney and City Manager to act as the primary legislative liaisons between the League of California Cities and the City of San Luis Obispo. Packet Pg. 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 6 11. 2016-17 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW (LICHTIG/BRADFORD/STECK 30 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Receive and discuss an update of changes in the financial position as referenced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year attachment sections A and B based on revised projections for all funds for the 2016-17 fiscal year, and 2. Receive an update on Status of Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives as referenced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year attachment Section C. 12. GENERAL FUND FIVE-YEAR FISCAL FORECAST: 2017-22 (BRADFORD/STECK 45 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Review and discuss the results of the General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast for 2017- 22; and 2. Concur with the Activation of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan. 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 The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Packet Pg. 6 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 7 LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100. Packet Pg. 7 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 8 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW A COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY PREPARED TO INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE OF CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES. RECOMMENDATION 1. Hold a study session and receive a presentation on the draft results of the user and regulatory fee study prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; and 2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding recommended fees and any changes to current policies or practices; and 3. Direct staff to perform outreach to interested parties consistent with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual; and 4. Return on April 18, 2017, with a resolution to implement new cost of service fees as directed by the City Council. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Fiscal Responsibility and Responsibility Goal adopted in the 2015-2017 Financial Plan include an action to update the City’s user and regulatory fees 1. Additionally, the City’s user fee recovery goals (Financial Plan Section H) call for the City to review and update service charges approximately every five years to adjust to changes in the cost -of-living and changes in methods/levels of service delivery (Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals). As such, the City contracted with NBS Government Finance Group to review and update the City’s user and regulatory fees (commonly known as cost of service fees) which include development review, inspection and approval fees as well as fees charged for recreational classes, sport programs, and public safety services. The study does not include review of development impact fees (AB 1600 Fees) which are under review in a separate effort. The City’s user and regulatory fee recovery goals indicate cost recovery amounts dependent upon types of projects/programs. Based on the current policy, Development Review related programs (e.g service fees in planning, building and safety, engineering, fire departments) should generally have very high cost recovery (100% in most instances) and programs in Parks and Recreation are divided into tiers (low, mid, high) dependent on the activities and users (see discussion in “cost recovery goals” below). All fees are recommended to recover up to 100% of costs, per current cost recovery goals, with the exception of Parks and Recreation fees, fees established by statute or applicable administrative code, and some of the planning fees associated with entitlements that are commonly requested by homeowners as well as those with potential community-wide benefit (see “key changes” below). The draft fee schedule with staff recommended cost recovery levels is provided in Attachment B. 1 Adjust existing fees per Council policy and in accordance with User Cost Recovery Goals Packet Pg. 9 1 The draft results of the user and regulatory fee study are provided in Attachment C, NBS Fee Study. The study indicates that, currently, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services and that if the City Council adopts all fees at 100% cost recovery, $912,000 in additional revenue could be recovered for a total of $5,168,397. Staff is not recommending 100% cost recovery. If the City Council adopts fee levels at staff’s recommended cost recovery rates, $691,000 in additional revenue could be recovered for a total of $4,947,470; a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. This total increases to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and Recreation Departments estimated recovery of $170,000 in costs if the City Council adopts fees at staff recommended fee levels (see Attachment D, Parks and Recreation Agenda Report). The “cost recovery and recommended fee changes” section of this report provides further detail about why 96% and not 100% of cost recovery is recommended. Attachment B includes a draft fee schedule showing existing fees compared to fees at staff recommended fee levels. At recommended levels, approximately 205 fees are shown to increase (147 increasing by less than 50%), 64 fees are shown to decrease, and 47 fees are shown to remain the same. This report includes questions to facilitate City Council discussion and direction regarding the recommended fees and changes to current policies or practices (fee recovery percentage and timing of collection of Planning application fees are two examples). The direction provided by the City Council and ultimate adoption of a revise d fee schedule will inform budget development for the 2017-19 Financial Plan. DISCUSSION Background The City’s user fee recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H), call for the City to review and update service charges on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living and changes in methods or levels of service delivery2. State law generally provides that fees for services cannot exceed the reasonable actual costs for providing services. In implementing this provision, the City has adopted the goal of comprehensively analyzing service costs at least every five years, with interim adjustments annually based on changes in the consumer price index. Building Department cost of service fees were last updated in 2011 and will be updated as part of a separate study in the future. The last comprehensive cost of services study was performed in 2006 and implemented in 2008. In September 2016, the City contracted with NBS Government Finance Group and initiated the process to review and update the City’s user and regulatory fees (Planning, Development Review Engineering, Public Works, Fire, Police, Utilities, Parks & Recreation, and General administrative services like business license processing). User and Regulatory Fee Study - Overview The focus of the study is on fees charged for service (User and Regulatory fees) and does not include review of development impact fees (AB 1600 Fees) which are also under review in a separate effort. User fees are charges collected for a service provided or required due to the request or voluntary action of an individual/entity, while regulatory fees are imposed to recover 2 Implementation of a specific Other Important Objective of the 2015/17 Financial Plan which indicates to complete a comprehensive analysis of city costs and fees every five years. Packet Pg. 10 1 costs associated with a local government agency’s power to govern certain activities. Examples of common types of regulatory fees charged include: development review; inspection, and approval (planning, engineering, fire, and building). User fees are recreational classes and community sports programs; and public safety services, such as fingerprinting or a California Fire Code or hazardous materials permit. User and regulatory fees may not exceed the estimated and reasonable costs incurred to provide the service for which the fee is charged with the exceptions as provided in the attached NBS report. Project Scope The following is a summarized list of fees for each City department or program studied: 1. General administrative services, including: a. Business License processing and renewal b. Returned check processing c. Special requests for GIS services. 2. Community Development services, including: a. Planning & Zoning - entitlement and permit approvals, b. Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing c. Support to Building plan review 3. Public Works Department services, including a. Tree maintenance and removal b. Support to Planning entitlement review c. Support to Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing d. Construction field inspection for improvements projects 4. Utilities services, including: a. Meter installation and removal, account set up and disconnect b. Lateral installation and abandonment c. Support to Planning entitlement review d. Support to Engineering plan review and construction inspection e. Support to Building plan review 5. Fire Prevention services, including: a. Hazardous occupancy permits b. Non-mandated and required inspections c. Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA) d. Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection e. Support to Planning entitlement review f. Support to Engineering plan review g. Support to Building plan review and field inspection h. Fire sprinkler and suppression systems 6. Police services, including: a. Various administrative processing fees such as vehicle impound and release, alarm permits, taxi permits, etc. b. Support to Planning Entitlement Review 7. Recreational facilities, services, classes, programs and permits Packet Pg. 11 1 Cost Recovery Goals (Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals) The City’s user fee cost recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H) provide cost recovery levels for Parks & Recreation Activities as well as Development Review Programs. Adopted Council cost recovery goals for recreation activities (Subsection G) indicate that cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high, and those directed to youth/seniors should be relatively low (except that cost recovery should be higher where services are similar to those provided in the private sector). Cost recovery goals for Parks & Recreation activities are provided below. Currently Adopted Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Goals Low Range 0 to 30% Mid-Range 30-60% High-Range 60-100% Aquatics Community Gardens Junior Ranger Camp Minor Film Permits Skate Park Special Events Youth Sports STAR Teens Senior/Boomer Services Contract Classes Major Film Permits Adult Sports Banners Child Care Facility Rentals Triathlon Golf Development Review Programs include review from planning, building and safety, engineering, and fire and the policy indicates cost recovery for development review programs should generally be very high; 100% cost recovery in most instances. Additionally, adopted cost recovery policy goals include factors to be considered in setting user fees and cost recovery levels which include 1) community-wide versus special benefit, 2) service recipient (e.g. the community) versus service driver (e.g. the applicant), 3) effect of prici ng on the demand for services, 4) feasibility of collection and recovery (more detail provided in subsection B of Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals). The goals also include circumstances favoring high cost recovery and low cost recovery levels, and indicates the importance of considering the fees charged by other agencies to aid in assessing the reasonableness of fees. Summary of Findings and Recommendations To determine the maximum estimated/reasonable cost eligible for recovery as a fee, the study identifies the full cost of service eligible for recovery and those costs are translated into a fee structure for various programs and services. Determination of the full cost of service uses expenditure and organizational information with time-tracking data, time estimates, and workload information. The full cost of service is derived for each service or activity, and includes labor, services or supplies, and various types of operational overhead costs. The user and regulatory fee study prepared by NBS is provided in Attachment C. NBS’s study methodology is discussed in detail in section 1 and department by department discussions are provided in sections 2 through 9. A draft fee schedule showing existing fees compared to fees at staff recommended fee levels is provided in attachment B. At recommended levels, Packet Pg. 12 1 approximately 205 fees are shown to increase (147 increasing by less than 50%), 64 fees are shown to decrease, and 47 fees are shown to remain the same. The following is a summary table from the report of results for each service area studied: Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery %1 Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100% Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95% Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98% Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100% Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99% Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89% Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81% Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96% 1. Recovery at greater than 100% generally indicates a change in time spent on a project in previous years vs. time spent on the same type of project currently; less time spent on a given task reduces the cost of providing that service. Example: process improvements or computer system enhancements make certain tasks faster. Note: The Parks & Recreation Departments’ fee review estimates $1,810,000 in annual revenues at recommended fee levels. An additional $170,000 is costs could be recovered, bringing the total estimated revenues at recommended fee to $5,117,470. As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services. Should the Council elect to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined by this study, an additional $912,000 in costs could be recovered for a total of $5,168,397. As discussed above, the City has cost recovery goals, which guide decisions about the ultimate fee amounts adopted. All fees are recommended to recover at 100% per cost recovery goals with the exception of Parks and Recreation, fees established by statute or applicable administrative code, and some of the Planning fees as discussed in the next section. As such, staff has provided initial recommended fee amounts for consideration. If Council elects to adopt fee levels at staff’s initial recommendations, $691,000 in additional revenue, above current recovery levels, could be recovered, for a total of $4,947,470; a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. The total increases to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and Recreation Departments estimated recovery of $170,000 in costs at recommended fee levels. Packet Pg. 13 1 Key Changes Approximate Number of Fee Increases/Decreases by Range 1. Cost Recovery and Recommended Fee Changes The proposed fee schedule is provided in Attachment B and shows for each fee the total cost of service, the current fee, and the staff recommended fee. All fees are recommended to recover at 100% per cost recovery goals with the exception of Parks and Recreation (discussed below), fees established by statute or applicable administrative code (mainly the Police Department), and some of the Planning fees. Staff is recommending less than 100% cost recovery for planning entitlements commonly requested by homeowners (e.g. fence height exceptions, administrative approvals) as well as those with potential community-wide benefit (e.g. historic preservation projects). The rationale is that this fee level will promote objectives such as historic preservation and general compliance with applicable development standards. Cost Recovery for Parks and Recreation As noted above, Parks & Recreation user fees are guided by adopted policy, actual costs, and market comparisons. Section 9 of the fee study report discusses NBS’s methodology for reviewing Parks & Recreation department fees based on Proposition 26. For Recreation fees, NBS performs a high-level cost analysis to assist in understanding cost recovery performance and in developing cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis at + Each bubble represents the approximate number of proposed fee changes within each department by range; bubble size corresponds to number of fee changes (i.e. for Planning, 13 fees are proposed to increase within the 0 to 20% range and 14 fees are proposed to increase within the 75-100%+ range. In Parks and Recreation, 32 fees are proposed to remain the same). Finance Planning Engineering Utilities Fire Police Parks & Rec + Packet Pg. 14 1 the individual fee level. As such, Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, lead an analytic exercise in developing detailed costs for Parks and Recreation activities based on the number of users, number of hours of use, and other details to derive specific costs associated with Parks & Recreation activities. In reviewing the City’s rates of cost recovery for parks and recreation fees, most were found to be in or near the adopted policy range (discussed in “cost recovery goals” above). Overall, the proposed adjustments to these fees are reflective of multiple inputs including anticipated increased costs associated with California’s upcoming increases to minimum wage, consistency with existing policy, and market tolerances. The results of these efforts are discussed in detail in the attached Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report (Attachment D). The Parks and Recreation Department estimates $1,810,000 in annual revenues at recommended fee levels; recovering an additional $170,000 in costs. On February 1, 2017 the Parks & Recreation Commission held a study session on this topic. The Commission reviewed the costs of services for Parks & Recreation user fees. The Commission supported, as presented, the proposed adjustments to the Parks & Recreation user fees and cost recovery policies. Last, the Commission supported staff returning at a future meeting date with a project plan regarding how to analyze costs associated with club sports using City facilities for youth activities. A few policy adjustments were supported by the Commission as well and they are reflected in bold/orange below. On February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee reviewed in a study session the facility use charges associated with the Jack House. The Committee is recommending a change to the Jack House Gardens wedding and reception fee to make it comparable with the Dalidet Adobe (current fee: $757, proposed fee: up to $3,400). The Jack House Committee’s discussion is summarized in Attachment F. Cost Recovery for Planning Entitlements and “Split Fee” calculation (also see “removal of development review surcharge” below) Implementation of the City’s 100% cost recovery objective for planning entitlements is currently a two-step process. A 100% cost recovery fee is calculated, with 45% collect ed at time of planning application submittal and the other 55% expected to be collected at Packet Pg. 15 1 the time of building permit issuance. This “split fee” collection process has been used for many years and has helped projects defer costs until the building permit stage when there is a more tangible, financeable project. This methodology is recommended to remain in place and is illustrated in the below tables. The “removal of development review surcharge” section below discusses NBS’s recommendation to remove an Engineering, Fire, and Planning surcharge that is currently placed on construction permits to recover costs associated with each departments’ time spent reviewing planning projects and engineering/building permits. These costs are now recommended to be more directly accounted for/recovered in the specific application fee in which the cost was incurred (e.g. Engineering’s service cost associated with an architectural review planning application is added to the total cost of the architectural review application fee). The proposed collection methodology is to recover 25% of each departments’ service costs during the planning entitlement phase of the project and to recover the remaining 75% when the project is submitted for a construction permit; a cost recovery of 100% of the cost of service as shown below. Cost Recovery for Fire Department In 2005 the City Council passed an ordinance that authorized the City to collect fees to cover the costs of the State mandated inspections of multi-family dwelling units (apartments, hotels, fraternity/sorority). At that time the Council recommended less than Architectural Review (Minor) Planning (100%) $ 2,770 Other Depts. (100%) $ 1,333 Engineering $ 273 Building $ 281 Fire $ 212 Utilities $ 250 Transportation $ 222 Arborist $ 95 Total Cost of Service $ 4,103 Note: The table at left indicates the total cost of service for a Minor Architectural Review Project: $4,103. Planning Entitlement Phase Planning (45%) $ 1,247 Other Depts. (25%) $ 333 Engineering $ 68 Building $ 70 Fire $ 53 Utilities $ 63 Transportation $ 56 Arborist $ 24 Arch Review (Minor) Fee $ 1,580 Note: The above table indicates the recommended total planning application fee for a Minor Architectural Review Project: 1,580 (45% of Planning’s cost of service and 25% of the Other Departments’ cost of service) Building Permit Phase Planning (55%) $ 1,524 Other Depts. (75%) $ 1,000 Engineering $ 205 Building $ 210 Fire $ 159 Utilities $ 188 Transportation $ 167 Arborist $ 71 Collected with Building Permit $ 2,523 Note: The above table indicates the remaining planning application fee recommended to be collected when the example project is submitted for a building permit: $2,523 (remaining 55% of Planning’s cost of service and 75% of the Other Departments’ cost of service) Packet Pg. 16 1 full cost recovery for hotels/motels, fraternity/sorority, and no fees for public or subsidized housing units. This resulted in an approximate 75% cost recovery of about $300,000 in 2006. In 2007, after input from apartment owners, the Council further reduced the recovery rate, dropping the per unit fee from $50/unit to the current $28/per unit fee, while letting stand the $65/property administrative fee (see Attachment G, Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series)). There were no provisions made for annual cost increases. The Fire Department currently recovers approximately $194,000 from this program. Had there been an annual cost adjustment, as there are with other fees, the fee recovery would be close to what the proposed Fee Study recommends. As such, the Fire Department recommends that the fee be adjusted consistent with City policies to provide for full cost recovery. The rationale that hotels, motels, fraternity and sorority house don’t take as long because, in most instances, they have maintenance staff on duty has shown over the last 10 years not to be the case. The fees established in this proposed study is based on the actual time it takes to complete an inspection and assure that all violations are corrected. 2. Removal of Development Review Surcharge The current fee schedule includes a surcharge on building permits to recover costs associated with services provided by certain departments during the planning entitlement and construction permitting phases of a project (e.g. Engineering reviews and conditions projects during Planning entitlement review and also reviews plans during the construction permit phase; the surcharge recovers the costs associated with Engineering’s time spent during these phases). These surcharges, collected by the Building Department, are added to all construction permit and plan check fees that require Engineering Division, Planning Division, and Fire Department review and inspection (surcharges are 15%, 44%, and 21.5% respectively). NBS has advised staff that this surcharge methodology does not directly associate costs collected with a building permit to the same project that received a planning entitlement. NBS recommended this methodology be replaced by direct cost accounting associated with all departments that provide support to Planning during the entitlement phase and Engineering/Building during the permitting phases of the project. Staff provided time estimates by entitlement and permit type and the consultant calculated fees based on each divisions hourly rate. 3. Appeal Fees Appeals of planning entitlements such as architectural review, use permits, and subdivision applications are set at a flat fee of $281. The cost recovery goals do not specifically address cost recovery levels associated with appeals except that development appeals are associated with development review projects which are generally cost recovered at 100% in most instances. Additionally, it appears the appeal fee was established in 2009 with the previous user and regulatory fee study. The Council Agenda Report at that time indicated an intention to establish an appeal fee such that potentially meritorious appeals were not discouraged. Packet Pg. 17 1 Staff worked with NBS to revise the flat fee methodology and create a tiered approach to better associate an appeal fee with the labor time spent per project. As such, appealable projects were divided into four tiers by project type and staff labor time estimates were assigned to each tier, yielding a cost of service per tier as shown below. The Planning Division recommends a 25% cost recovery rate which is within the range of appeal fees charged by compared agencies (Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo appeal range from $200 to $850). Staff seeks Council guidance on this new fee structure for appeals. Current Appeal Fee TOTAL Cost of Service Recommended Appeal Fee Recommended Cost Recovery % Tier 1 e.g. Tentative Tract Map/Arch Review $ 281 $ 3,114 $ 779 25% Tier 2 e.g. Variance/Use Permits $ 281 $ 1,730 $ 433 25% Tier 3 e.g. Fence Height Exception $ 281 $ 1,211 $ 303 25% Tier 4 e.g. Home Occupation Permit $ 281 $ 519 $ 130 25% 4. Comparative Fee Survey The City’s user fee cost recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H) indicate the need to consider fees charged by other agencies (subsection I). Subsection I.1 indicates that these comparisons provide useful background information in setting fees because they reflect the “market” to assist in assessing reasonableness of fees and can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo provides its services. Additionally, subsection I.2 goes on to note that comparative fee surveys should never be the sole/primary criteria in setting City fees due to factors such as dissimilar levels of service/performance standards, differing costs considered in computing fees, and different cost recovery goals. Appendix B of NBS’s fee study report provides a comparative review of the City’s recommended fees compared to current fees in five other communities (Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo). Review of the comparative study indicates that recommended fees are generally within the average of fees charged for similar services in the other communities, as summarized in the below table. San Luis Obispo Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, SLO County Current Fee Recommended Fee High Range Low Range Administrative Use Permit $ 879.00 $ 1,012.00 $ 1,936.00 $1035 +$550 per exception Tentative Tract Map (Subdivision) $9,228 +$235/lot 5-10 lots: $10,773 11-20 lots: $14,422 $ 18,405.00 $ 4,242.00 Architectural Review (ARC) $ 2,924.00 $ 4,364.00 $ 9,220.00 $ 3,050.00 Final Map (Tract Map) base fee $ 12,226.00 $ 13,883.00 Time & Materials $ 1,372.00 Construction Inspection ($100k - $500k value) base fee $ 17,105.00 $ 8,769.00 $ 9,800.00 $ 2,514.00 Packet Pg. 18 1 CONCURRENCES All appropriate City departments have been extensively involved in providing information including budget information, staffing information, and time estimates to the consultant. All requisite departments have also performed extensive review of draft fee models provided by the consultant and have reviewed and commented upon the final report. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT The Parks and Recreation Fees were reviewed at a public Parks and Recreation Commission hearing on February 1, 2016. As part of public engagement for that meeting public notice posters were emailed, placed on the City’s website and social media pages, and hard copies were posted in public locations. On February 16, 2017, staff will be presenting the fee study to the Developers Round Table to discuss proposed fee changes and obtain feedback. As indicated in “next steps” below, staff will perform additional outreach at the end of February and through March in order to review and discuss the proposed fee changes and obtain additional feedback from interested parties including but not limited to Residents, Neighborhood Groups, Chamber of Commerce, Economic Vitality Corporation, Homebuilders Association, and other interested public parties. Outreach will be in the form of in-person meetings and an Open City Hall page on the City’s website. FISCAL IMPACT There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this review of the study findings. As discussed in the summary section above, the City is currently recovering 82% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services. If the City Council elects to adopt initial recommended fee amounts by staff an additional $691,000 in costs could be recovered (96% cost recovery); totaling $4,947,470 and increasing to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and Recreation Departments estimated recovery of $170,000 in costs at recommended fee levels. If the City Council elects to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined by the study, $912,000 in costs could be recovered; totaling; $5,168,397. NEXT STEPS Upon receiving direction from the City Council, staff will perform additional outreach to interested parties in order to review and discuss the proposed fee changes and obtain additional public feedback, consistent with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. Outreach will include in-person meetings as well as an Open City Hall page including a narrated PowerPoint presentation and opportunity for written feedback. On March 2, 2017, the Parks and Recreation staff will return to the Parks and Recreation Commission to review a project plan regarding how to analyze recreational costs associated with club sports using City facilities for youth. Packet Pg. 19 1 On April 18, 2017 staff will return to the City Council in response to direction provided on February 21, 2017 with a resolution to adopt an updated fee schedule. FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council direction to help guide the City Council in their deliberations: Questions for City Council direction Yes No Are cost recovery levels appropriate? Are recommended fees reasonable? 1. Are proposed cost recovery policy changes (Parks and Recreation) supported? 2. Are applications (other than Parks and Recreation) that collect at less than 100% supported? (e.g. “homeowner fees” or community benefit fees: administrative approvals, fence height exceptions, non-profit events, historic preservation projects) 3. Is the Fire Departments recommended 100% cost recovery for multi- family dwelling unit inspections supported? Is split fee calculation supported? 1. Continued “split fee” calculation for Planning entitlements (45% collected with planning entitlement + 55% collected with building permit submittal) 2. Use of modified “split fee” calculation for departments providing support on Planning entitlements (25% collected with planning entitlement + 75% collected with building permit submittal) Is appeal fee methodology supported? 3. Tiered methodology with 25% cost recovery Packet Pg. 20 1 Attachments: a - City Cost Recovery Goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H) b - Draft Fee Schedule c - NBS Draft Fee Study (appendices in council reading file) d - Parks and Recreation Agenda Report – February 1, 2017 e - DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Hearing – February 1, 2017 f - Jack House Committee Summary Recommendation g - Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series) h - Council Reading File - NBS Fee Study with Appendices Packet Pg. 21 1 %8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6 BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES C.Current Revenues for Current Uses.The City will make all current expenditures with current revenues, avoiding procedures that balance current budgets by postponing needed expenditures, accruing future revenues, or rolling over short-term debt. D.Interfund Transfers and Loans.In order to achieve important public policy goals, the City has established various special revenue, capital project, debt service and enterprise funds to account for revenues whose use should be restricted to certain activities. Accordingly, each fund exists as a separate financing entity from other funds, with its own revenue sources, expenditures and fund equity. Any transfers between funds for operating purposes are clearly set forth in the Financial Plan, and can only be made by the Director of Finance & Information Technology in accordance with the adopted budget. These operating transfers, under which financial resources are transferred from one fund to another, are distinctly different from interfund borrowings, which are usually made for temporary cash flow reasons, and are not intended to result in a transfer of financial resources by the end of the fiscal year. In summary, interfund transfers result in a change in fund equity; interfund borrowings do not, as the intent is to repay the loan in the near term. From time-to-time, interfund borrowings may be appropriate; however, these are subject to the following criteria in ensuring that the fiduciary purpose of the fund is met: 1. The Director of Finance & Information Technology is authorized to approve temporary interfund borrowings for cash flow purposes whenever the cash shortfall is expected to be resolved within 45 days. The most common use of interfund borrowing under this circumstance is for grant programs like the Community Development Block Grant, where costs are incurred before drawdowns are initiated and received. However, receipt of funds typically occurs shortly after the request for funds has been made. 2. Any other interfund borrowings for cash flow or other purposes require case-by-case approval by the Council. 3. Any transfers between funds where reimbursement is not expected within one fiscal year shall not be recorded as interfund borrowings; they shall be recorded as interfund operating transfers that affect equity by moving financial resources from one fund to another. E.Revenue Enhancement Oversight.The Essential Services Transactions and Use Tax ordinance includes specific citizen oversight and fiscal accountability provisions. They include creation of a Revenue Enhancement Oversight Committee, accounting and tracking expenditures, an independent annual financial audit, integration of the use of funds in the City’s budget and goal setting processes, an annual community report, and an annual citizen oversight meeting. USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS A.Ongoing Review.Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in methods or levels of service delivery. In implementing this goal, a comprehensive analysis of City costs and fees should be made at least every five years. In the interim, fees will be adjusted by annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. Fees may be H-6 Packet Pg. 22 1 %8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6 BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES adjusted during this interim period based on supplemental analysis whenever there have been significant changes in the method, level or cost of service delivery. B.User Fee Cost Recovery Levels.In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the following factors will be considered: 1.Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit. The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the community-wide versus special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general-purpose revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services that are of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups. 2.Service Recipient Versus Service Driver. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of the service, the concept of service recipient versus service driver should also be considered. For example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate. 3.Effect of Pricing on the Demand for Services. The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices. Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact the delivery of services to lower income groups. This negative feature is especially pronounced, and works against public policy, if the services are specifically targeted to low income groups. 4.Feasibility of Collection and Recovery. Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery may be appropriate for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to identify and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of assessing and collecting charges should also be considered in developing user fees, especially if significant program costs are intended to be financed from that source. C.Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels. Low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the following circumstances: 1. There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received. Almost all "social service" programs fall into this category as it is expected that one group will subsidize another. 2. Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient delivery of the service. 3. There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most "social service" programs fit into this category as well as many public safety (police and fire) emergency response services. Historically, access to neighborhood and community parks would also fit into this category. 4. The service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand" or emergency basis, cannot reasonably be planned for on an individual basis, and is not readily available from a private sector source. Many public safety services also fall into this category. H-7Packet Pg. 23 1 %8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6 BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES 5. Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements and adherence is primarily self-identified, and as such, failure to comply would not be readily detected by the City. Many small- scale licenses and permits might fall into this category. D.Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels. The use of service charges as a major source of funding service levels is especially appropriate under the following circumstances: 1. The service is similar to services provided through the private sector. 2. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service. 3. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received. 4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or false alarms might fall into this category. 5. The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit, plan checks, and subdivision review fees for large projects would fall into this category. E.General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges.The following general concepts will be used in developing and implementing service charges: 1. Revenues should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service. 2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service, including direct costs, departmental administration costs and organization-wide support costs such as accounting, personnel, information technology, legal services, fleet maintenance and insurance. 3. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection. 4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to smaller, infrequent users of the service. 5. A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various programs based on the factors discussed above. F.Low Cost-Recovery Services.Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should have low cost recovery goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the broad scope of services provided that should have user charges associated with them. However, the primary source of funding for the operation as a whole should be general-purpose revenues, not user fees. 1. Delivering public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression. 2. Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community-wide basis such as streets, parks and general-purpose buildings. H-8 Packet Pg. 24 1 %8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6 BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES 3. Providing social service programs and economic development activities. G.Recreation Programs.The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs: 1. Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high. 2. Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels should be higher. Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high- levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status. 3. Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows: High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%) a. Adult athletics b. Banner permit applications c. Child care services (except Youth STAR) d. Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses) e. Triathlon f. Golf Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%) g. Classes h. Holiday in the Plaza i. Major commercial film permit applications Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%) j. Aquatics k. Batting cages l. Community gardens m. Junior Ranger camp n. Minor commercial film permit applications o. Skate park p. Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza) q. Youth sports r. Youth STAR s. Teen services t. Senior/boomer services 4. For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that: H-9Packet Pg. 25 1 %8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6 BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES a. The fee is reducing attendance. b. And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance. 5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak times and include a majority of non-resident users. 6. A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations using City facilities for moneymaking activities. 7. Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation programs or resurrect existing ones. 8. The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager determines in writing that an undue hardship exists. H.Development Review Programs.The following cost recovery policies apply to the development review programs: 1. Services provided under this category include: a. Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, rezonings, general plan amendments, variances, use permits). b. Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections). c. Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements, encroachments). d. Fire plan check. 2. Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high. In most instances, the City's cost recovery goal should be 100%. 3. However, in charging high cost recovery levels, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is “value for cost.” I.Comparability With Other Communities.In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other agencies in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communities provides useful background information in setting fees for several reasons: a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the reasonableness of San Luis Obispo’s fees. H-10 Packet Pg. 26 1 %8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6 BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo provides its services. 2. However, fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as there are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example: a. What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our cost recovery objectives? b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees? c. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated? d. What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance standards? e. Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to achieve? 3. These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different communities. As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one factor among many that is considered in setting City fees. ENTERPRISE FUND FEES AND RATES A.Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the total direct and indirect costs—including operations, capital outlay, and debt service—of the following enterprise programs: water, sewer and parking. B.Transit. Based on targets set under the Transportation Development Act, the City will strive to cover at least twenty percent of transit operating costs with fare revenues. C.Ongoing Rate Review.The City will review and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as required to ensure that they remain appropriate and equitable. D.Cost of Service Fees.The City will treat the water and sewer funds in the same manner as if they were privately owned and operated. This means assessing reasonable cost of service fees in fully recovering service costs. The purpose of the cost of service fee is reasonable cost recovery for the use of the City’s services such as street rights-of-way and public safety. The appropriateness of charging the water and sewer funds a reasonable cost of service fee for the use of City streets is further supported by the results of studies in Arizona, California, Ohio and Vermont which concluded that the leading cause for street resurfacing and reconstruction is street cuts and trenching for utilities. H-11Packet Pg. 27 1 )HH1R)HH'HVFULSWLRQ &XUUHQW)HH 'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG 3ODQQLQJ $SSOLFDWLRQ )HH'HSRVLW ;ϰϱйƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͬϮϱй KƚŚĞƌĞƉƚƐͿ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acket Pg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p8VHU3HUPLW 6LGHZDON&DIp8VH)HHSHUVTXDUHIRRWSHUPRQWK >@ 3UH$SSOLFDWLRQ :LWKVLWHYLVLW %OXH&DUG,QVSHFWLRQ >@ 'HYHORSPHQW$JUHHPHQW$SSOLFDWLRQ)HH >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV Packet Pg. 29 1 5HLPEXUVHPHQW$JUHHPHQW >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV %8/,',1*3/$15(9,(:6833257 5HVLGHQWLDO 0LQRU 0RGHUDWH 0DMRU >@ &RPPHUFLDO 0LQRU 0RGHUDWH 0DMRU >@ [Notes] >@ A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the regular fee. >@ Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee . >@ Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule >@ Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of California >@ Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original fee amount, per Department policy >@ See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16) >@ Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions. Packet Pg. 30 1 (1*,1((5,1*68%0,77$/)((6 ,PSURYHPHQW3ODQ&KHFN Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) IODWIHHXSWR each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 &RQVWUXFWLRQ,QVSHFWLRQ Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) IODWIHHXSWR each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 EDVHIHH# each add'l $10,000 )LQDO0DSV 3DUFHO0DS5HVLGHQWLDO=RQHORWVRU/HVV 3DUFHO0DS&RPPHUFLDO=RQHORWVRUOHVV 3OXVSHUORWRUFRPPRQLQWHUHVWXQLW 7UDFW0DSEDVHIHH 3OXVSHUORWRUFRPPRQLQWHUHVWXQLW &HUWLILFDWHRI&RPSOLDQFHRU)LQDO/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQW$JUHHPHQW /RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQWV &HUWLILFDWHVRI&RPSOLDQFH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH&XUUHQW)HH 'HSRVLW)HH5HFRPPHQGHG)HH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ Packet Pg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aximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases )LEHU,QIUDVWUXFWXUH3URWHFWLRQ)HHSHU&DOO 7UDIILF&RQWURO3ODQ5HYLHZ 5HJXODU &RPSOH[>@ 7UDIILF&RQWURO3ODQ,QVSHFWLRQ 0LQRUILUVWGD\ HDFKDGGLWLRQDOGD\ 0DMRUILUVWGD\ HDFKDGGLWLRQDOGD\ WKDQGVXEVHTXHQWSODQUHYLHZSHUVXEPLWWDO 3XEOLF,PSURYHPHQW3ODQV %XLOGLQJ3ODQV 0DSV$GGLWLRQDO'RFXPHQWV %8,/',1*6833257 6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRISULYDWH SDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUHDQGLQFOXGHDQ\ FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHVSDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJ DFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJGUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWK WKH&LW\ VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\VWDQGDUGV 6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH Packet Pg. 32 1 1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO )LQDO,QVSHFWLRQ$SSURYDO%OXHFDUG6LJQRII 6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH 1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO )ORRG=RQH$QDO\VLV 0LQRU9HULILFDWRLQRQO\ 0DMRU1HZ6XEVWDQWLDO5HPRGHO$QDO\VLV'RFXPHQWDWLRQ 3RVW&RQVWUXFWLRQ5HTXLUHPHQWV6WRUPZDWHU,QVSHFWLRQ ,PSHUYLRXV6TXDUH)RRWDJH 1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO 'UDLQDJH5HSRUW)ORRG6WXG\%UHDGWKRI6WXG\ 0LQRU 0DMRU [Notes] >@ A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the regular fee. >@ Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee . >@ Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule [4] Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of California [5] Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original fee amount, per Department policy [6] See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16) [7] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions. Packet Pg. 33 1 38%/,&:25.668%0,77$/)((6 75((0$,17(1$1&( 7UHH6KUXE+D]DUGRXV$EDWHPHQW ĐƚƵĂůŽƐƚ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acket Pg. 34 1 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO 'UDLQDJH5HSRUW)ORRG6WXG\%UHDGWKRI6WXG\ 0LQRU 0DMRU 5HYLHZRI0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV&RQGLWLRQVDQG7,)V [Notes] [1] Amounts are set by 2010 Ordinance, NBS did not review [2] Cost of tree and plaque are separate fees in addition to this fee, at $50 and $20 respectively [3] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions. Packet Pg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otes] [1] Water And Sewer Service Rates Are Adopted By Council [2] 1 Unit = 748 Gallons [3] Fees for hardware Charged at Actual Cost [4] Plus Meter Cost [5] Set by City Ordinance. NBS did not evaluate [6] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and other materials required to provide services [7] Calculated at OT rate for each additonal hour of service required after normal business hours beyond 2 hours [8] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions. ),5('(3$570(17 +$=$5'2862&&83$1&<3(50,76 >@ $LUFUDIW5HIXHOLQJ9HKLFOHV $LUFUDIW5HSDLU+DQJDU )HH&XUUHQW)HH 'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ)HH&XUUHQW)HH 'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ Packet Pg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acket Pg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ŽƚĞů͕DŽƚĞů͕ĞĚΘƌĞĂŬĨĂƐƚ Packet Pg. 38 1 8QLWV 8QLWV 8QLWV 8QLWV ^ŽƌŽƌŝƚǇĂŶĚ&ƌĂƚĞƌŶŝƚǇ ŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐ 8SWR8QLWV 8QLWV 8QLWV 8QLWV 27+(5),5()((6 +\GUDQW)ORZ7HVW)LUVW+\GUDQW +\GUDQW)ORZ7HVW(DFK$GGLWLRQDO+\GUDQW 5HLQVSHFWLRQ)HHFRQVWUXFWLRQ %RDUGRI$SSHDOV (PHUJHQF\&DOO2XW1RQ6FKHGXOHG $IWHU+RXUV&DOO2XW6FKHGXOHG [Notes] [1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at highest permit fee, plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use. [2] Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not required for review in this study [3] A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs reviewed ilt l[4] Fees are punitive in nature and do not require a cost of service analysis. [5] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule, NBS did not study [6] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations. [7] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code[8] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels, etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst all owners. )LUH'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV 1(:&216758&7,21$'',7,216$1'0$-255(02'(/6 &RPPHUFLDO8VHV6WUXFWXUDO$OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRU VWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHV FODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDO RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH 6FKHGXOH 6TXDUH)RRWDJH EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW Packet Pg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acket Pg. 40 1 $WWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\DQG8WLOLW\8VHV$OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUXWLOLW\DQG DFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS8RURWKHU XWLOLW\DQGDFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH 6TXDUH)RRWDJH EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVI!VILQFUHPHQW 'HWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\DQG8WLOLW\8VHV$OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUXWLOLW\DQG DFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS8RURWKHU XWLOLW\DQGDFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH 6TXDUH)RRWDJH EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVI!VILQFUHPHQW 6KHOO%XLOGLQJVIRUDOO&RPPHUFLDO8VHV7KHHQFORVXUHIRUDOO QHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQ UHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0 RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOHZKHUHWKHLQWHULRULVQRWFRPSOHWHG RURFFXSLDEOH 6TXDUH)RRWDJH EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVI!VILQFUHPHQW Packet Pg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acket Pg. 42 1 'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ6LQJOH)DPLO\'ZHOOLQJVDQG 'XSOH[HV 6TXDUH)RRWDJH EDVH FRVWSHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVI!VILQFUHPHQW 'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ$WWDFKHGRU'HWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\ DQG8WLOLW\8VHV 6TXDUH)RRWDJH EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVI!VILQFUHPHQW 6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRI SULYDWHSDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUH DQGLQFOXGHDQ\FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHV SDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJDFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJ GUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH&LW\ VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\ VWDQGDUGV 6TXDUH)RRWDJH EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUVLQFUHPHQW EDVHFRVW SHUVI!VILQFUHPHQW ),5(635,1./(5$1'68335(66,216<67(06 ,VVXHGE\%XLOGLQJDQG6DIHW\ )LUH6SULQNOHU6\VWHPV1HZ,QVWDOODWLRQ +HDGV +HDGV Packet Pg. 43 1 +HDGV +HDGV (YHU\+HDGVDERYH )LUH$ODUP6\VWHP1HZ,QVWDOODWLRQ 'HYLFHV 'HYLFHV (YHU\'HYLFHVDERYH 6SULQNOHU0RQLWRULQJ6\VWHP )LUH6SULQNOHU6\VWHPV7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW +HDGV +HDGV +HDGV +HDGV (YHU\+HDGVDERYH )LUH$ODUP6\VWHP7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW 'HYLFHV 'HYLFHV (YHU\'HYLFHVDERYH 6SULQNOHU0RQLWRULQJ6\VWHP 2WKHU6XSSUHVVLRQ6\VWHPV ,QVHUW*DV6\VWHPV 'U\&KHPLFDO6\VWHPV :HW&KHPLFDO.LWFKHQ+RRG )RDP6\VWHPV 3DLQW6SUD\%RRWK 27+(50,6&(//$1(286)((6 $OWHUQDWLYH0HWKRGDQG0DWHULDO5HYLHZ ([SHGLWHG3ODQ5HYLHZ)HH >@ [Notes] >@ 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use. >@ A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs reviewed simultaneously. >@ Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations. >@ These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code >@ Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not required for review in this study >@ Includes average cost for vehicle staffing. Equipment rates will be added separately by department >@ Expedited fees set on a City policy basis at overtime rate for City staff or outsourced consultant costs as needed [8]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions. Packet Pg. 44 1 32/,&('(3$570(17 3URFHVVLQJFKDUJHIRUUHWXUQRISURSHUW\WDNHQIRUVDIHNHHSLQJ 3URFHVVLQJ PDLQWHQDQFHIHH Ϭй &OHDUDQFH/HWWHUV >@ Ϭй &LYLO6'7 >@ Ϭй &ULPLQDO6'7 >@ &LYLO6XESRHQD >@ Ϭй &RQFHDOHG:HDSRQV3HUPLWVHWE\SHQDOFRGH ,QYHVWLJDWLYHFRVWVDQGSHUPLWSURFHVVLQJ Ϭй 5HQHZDO Ϭй 0DVVDJH)DFLOLW\3HUPLW ͲϮϳй 0DVVDJH7HFKQLFLDQ,QLWLDO3HUPLW ϲϮй 0DVVDJH7HFKQLFLDQ3HUPLW5HQHZDO ϱϲй /RFDO5HFRUG,QIRUPDWLRQ >@ Ϭй ,PSRXQG9HKLFOH5HOHDVHGD\LPSRXQGϭй 9HKLFOH7RZ5HOHDVH)HH Ͳϭй 5HFRUGVHDOLQJIHHVHWE\SHQDOFRGH'HWHUPLQHGE\ )LQDQFH'LUHFWRU 'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH 'LUHFWRU 3URSHUW\'DPDJH2QO\&ROOLVLRQV,QYHVWLJDWLRQV SHUSDUW\SHUQRQLQMXU\WUDIILFFROOLVLRQLQYHVWLJDWLRQUHSRUW ϴϱй $GPLQLVWUDWLYH,QYHVWLJDWLRQV 'HWHUPLQHGE\ )LQDQFH'LUHFWRU 'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH 'LUHFWRU 6ROLFLWRU3HUPLWV ,QLWLDO,QYHVWLJDWLRQV ͲϮϱй )ROORZXSUHTXLUHG 'HWHUPLQHGE\ )LQDQFH'LUHFWRU $GPLQLVWUDWLYH&LWDWLRQV >@ Noise Violation, Urination in Public and/or Open Alcohol Container )LUVWFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQH[FHSWRSHQFRQWDLQHUϬй )LUVWFLWDWLRQRSHQFRQWDLQHUϬй 6HFRQGFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ Ϭй 7KLUGFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ Ϭй &RVW5HFRYHU\3URJUDPV '8,&RVWUHFRYHU\'HWHUPLQHGE\ )LQDQFH'LUHFWRU 'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH 'LUHFWRU 1XLVDQFHDEDWHPHQW 'HWHUPLQHGE\ )LQDQFH'LUHFWRU 'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH 'LUHFWRU $ODUP3HUPLWV&LW\SURFHVVLQJFRVWQHWRIFRQWUDFWRU SD\PHQW >@ 3HUPLW Ϯй 5HQHZDO Ϯй ([FHVVLYHDODUPV >@ 7KLUG Ϭй )RXUWK Ϭй)HH&XUUHQW)HH 'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ Packet Pg. 45 1 )LIWK Ϭй 6L[WK Ϭй 6HYHQWK 0RUH Ϭй 6HFRQG5HVSRQVH&RVW5HFRYHU\'HWHUPLQHGE\ )LQDQFH'LUHFWRU 'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH 'LUHFWRU 7D[L3HUPLW 3HUPLWIHH ϴϴй 3HUPLW5HQHZDOIHH ϭϰϱй (OHFWURQLF*DPH&HQWHU3HUPLW ϳй 3XEOLF'DQFH3HUPLW ϭϭй 7REDFFR/LFHQVH)HHSHUORFDWLRQ Ϯϴй /LYHVFDQ >@ &LW\3URFHVVHG 9ROXQWHHU3URFHVVHG 0RELOH)RRG9HQGRU/LFHQVH Ͳϭϳй 3/$11,1*6833257 $GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLWEDUVQLJKWFOXEV [Notes] >@ Fee set by penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis >@ Fee set by CA evidence code 1563, Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis >@ Access through the Discovery Order process, Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis >@ Fee set by statute (GC 68097.2). Statute increased fee in 2013-14, Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis >@ Fee limited b penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis >@ Set by Municipal Code, punitive in nature and excluded from cost analysis. >@ City fee only. DOJ fee charged separately. >@ City's current fee is $36. Amount reduced to evaluate City cost of providing services. Per contract agreement, additional 15% should be added to City fee as a pass through to the contractor. Unless set by Statue or Penal Codes, fees are increased annually by CPI (done by Finance dept.) Packet Pg. 46 1 <RXWK6HUYLFHV 6XQ1)XQ5HJLVWUDWLRQ)HH 7%' 6FKRRO<HDUKRXUO\RSWLRQϭϯй 7HDFKHU:RUN'D\Ϯϱй /DWH5HJ7:' :HHNO\5DWH 6SULQJ%UHDN&DPS:HHNO\2SWLRQ ϯй /DWH5HJ6SULQJ%UHDN:HHNO\ :HHNO\5DWH 'DLO\2SWLRQ ϮϮй /DWH5HJ6SULQJ%UHDN'DLO\ :HHNO\5DWH 6XPPHU&DPS5HJLVWUDWLRQ )HH ZHHN )XOOZHHN&DUH2SWLRQ ϵй 6XPPHU6FKRRO2SWLRQ7%' 'D\5DWH2SWLRQ ϭϬй )LHOG7ULS6LJQ8SV /DWH5HJLVWUDWLRQ)HH Ϭй 6/27HHQV$QQXDO)HH ϱϬй 6SHFLDO(YHQWV $TXDWLFV /DS6ZLP$GXOWSHUXVH Ϭй $GXOW0RQWKO\Ϭй <RXWK6HQLRUSHU Ϭй <RXWK6HQLRUPRQWKO\Ϭй 5HFUHDWLRQDO6ZLP$GXOWSHUXVH ϭϳй <RXWK6HQLRUSHU ϮϬй 6ZLP6FULSW$GXOW SHUXVH Ϭй <RXWK6HQLRUSHU Ϭй 5HFUHDWLRQDO6ZLP6FULSW$GXOWSHUXVH ϭϳй <RXWK6HQLRUSHU ϮϬй /HVVRQV ϰϮй 3ULYDWH/HVVRQV ϯϰй 6SHFLDO&ODVVHV/LIHJXDUG Ϭй :DUP:DWHU([HUFLVH ϯϯй )DFLOLW\8VH GD\/* GD\/* -XQLRU/LIHJXDUG3URJUDP Ϭй 5HFUHDWLRQDO6SRUWV $GXOW6RIWEDOO 7HDPV ϴй ,QVWUXFWLRQDO&ODVVHV 3HUFHQW&KDQJH5HFRPPHQGHG)HH )HH&XUUHQW)HH 'HSRVLW 3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ )HH'HVFULSWLRQ Packet Pg. 47 1 $GXOW6HQLRU <RXWK 6SHFLDO(YHQWV 7ULDWKORQ ,QGLYLGXDO ϳй 7HDP ϳй 3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ6SRQVRUHG(YHQWV 6SHFLDO(YHQW$SSOLFDWLRQ SDUNRQO\ HQFURDFKPHQW %DQQHU3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQ,QVWDOODWLRQ ϭϬй )LOP$SSOLFDWLRQ)HH6WLOO3KRWRJUDSK\ϲй &RPPHUFLDO ϱй 1RQ3URILW ϲй 'HVWLQDWLRQ0DUNHWLQJ 3HUPLW)HH ϱϬй 0LVVLRQ3OD]D)XOO 3OD]D ϮϮй )XOO3DUN8VH Ϭй +DOI3DUN8VH Ϭй ,QGRRU)DFLOLWHV /XGZLFK&RPPXQLW\&HQWHU$VVHPEO\5RRP1RQ3URILWϴй $VVHPEO\5RRP)RU3URILWϱй *\PQDVLXP1RQ3URILWϲй *\PQDVLXP)RU3URILWϱй .LWFKHQ1RQ3URILWϵй .LWFKHQ)RU3URILWϲй )ORRU&RYHUV ϳй )XOO)DFLOLW\8VH+RXUVϲй 6HQLRU&HQWHU0DLQ5RRPQRQSURILWϴй 0DLQ5RRP)RU3URILWϱй &RQIHUHQFH5RRP1RQ3URILWϳй &RQIHUHQFH5RRP)RU3URILWϱй 0HDGRZ3DUN%XLOGLQJ1RQ3URILW ϳй )RU3URILW ϱй &LW\&RXQW\/LEUDU\&RPPXQLW\5RRP1RQ3URILWϴй &RPPXQLW\5RRP)RU3URILWϱй &RQIHUHQFH5RRP1RQ3URILWϳй &RQIHUHQFH5RRP)RU3URILWϱй 2XWGRRU)DFLOLWLHV %%43LFQLF$UHDVϱй -DFN+RXVH*DUGHQV:HGGLQJDQG5HFHSWLRQ ϯϰϵй 3DUW\$WWHQGDQFHKRXU1$ 8QGHU3HU+RXU 1$ 3HU+RXU 1$ 3HU+RXU 1$ 7DEOH&KDLU5HQWDO ,QFOXGHG 6RIWEDOO)LHOGV+RXUO\)LHOG8VH Ϭй Packet Pg. 48 1 /LJKW)HH Ϭй 0XOWL8VH&RXUWV+RXUO\8VH ϭϬй /LJKW)HH 1$ 7HQQLV 9ROOH\EDOO&RXUWV)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\'D\ϲй 'DPRQ*DUFLD)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\'D\Ϭй )XOO8VH)DFLOLW\+RXUϬй )XOO8VH/LJKW)HH+RXUϬй 0DLQWHQDQFH)HH Ϭй &RQFHVVLRQ6WDQG5HQWDO Ϭй /RZHU)LHOGV)DFLOLW\8VH'D\Ϭй /RZHU)LHOGV)DFLOLW\8VH+RXUϬй /RZHU)LHOGV/LJKW)HH Ϭй 6LQJOH)LHOG)DFLOLW\8VH'D\Ϭй 6LQJOH)LHOG)DFLOLW\8VH+RXUϬй 6LQJOH)LHOG/LJKW)HH Ϭй %DVHEDOO6WDGLXP+RXUO\)LHOG8VH Ϭй /LJKWV Ϭй 3UHVVER[5HQWDO Ϭй )LHOGSUHS Ϭй &RQFHVVLRQ6WDQG5HQWDO Ϭй )DFLOLW\3HUPLW3URFHVVLQJ)HH ϱϬй %RXQFH+RXVH ϱй 3RUWDEOH%%4 ϯй &RPPXQLW\*DUGHQV \U SHUVTIW \USHUVT IW 5DQJHUV -XQLRU5DQJHU&DPS ϱй *ROI &DUW5HQWDO SHUVRQ SHUVRQ 3XOO&DUWV FDUW FDUW 5RXQGV0RQGD\7KXUVGD\5HJXODUϭϴй 0RQGD\7KXUVGD\6QU<WK6WX0LOϭϭй )ULGD\6XQGD\5HJXODUϭϳй )ULGD\6XQGD\6QU<WK6WX0LOϭϬй 5HSOD\ϰй 2II3HDN07K305HJXODUϭϬй 2II3HDN07K306QU<WK6WX0LOϭϭй 7ZOLJKWDIWHU30ϯй )DPLO\5DWH Ϯϱй 6XSHU7ZOLJKW Ϭй 3OD\&DUGV5HJXODUϭϴй 3OD\&DUGV6QU<WK6WX0LOϲй Packet Pg. 49 1 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 951.296.1998 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide User Fee and Rate Study DRAFT Final Report February 9, 2017 Packet Pg. 50 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo Prepared by NBS TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Report Format ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals .......................................................................................... 3 Scope of Study ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4 Cost of Service Analysis.................................................................................................................... 4 Fee Establishment ............................................................................................................................. 6 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 7 Comparative Fee Survey ...................................................................................................................... 8 Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 2 – Finance Administrative Fees ............................................................................................. 10 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 10 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 10 Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees ...................................................... 12 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 12 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 13 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 14 Section 4 – Community Development – Engineering Development Review Fees ........................ 15 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 15 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 16 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 16 Section 5 – Public Works Fees .............................................................................................................. 18 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 18 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 19 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 19 Section 6 – Utilities Fees ......................................................................................................................... 21 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 21 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 21 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 22 Packet Pg. 51 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo Prepared by NBS TOC Section 7 – Fire Department – Fire Prevention Fees ......................................................................... 23 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 23 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 24 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 24 Section 8 – Police Fees ........................................................................................................................... 26 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 26 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 26 Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 26 Section 9 – Parks & Recreation Department ....................................................................................... 28 Impacts of Proposition 26 on Recreation Fees Analysis ................................................................ 28 Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 29 Section 10 – Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 30 Appendices Cost of Service Analysis (Fee Tables) Finance Appendix A.1 Community Development - Planning Appendix A.2 Community Development - Engineering Appendix A.3 Public Works Appendix A.4 Utilities Appendix A.5 Fire – Hazardous Occupancy Permits and Annual Inspections Appendix A.6 Fire – Development Review Appendix A.7 Police Appendix A.8 Development Review – Comprehensive Cost and Recommended Fee Chart Appendix A.9 Comparative Fee Survey Finance Appendix B.1 Development Review - Planning Appendix B.2 Development Review - Engineering Appendix B.3 Public Works Appendix B.4 Utilities Appendix B.5 Fire – Hazardous Occupancy Permits and Annual Inspections Appendix B.6 Fire – Development Review Appendix B.7 Police Appendix B.8 Packet Pg. 52 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 1 Prepared by NBS Executive Summary Purpose NBS performed a User Fees and Charges Study (Study) for the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The purpose of this report is to describe the Study’s findings and recommendations, which intend to defensibly update and establish user and regulatory fees for service for the City of San Luis Obispo, California. California cities impose user fees and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through provisions of the State Constitution. First, cities may perform broad activities related to their local policing power and other service authority as defined in Article XI, Sections 7 and 9. Second, cities may establish fees for service through the framework defined in Article XIIIC, Section 1. Under this latter framework, a fee may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity. For a fee to qualify as such, it must relate to a service or activity under the control of the individual/entity on which the fee is imposed. For example, the individual/entity requests service of the municipality or his or her actions specifically cause the municipality to perform additional activities. In this manner, the service or the underlying action causing the municipality to perform service is either discretionary and/or is subject to regulation. As a discretionary service or regulatory activity, the user fees and regulatory fees considered in this Study fall outside requirements for imposition of taxes, special taxes, or fees imposed as incidences of property ownership. The City’s chief purposes in conducting this Study were to ensure that existing fees do not exceed the costs of service and to provide an opportunity for the City Council to re-align fee amounts with the adopted cost recovery policies. Outcomes This Study ex amined user and regulatory f ees m anaged by the following City departm ents and program s: Finance, Development Services, Public Works, Utilities, Fire Prevention, and Police. The Study identified approxim ately $4.3 million currently collected per year from f ees f or service, versus $5.2 million of eligible costs f or recov ery f rom f ees f or serv ice. The following table provides a summ ary of results for each service area studied: As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services. Should the Council elect to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined by this Study, an additional $912,000 in costs could be recovered. However, as discussed in Section 1 of this report, there are reasons for adopting a fee at less than the calculated full cost recovery Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100% Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95% Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98% Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100% Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99% Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89% Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81% Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96% Packet Pg. 53 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 2 Prepared by NBS amount. In addition, the City has an adopted Cost Recovery Policy, which guides de cisions about the ultimate fee amounts adopted. As such, City staff provided initial recommended fee amounts for consideration. If Council elects to adopt fee levels at staff’s initial rec ommendations, an additional $691,000 in costs could be recovered, or a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. Based on the project’s timeline and information available, the NBS analysis for the Parks and Recreation Department established the total annual cost of the Department combined, rather than an analysis at the individual recreational program or fee level. The Department performed their own analysis of costs at the program level and individual fee level, and recently reviewed their recommendations for changes to various fee amounts with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Refer to the Parks and Recreation Agenda Report, February 1, 2017. Report Format This report documents analytical methods and data sources used throughout the Study, presents findings regarding current levels of cost recovery achieve d from user and regulatory fees, discusses recommended fee amounts, and provides a comparative survey of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.  Section 1 of the report outlines the foundation of the Study and general approach.  Sections 2 through 9 discuss the results of the cost of service analysis performed, segmented by category of fee and/or department. The analysis applied to each category/department falls into studies of: the fully burdened hourly rate(s), the calculation of the costs of providing service, the cost recovery policies of each fee category, and the recommended fees for providing services.  Section 10 provides the grand scope conclusions of the analysis provided in the preceding sections.  Appendices to this report include additional analytical details for each department or division studied, and a comparison of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services. Packet Pg. 54 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 3 Prepared by NBS Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals Scope of Study The following is a summarized list of fees for each City department or program studied:  General administrative services, including: o Business License processing and renewal o Returned check processing o Special requests for GIS services.  Community Development services, including: o Planning & Zoning - entitlement and permit approvals, o Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing o Support to Building plan review  Public Works Department services, including o Tree maintenance and removal o Support to Planning entitlement review o Support to Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing o Transportation Planning and Engineering o Construction field inspection for improvements projects  Utilities services, including: o Meter installation and removal, account set up and disconnect o Lateral installation and abandonment o Support to Planning entitlement review o Support to Engineering plan review and construction inspection o Support to Building plan review  Fire Prevention services, including: o Hazardous occupancy permits o Non-mandated and required inspections o Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA) o Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection o Support to Planning entitlement review o Support to Engineering plan review o Support to Building plan review and field inspection o Fire sprinkler and suppression systems  Police services, including: o Various administrative processing fees such as vehicle impound and release, alarm permits, taxi permits, etc. Packet Pg. 55 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 4 Prepared by NBS o Support to Planning Entitlement Review  Recreational services, classes, programs and permits The fees examined in this Study specifically excluded utility rates, development impact fees, and special assessments, all of which fall under distinct analytical and procedural requirements different from the body of user/regulatory fees analyzed in this effort. Additionally, this Study and the resultant master fee schedule excluded facility and equipment rental rates, as well as most of the fines and penalties that may be imposed by the City for violations to its requirements or code. (The City is not limited to the costs of service when charging for entrance to or use of government property, or when imposing fines and penalties.) Methods of Analysis There are three phases of analysis completed for each City department or program studied: 1) Cost of service analysis 2) Fee establishment 3) Cost recovery evaluation Cost of Service Analysis A cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort that compiles the full cost of providing governmental services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those that specifically relate to the activity in question, including the real-time provision of the service. Indirect costs are those that support provision of services in general, but cannot be directly assigned to the fee for service in question. Components of the full cost of service include direct labor costs, indirect labor costs, specific direct non - labor costs where applicable, allocated non-labor costs, and allocated City-wide overhead. Definitions of these cost components are as follows:  Labor costs – Salary, wages and benefits expenses for City personnel specifically involved in the provision of services and activities to the public.  Indirect labor costs – Personnel expenses supporting the provision of services and activities. This can include line supervision and departmental management, administrative support within a department, and staff involved in technical activities related to the direct services provided to the public.  Specific direct non-labor costs – Discrete expenses incurred by the City due to a specific service or activity performed, such as contractor costs, third-party charges, and very specific materials used in the service or activity. (In most fee types, this component is not used, as it is very difficult to directly assign most non-labor costs at the activity level.)  Allocated indirect non-labor costs – Expenses other than labor for the departments involved in the provision of services. In most cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a department, rather than directly assigned to fee categories.  Allocated indirect organization-wide overhead – These are expenses, both labor and non-labor, related to agency-wide support services. Support services include general administrative services such Packet Pg. 56 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 5 Prepared by NBS as City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, Finance, and Information Services, as well as cost burdens for building and equipment use and maintenance. An agency’s support services departments assist the direct providers of public service. The amount of costs attributable to each department or program included in this Study were sourced from a separate Cost Allocation Plan, prepared by the City’s Finance Department. All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of expenses incurred by the City in the provision of all services and activities agency-wide. Nearly all of the fees under review in this Study require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide the service or conduct the activity. Because labor is the primary underlying factor in these activities, the Study expresses the full cost of service as a fully burdened cost per labor hour. NBS calculates a composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for each department, division, program, or activity, as applicable to the specific organization and needs of each area studied. The rate serves as the basis for further quantifying the average full cost of providing individual services and activities. Deriving the fully burdened labor rate for each department, and various functional divisions within a department, requires two figures: the full costs of service and the n umber of hours available to perform those services. The full costs of service are quantified through the earlier steps described in this analysis. NBS derives the hours available from a complete listing of all personnel employed by the City. A full-time employee equates to 2,080 hours per year of regular time. Using this as an initial benchmark of labor time, the Study removes the average employee’s eligible annual leave from the total number of regular paid hours to generate the total number of avail able labor hours for each City department or program . These available hours represent the amount of productive time available for providing both fee-recoverable and non-fee recoverable services and activities. The productive labor hours divided into the annual full costs of service equals the composite fully burdened labor rate. Some agencies also use the resulting rates for other purposes than setting fees, such as when the need arises to calculate the full cost of general services, or structure a cost recovery agreement with another agency or third party. Fully burdened labor rates applied at the individual fee level estimate an average full cost of providing each service or activity. This step required the development of staff time estimates for the services and activities listed in the City’s fee schedule. In some fee programs, the City’s time tracking records were useful in identifying time spent providing general categories of service (e.g. plan review, inspec tion, public assistance, etc.). However, the City does not systematically track activity service time for all departments or all fee services provided. Consequently, interviews and questionnaires were used to develop the necessary data sets describing estimated labor time. In most cases , City staff estimated the average amount of time (in minutes and hours) it would take to complete a typical occurrence of each service or activity considered. Every attempt was made to ensure that each department having a direct role in the provision of each service or activity provided a time estimate. It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one -step process: estimates received were carefully reviewed by both consultant and departmental management to assess the reasonableness of such estimates. Based on this review, the City reconsidered its time estimates until both parties were comfortable that the fee models reasonably reflected the average service level provided by the City. Then, staff’s time estimates were applied to the appropriate fully burdened labor rate to yield an average full cost of the service or activity. Packet Pg. 57 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 6 Prepared by NBS The average full cost of service is just that: an average cost at the individual fee level. The City does not currently have the systems in place to impose fees for every service or activity based on the actual amount of time it takes to serve each individual. Moreover, such an approach is almost universally infeasible without significant – if not unreasonable – investments in costly technology. Much of the City’s fee schedule is composed of flat fees, which by definition, are linked to an average cost of service; thus, use of this average cost method is the predominant approach in proceeding toward a schedule of revised fees. Flat fee structures based on average costs of service are widely applied among other California municipalities, and it is a generally accepted approach. (Refer to the subsection below regarding “Fee Establishment” for further discussion.) Subsequent chapters and the appendices of this report discuss the completed cost of service analysis developed for each department or division. Fee Establishment Because most of the City’s fees are flat fees, they correspond directly to the average full cost of service result. For the few activities where estimating an average was impossible – due to the highly variable nature of the service – use of fully burdened hourly rates coupled with time tracking is the preferred fee structure. (In other words, the City would impose a fee per hour of staff time, requiring some degree of time estimation or outright time-tracking at the case level.) Establishing fees also includes a range of considerations, as described below:  Addition to and deletion of fees – The Study’s process provided each department the opportunity to propose additions and deletions to their fee schedules, as well as rename, reorganize, and clarify fees imposed. Many such revisions better conform fees to current practices, as well as improve the calculation of fees owed by an individual, the application of said fees, and the collection of revenues. In other words, as staff is more knowledgeable and comfortable working with the fee schedule, the accuracy achieved in both imposing fees on users and collecting revenues for the City is greater. Beyond this, some additions to the fee schedule were simply identification of existing services or activities performed by City staff for which no fee is currently charged.  Revision to the structure of fees – In most cases, the current structure of fees did not change; the focus is to recalibrate the fee amount to match the costs of service. In several cases, however, fee categories and fee names were simplified or re-structured to increase the likelihood of full cost recovery, or to enhance the fairness of how the fee applies to various types of fee payers.  Documentation of tools to calculate special cost recovery – The City’s fee schedule should include the list of fully burdened rates developed by the Study. Documenting these rates in the fee schedule provides an opportunity for the City Council to approve rates for cost recovery under a “time and materials” approach. It also provides clear publication of those rates, so fee payers of any uniquely determined fee can reference the amounts. The fee schedule should provide language that supports special forms of cost recovery for activities and services not contemplated by the adopted master fee schedule. These rare instances use the published rates to estimate a flat fee, or bill on an hourly basis, at the discretion of the director of each department. Packet Pg. 58 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 7 Prepared by NBS Cost Recovery Evaluation The NBS fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average full cost of service quantified through this analysis. A cost recovery rat e of 0% identifies no current recovery of costs from fee revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation). A rate of 100% means that the fee currently recovers the full cost of service. A rate between 0% and 100% indicates partial recovery of the full cost of service through fees. A rate greater than 100% means that the fee exceeded the full cost of service. User fees and regulatory fees examined in this Study should not exceed the full cost of service. In other words, the cost recover y rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. In most cases, imposing a fee above this threshold could require the consensus of the voters. NBS also assists with modeling the “recommended” or “targeted” level of cost recovery for each fee, always established at 100%, or less, than the calculated full cost of service. Targets and recommendations always reflect agency-specific judgments linked to a variety of factors, such as existing City policies, agency -wide or departmental revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of demand, and others. A general means of selecting an appropriate cost recovery target is to consider the public and private benefits of the service or activity in question.  To what degree does the public at large benefit from the service?  To what degree does the individual or entity requesting, requiring, or causing the service benefit? When a service or activity completely benefits the public at large, there is generally little to no recommended fee amount (i.e., 0% cost recovery), reflecting that a truly public-benefit service is best funded by the general resources of the City, such as General Fund revenues (e.g., taxes). Conversely, when a service or activity completely benefits an individual or entity, there is generally closer to or equal to 100% of cost recovery from fees, collected from the individual or entity. An example of a completely private benefit service may be a request for exemption from a City regulation or proces s. In some cases, a strict public-versus-private benefit judgment may not be sufficient to finalize a cost recovery target. Any of the following other factors and considerations may influence or supplement the public/private benefit perception of a service or activity:  If optimizing revenue potential is an overriding goal, is it feasible to recover the full cost of service?  Will increasing fees result in non-compliance or public safety problems?  Are there desired behaviors or modifications to behaviors of the service population helped or hindered through the degree of pricing for the activities?  Does current demand for services support a fee increase without adverse impact to the citizenry served or current revenue levels? (In other words, would fee i ncreases have the unintended consequence of driving away the population served?)  Is there a good policy basis for differentiating between type of users (e.g., residents and non - residents, residential and commercial, non-profit entities and business entities)? Packet Pg. 59 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 8 Prepared by NBS  Are there broader City objectives that inform a less than full cost recovery target from fees, such as economic development goals and local social values? Because this elem ent of the Study is subjective, NBS provides the full cost of service calculation information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee -paying population – the City departments and programs – have considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost for the Council’s review. Comparative Fee Survey Often policy makers request a comparison of their jurisdiction’s fees to surrounding or similar communities. The purpose of a comparison is to provide a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments. Appendix B presents the results of the Comparative Fee Survey for the City of San Luis Obispo. NBS worked with the City to choose five comparative agencies: Cities of Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo. NBS notes the following about the approach to, and use of, comparative survey data:  Comparative surveys do not provide information about the cost recovery policies or procedures inherent in each comparison agenc y.  A “market based” decision to price services below the full cost of service calculation, is the same as making a decision to subsidize that service.  Comparative agencies may or may not base their fee amounts on the estimated and reasonable cost of providing services. NBS did not perform the same level of analysis provided for this Study on the comparative agencies’ fees.  Comparative fee survey efforts are often non-conclusive for many fee categories. Comparison agencies typically use varied terminology for provision of similar services. In general, NBS reasonably attempts to source each comparison agency’s fee schedule from the Internet, and compile a comparison of fee categories and amounts for the most readily comparable fee items that match the client’s existing fee structure. Data Sources The following City-published data sources were used to support the cost of service analysis and fee establishment phases of this Study:  The City of San Luis Obispo’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17.  A complete listing of all City personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave amounts – provided by the Finance Department. Packet Pg. 60 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 9 Prepared by NBS  Various correspondences with the City staff supporting the adopted budgets and current fees, including budget notes and expenditure detail not shown in the published document.  Prevailing fee schedules provided by each involved department.  Annual workload data from the prior fiscal year provided by each involved department. The City’s adopted budget is the most significant source of information affecting cost of service results . NBS did not audit or validate the City’s financial management and budget practices, nor was cost information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted performance benchmarks. This Study has accepted the City’s budget as a legislatively adopted directive describing the most appropriate and reasonable level of City spending. Consultants accept the City Council’s deliberative process and ultimate acceptance of the budget plan and further assert that through that legislative process, the City has yielded a reasonable expenditure plan, valid for use in setting cost -based fees. Original data sets also support the work of this Study: primarily, estimated staff time at various levels of detail. To develop these data sets, consultants prepared questionnaires and conducted interviews with individual departments. In the fee establishment phase of the analysis, departmental staff provided estimates of average time spent providing a service or activity corresponding with an existing or new fee. Consultants and departmental management reviewed and questioned responses to ensure the best possible set of estimates. Packet Pg. 61 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 10 Prepared by NBS Section 2 – Finance Administrative Fees The Finance Department processes City Business Licenses. The City may charge a fee to recover for the cost of issuing a license as well as renewing that license on an annual basis. Cost of Service Analysis At the time of Study, the Finance Department included both general finance and accounting duties, as well as the City’s internal information technology support staff. As such, NBS developed one composite fully- burdened blended hourly rate for Finance Services, and one for IT services. The details of this rate calculation are presented below: *Citywide Overhead for IT services is included in the Division Administration line Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of these rates. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully burdened hourly rate of $131 for Finance Services and $106 for IT Services. Fee Establishment The list fees shown in Appendix A.1 to this report did not incur many significa nt changes, deletions, or additions from the City’s prior fee schedule. Processing fees for Business License activities are inclusive of support from the Planning and Building departments, and Returned Check fees are regulated (capped) by the State at $25 for the first check, and $35 for each subsequent check. Cost Recovery Evaluation Appendix A.1 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s general administrative fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list. Cost Element Finance Services IT Services Labor 1,132,178$ 1,055,849$ Recurring Non-Labor 451,759 146,300 Citywide Overhead 251,607 - Division Administration 740,147 484,743 Department Total 2,575,691$ 1,686,893$ Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 131 $ 106 19,726 15,987 Reference: Direct Hours Only Packet Pg. 62 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 11 Prepared by NBS The City’s general administrative fees currently recover approximately 101% of the cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the Cit y collects approximately $443,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $440,000. NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.1 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. These recommended fee amounts adjust several fees downward from current fee amounts to equal the calculated full cost of service, while two fees for business license processing activities propose to increase. Returned Check fees, which are regulated (capped) by the State, recommend no change because existing fees are already at the State’s maximum allowed amount. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts decrease revenue by approximately $3,700. Fees would continue to recover approximately 100% of the total costs of providing fee related services. Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100% Packet Pg. 63 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 12 Prepared by NBS Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees The City has adopted laws that regulate the use of land and the design of most commercial and housing projects. The purpose of these laws is to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents and visitors. Laws, such as the Zoning Regulations, architectural review requirements, and Subdivision Regulations, require that people submit applications for project approval to the Community Development Department. The Development Review Division evaluates development proposals for consistency with the City's General Plan and all other applicable plans and regulations. Staff from this Division also prepare and oversee reports that study the environmental effects of development projects and identify ways of avoiding environmental damage. This work is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Planning actions are those taken by the City Council, Plannin g Commission, Architectural Review Commission, or the Administrative Hearing Officer. Actions cover a wide range of activities from the City Council's approval of a housing subdivision to the Hearing Officer's approval of a permit for a six -foot fence in the front yard of a house. The Development Review Division serves the residents, property owners, and businesses of the City of San Luis Obispo by administering a variety of City regulations relating to physical development of the community. Additionally, the department manages the development of City-wide and neighborhood plans and programs including adoption and maintenance of the General Plan. Cost of Service Analysis The following categorizes the Planning Division’s costs across both fee related and non-fee related services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the full cost of providing fee related services. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $191, with approximate recovery of $1.6 million in costs from fees for service. The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category: Cost Element Public Information CIP Review and Support Direct (Fee- Related) Services Total Labor 164,057$ 1,965$ 494,799$ 660,822$ Recurring Non-Labor - - - - Citywide Overhead 141,154 1,691 425,722 568,567 Allocated Common Activities 142,667 1,709 430,286 574,662 Department Total 447,879$ 5,365$ 1,350,808$ 1,804,051$ Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 60%0%100%90% Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 268,727 - 1,350,808 1,619,535 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 179,151 5,365 - 184,516 Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 32 $ - $ 159 $ 191 Reference: Direct Hours Only 8,494 Packet Pg. 64 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 13 Prepared by NBS  Public Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and supporting both active permits and the development review process in general. Typically, some portion of costs for provision of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees. Planning staff estimated that approximately 60% of these costs support land use application review activities, while the remaining costs should be not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining 40% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding from sources other than fees.  CIP Review and Support – Development Review Division staff support the review and implementation of various City capital improvement projects. These costs do not apply toward recovery from Planning and Zoning review fees.  Direct (Fee-Related) Services – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this Division’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Planning and Zoning fees for service. Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity c osts in the fully burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. Fee Establishment This Study addressed several key fee-setting issues for the Development Services Division. First, the Division wanted to change the method of cost recovery for complex application review services from flat fees to a deposit based system. NBS worked with the Division’s manager to identify the fee categories that best suited for a deposit based fee structure. Selected fee categories include Planned Development, Rezoning, Appeals, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Annexation, Development Agreement Application, and Reimbursement Agreement. Second, the City wanted to update its Development Review Surcharge, and evaluate whether there was a better way of accomplishing the surcharge’s objective. The City’s policy for recovery of development review costs is 100%. To achieve this objective, the City implemented a policy and collect ion procedure of recovering 45% of selected planning and zoning development application fees at the time of submittal to the Planning Division, with the remaining 55% of the fee collected through a 44% general surcharge established on all building permits. After much review and discussion about the strengths and opportunities for improvement regarding this method of collection, NBS recommended that the City proceed with a project specific collection method; meaning, any particular fee selected for phased collection between the planning and building phases of a project be charged specific to that project. The City has made significant technological advancements since the initial surcharge was implemented, and is now able to track and charge on a project-by-project basis. The City also wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of development review incurred not only by the Planning Division, but also by departments outside of the Division. Engineering, Public Works, Building, Fire, Police, and Utilities may all receive routed copies of planning applications for review and comment. As such, NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify support costs for each of these departments, where applicable. Packet Pg. 65 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 14 Prepared by NBS Finally, the City wanted to quantify the total estimated c osts of support provided by the Planning Division to Engineering project review and Building plan check. NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify these support costs for Engineering, and also recommended separate fee categories for Building Plan Review Support based on the type of project. Cost Recovery Evaluation Appendix A.2 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Planning and Zoning fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list. The City’s Planning and Zoning fees currently recover approximately 94% of the Planning Division’s cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $1.2 million per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would also generate approximately $1.2 million. NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.2 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would decrease the Planning Division’s revenues by approximately $73,000. Recommended fees are projected to recover approximately 95% of the total costs of providing fee related services. The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the costs of the Development Review Division’s services as compared to the City’s current fees for Planning and Zoning review. For many fees in the table, the amounts shown in the “Current Fee / Deposit” column of the Appendix reflect approximately 45% of the full fee amount actually charged by the City. The additional Development Review Surcharge currently attempts to recover the remaining 55% of the City’s full cost recovery fee amount on top of building permits. The estimated annual surcharge revenue amount displays in the Appendix under the “Annual Estimated Revenues at Current Fee” column (see Development Review Surcharge category near the bottom of the table). However, it was not possible to translate this lump sum revenue reasonably to the individual fee categories in order to provide a better sense of the Existing Cost Recovery percentage for each fee item. Also, a comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing services, inclusive of supporting departments such as Engineering, Public Works, Fire, etc. is available as Appendix A.9. Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95% Packet Pg. 66 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 15 Prepared by NBS Section 4 – Community Development – Engineering Development Review Fees The Engineering Development Review Division provides reviews for planning entitlements and building permit plans for grading, drainage, floodplain management, Stormwater regulations, compliance with City Engineering Standards, and the Parking and Driveway Standards. The Division is the lead for processing parcel and final maps to recordation along with the approval of any requisite subdivision improvement plans. The Division issues encroachment and transportation permits. Cost of Service Analysis The following table categorizes the Engineering Development Review Divis ion’s costs across both fee related and non-fee related services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the full cost of providing fee related services. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $136, with approximate recovery of $1 million in costs from fees for service. The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:  Public Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and supporting both active permits and the development review process in general. Typically, some portion of costs for provision of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees. Engineering staff estimated that approximately 60% of these costs support permits and plan submittal activities, while the remaining costs should be not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining 40% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding f rom sources other than fees.  Floodplain Management, Engineering Inspection Support (CIP), and Stormwater Management – Staff from the Engineering Department participate in other City projects and programs that are not part of development review approval and regulation. None of these apply toward recovery in fee related services.  Direct Services – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this Division’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Engineering development review fees for service. Cost Element Public Information Floodplain Management Engineering Inspection Support (CIP) Stormwater Management Direct Services Total Labor 19,818$ 6,864$ 13,729$ 13,729$ 487,368$ 541,508$ Recurring Non-Labor 319 111 221 221 7,849 8,721 Citywide & Department Overhead 11,776 4,079 8,158 8,158 289,605 321,776 Allocated Common Activities 8,707 3,016 6,032 6,032 214,118 237,904 Department Total 40,621$ 14,070$ 28,139$ 28,139$ 998,940$ 1,109,909$ Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 60%0%0%0%100%92% Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 24,372 - - - 998,940 1,023,313 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 16,248 14,070 28,139 28,139 - 86,596 Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 3 $ - $ - $ - $ 133 $ 136 Reference: Direct Hours Only 7,510 Packet Pg. 67 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 16 Prepared by NBS Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. Fee Establishment This Study addressed several key fee-setting issues for the Engineering Development Review Division. NBS recommended restructuring of the City’s fees for Improvement Plan check to include additional tiers for various project sizes, and a method of scaling the fee amount in between tiers. The City’s current fee structure includes a base fee amount plus a flat 1.8% applied to the construction value of the project. Migrating to tiered fee structure reflects a better economy of scale in the effort (and therefore cost or fee amount) for smaller versus larger projects. The City also wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of providing services to engineering development review fees by departments outside of the Division. Planning, Building, Fire, Utilities, and Public Works may all receive routed copies of improvement plans and final map submittals for review and comment. In addition, the Public Works Department participates in issuance and inspection of various encroachment permits. As such, NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify support costs for each of these departments, where applicable. Finally, the City wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of support provided by the Engineering Development Review Division to Planning project review. NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify these support costs. NBS also recommended changing the method of cost recovery for this Division’s support to the Building plan review process. Currently the City charges a 15% surcharge on building plans to recover for the costs of Engineering review. The Division created an itemized fee schedule in response to NBS’ recommendation, and will have the ability to charge fees based on the type and size of the project reviewed, as well as for consideration of the scope of review involved. Cost Recovery Evaluation Appendix A.3 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Engineering Development Review fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list. The City’s Engineering fees currently recover approximately 61% of the Division’s cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $586,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $957,000. Packet Pg. 68 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 17 Prepared by NBS NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.3 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts recover an additional $356,000 of the Engineering Development Review Division’s costs annually. Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 98% of the total costs of providing fee related services. The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the costs of the Engineering Development Review Division’s services. A comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing services, inclusive of supporting departments such as Planning, Public Works, Fire, etc. is available as Appendix A.9. Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98% Packet Pg. 69 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 18 Prepared by NBS Section 5 – Public Works Fees The Public Works Department performs a wide variety of tasks from planting and trimming City trees, inspecting development, maintaining City parks, designing our utilities infrastructure, repairing sidewalks and streets, building bike trails, improving traffic safety, maintaining bridges, swimming pools and stadiums, managing downtown and neighborhood parking, and providing transit service, to repairing City vehicles and maintaining City buildings. Cost of Service Analysis The Public Works Department’s divisions of Capital Improvement / Development inspection, Transportation, and Tree Maintenance, either charge fees for their discipline -specific services, or support the review and implementation of fee for service activities in the City’s Community Development department. As such, NBS calculated one composite fully burdened blended hourly rate for each division. Public Works – Capital Improvement / Development Inspection Public Works – Transportation Engineering Cost Element Development Review / Permitting CIP / Other Duties Total Labor 280,770$ 1,285,624$ 1,566,394$ Recurring Non-Labor 13,791 63,146 76,937$ Department and Citywide Overhead 128,163 586,850 715,013$ Allocated Common Activities 114,080 522,362 636,442$ Department Total 536,803$ 2,457,982$ 2,994,785$ Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 135 n/a n/a Reference: Direct Hours Only 3,979 n/a n/a Cost Element Development Review / Permitting CIP / Other Duties Total Labor 68,991$ 564,200$ 633,190$ Recurring Non-Labor 4,384 35,852 40,236$ Department and Citywide Overhead 9,657 78,971 88,627$ Allocated Common Activities 19,005 155,420 174,425$ Department Total 102,036$ 834,442$ 936,478$ Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 111 n/a n/a Reference: Direct Hours Only 917 n/a n/a Packet Pg. 70 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 19 Prepared by NBS Public Works – Tree Maintenance Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of these rates. The total estimated cost of Public Works’ fee related activities (Development Review and Permitting), is approximately $679,000 annually. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully burdened hourly rate of $135 for Construction Inspection services, $111 for Transportation and $95 for Tree Maintenance. Fee Establishment Public Works has a few Tree maintenance fees charged for Tree/Shrub Abatement, Commem orative Tree Planting, and Tree Removal permits. NBS assisted the Department with clarifying the purpose and structure of these fees. The bulk of fees charged by this department are for inspection of improvement projects and encroachment permits, which initiate in the Engineering Development Review Division. In addition, NBS quantified the costs of the Public Works Department’s support to Planning application review. NBS also recommended restructuring of the City’s fees for Construction Inspection to inclu de additional tiers for various project sizes, and a method of scaling the fee amount in between tiers. The City’s current fee structure includes a base fee amount plus a flat 12.9% applied to the construction value of the project. Migrating to tiered fee structure reflects a better economy of scale in the effort (and therefore cost or fee amount) for smaller versus larger projects. Cost Recovery Evaluation Appendix A.4 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Public Works fees. The “Total Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list. The City’s Public Works fees currently recover approximately 114% of the Department’s cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $748,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $656,000. Cost Element Development Review / Permitting Other Programs and Activities Total Labor 29,455$ 353,076$ 382,531$ Recurring Non-Labor (5,638) 16,321 10,682$ Department and Citywide Overhead 11,983 143,644 155,627$ Allocated Common Activities 4,240 60,757 64,996$ Department Total 40,039$ 573,798$ 613,836$ Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 95 n/a n/a 423 n/a n/a Reference: Direct Hours Only Packet Pg. 71 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 20 Prepared by NBS NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closes t to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.4 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would decrease annual fee revenue for this Department by approximately $93,000. Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 100% of the total costs of providing fee related services. The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the costs of the Public Works Department services. A comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of p roviding services, inclusive of supporting departments is available as Appendix A.9. Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100% Packet Pg. 72 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 21 Prepared by NBS Section 6 – Utilities Fees The Utilities Department serves the residents, property owners, and businesses of the City of San Luis Obispo by providing both water and sewer services. Cost of Service Analysis NBS developed one composite fully burdened blended hourly rate for the Utilities Department. Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of this rate. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully burdened hourly rate of $125. Fee Establishment SLO’s Utilities Department recovers the majority of its costs through water and wastewater rates, which are not subject to the parameters and scope of this Study. Utility rates are subject to Proposition 218 stipulation and proceedings and require a separate type of analysis and adoption procedure. However, the Department does provide several services, which should be recovered by user fees or regulatory, namely meter services, account set up fees, lateral installation and abandonment, etc. The Department actively charges for these services. Pre-treatment Inspection Services, which are set separately by City Ordinance, were excluded from the Study. A primary goal for the Utilities Department’s involvement in the Study was to quantify the costs of the Department’s support to development review approval and inspection activities. NBS worked closely with the Department to quantify the costs of support to the Planning and Zoning application review process, as well as review of Engineering’s improvement plan submittals. For Construction Inspection of improvements, as well as support to Building plan review, NBS assisted the Department in establishing a customized list of fees that reflected the Department’s service level. Cost Element W / WW Ops Fee for Service Activities Labor 5,253,142$ 445,691$ Recurring Non-Labor 3,696,066 26,745 Citywide Overhead 1,904,063 168,386 Dept/Division Administration/Dispatch 3,991,856 235,696 Department Total 14,845,126$ 876,517$ Fully Burdened Hourly Rate n/a $ 125 n/a 7,013 Reference: Direct Hours Only Packet Pg. 73 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 22 Prepared by NBS Cost Recovery Evaluation Appendix A.5 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the Utilities Department’s fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list. Fees currently recover approximately 41% of the cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $317,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $773,000. NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.5 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. The Department recommended fees at 100% cost recovery, with the exception of support to Community Development applications for Administrative Approval Applications. For these applications, the City’s Community Development Director recommended no fee. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts increase cost recovery by approximately $452,000 annually. Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99% Packet Pg. 74 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 23 Prepared by NBS Section 7 – Fire Department – Fire Prevention Fees The scope of this Study for the Fire Department focused predominantly on fire prevention services provided by the Fire Prevention and Education Division. This Division has a staff of five professionals who perform plan review, fire inspections, fire investigations, and public education coordination. Cost of Service Analysis The following table categorizes the Fire Prevention Division’s costs across both fee related and non-fee related services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the full cost of providing fee related services. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $141, with approximate recovery of $1 million in costs from fees for service. The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:  Public Education, Community Outreach, Code Enforcement, Weed Abatement, Fire Investigations, Fuel Management, and Hydrant Maintenance – Staff from the Prevention Division participate in a variety of regulatory programs and services that do not apply toward recovery from fee revenues. These services are funded through a variety of sources, including the General Fund, penalties, hourly billings, or enterprise fund revenues.  Direct Permitting Services – Inspection and permitting services comprise the majority of this Divison’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Fire Prevention fees for service. Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not exceed the esti mated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. Cost Element Public Education / Community Outreach Code Enforcement / Complaint Response Weed Abatement Fire Investigations Fuel Management Program Utility Fund - Hydrant Maintenance Direct Permitting Services Total Labor 25,853$ 12,010$ 4,522$ 19,568$ 15,710$ 8,609$ 484,379$ 570,651$ Recurring Non-Labor 618 6,487 1,608 468 375 206 43,678 53,440 Citywide Overhead 11,305 5,252 1,977 8,556 6,869 3,765 211,809 249,533 Allocated Common Activities 14,498 9,115 3,112 10,973 8,810 4,828 283,960 335,296 Department Total 52,274$ 32,864$ 11,219$ 39,565$ 31,764$ 17,408$ 1,023,826$ 1,208,920$ Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 0%0%0%0%0%0%100%85% - - - - - - 1,023,826 1,023,826 52,274 32,864 11,219 39,565 31,764 17,408 - 185,094 Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 141 $ 141 Reference: Direct Hours Only 7,252 Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees Amount Requiring Another Funding Source Cost Allocation to Each Function / Activity Packet Pg. 75 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 24 Prepared by NBS Fee Establishment The Fire Prevention Division’s fee program is generally comprised of two types of regulatory activities: 1. Permits that are required by the Fire Code for one-time events or annual activities, and inspections of existing businesses which are either mandated by the State, or required by the City’s oridnances and policies:  Hazardous occupancy permits  Non-mandated and required inspections  Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA)  Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection 2. Development review services  Support to Planning entitlement review  Support to Engineering plan review  Support to Building plan review and field inspection  Fire sprinkler and suppression systems plan review and inspection NBS assisted the Division in restructuring many of the City’s existing fees. The City also wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of providing services to development review application approval. As such, NBS structured the Fire Prevention fee model to quantify support costs for Planning and Zoning application review and Engineering Improvement Plan Review. NBS also assisted the Fire department in updating its customized fee structure associated with cost recovery for plan review and inspection services initiated through the Building Division. Cost Recovery Evaluation Appendix A.6 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the Division’s non-development related permitting and inspection activities (Category 1 above). Appendix A.7 presents the results for the Division’s development related costs and fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column in each appendix establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list. The City’s Fire Prevention fees currently recover approximately 85% of the cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $829,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $972,000. Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89% Packet Pg. 76 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 25 Prepared by NBS NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in appendices A.6 and A.7 display the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts recover an additional $33,000 in costs annually. Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 89% of the total costs of providing fee related services. Packet Pg. 77 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 26 Prepared by NBS Section 8 – Police Fees The scope of this user and regulatory fee analysis for Police focused almost exclusively on various administrative processing fees such as records copies, business regulatory fees, and vehicle impound or release. Cost of Service Analysis The majority of services provided by the Police Department are not recoverable in user/regulatory fees for service. For the Police Department, the NBS fee model derived fully burdened labor rates for several specific categories of personnel. The table below illustrates the fully burdened hourly rate for Sworn versus Non-Sworn personnel classifications in the Police Department. *Citywide Overhead costs are included in the Division Administration line for the non-sworn rate All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume the applicable fully burdened hourly rates as shown above. Fee Establishment The list fees shown in Appendix A.8 to this report did not incur many significant changes, deletions, or additions from the City’s prior fee schedule. In addition, because many fees available for police departments to charge are set by various sections of the State’s governmental codes, NBS did not evaluate many of the Department’s existing fees. Cost Recovery Evaluation Appendix A.8 presents the results of the cost recovery analysis for the City’s Police Department. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list. Cost Element Sworn Direct Services Non-sworn Direct Services Labor 8,927,006$ 344,076$ Recurring Non-Labor 180,143 725 Citywide Overhead 1,860,618 - Dept/Division Administration/Dispatch 5,478,962 115,915 Department Total 16,446,729$ 460,715$ Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 181 $ 99 90,846 4,675 Reference: Direct Hours Only Packet Pg. 78 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 27 Prepared by NBS Police Department fees currently recover approximately 67% of the cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $91,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $110,000. NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.8 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts increase cost recovery by approximately $19,000 annually. Fees would adjust to recover approximately 81% of the total costs of providing fee related services. Department / Division Estimated Annual Current Fee Revenue Estimated Annual Full Cost Recovery Fee Revenue Current Cost Recovery % Estimated Annual Recommended Fee Revenue Recommended Cost Recovery % Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81% Packet Pg. 79 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 28 Prepared by NBS Section 9 – Parks & Recreation Department The Parks & Recreation Department offers a wide variety of recreation services and programs serving San Luis Obispo’s youth, seniors and adults. The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining the City’s parks and recreation programs and facilities are funded in part by fees collected from various users, as well as resources from the General Fund. Impacts of Proposition 26 on Recreation Fees Analysis In November 2010, nearly 53% of the electorate affirmed Proposition 26 (P26), which essenti ally created new law. P26 mandates a 2/3 approval by registered voters before a public agency may impose any “regulatory fee.” Regulatory fees are fees imposed on an individual or entity through a public agency’s regulatory or police power. Examples of regulatory fees could include land development approval, building inspection, water quality inspections, business registrations, health/safety monitoring, etc. In all but a few cases, the regulatory action is “imposed” and the local agency expends effort due to the specific action or request of an individual or entity. It is generally accepted that the intention of P26 was to cover regulatory actions of broad public benefit. Example of this are: a “fee” on a can of paint to pay for air quality mitigation; a “fee” on a bottle of wine to pay for substance abuse programs; or a “fee” on sugary beverages to pay for public health programs. Notice in all of these examples, the “fee” applies to every user, regardless of whether that user individually mitigated their effect on the environment or avoided burdening the public health system. P26 labels these types of fees as “taxes,” which are subject to the pre -existing approval threshold of 2/3 of the electorate. Most of the regulatory fees NBS studies fall under one or more of seven noted exceptions within P26, and are therefore not subject to P26’s definition of a tax. This means existing law and approval thresholds apply. The local legislative body may approve the fees based on a majority vote of the body alone, so long as the fee does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. As the new law is tested inevitably in court, this position may change, but we believe the text of P26 is clear in most cases. In summary:  Regulatory fees linked to a specific individual are not affected  User fees are also not affected  Any fee or charge already covered by Proposition 218 is not affected (utility rates and property related fees, which are not within the scope of a typical user fee study). However, recreation fees and facility rental fees do fall into an area of concern. Under the guidance of P26, recreation fees fall under one of these two P26 exceptions: Exception No. 2: Section 1 (e)(2) Exception for Fees for Services and Products Provided – this category includes fees imposed for a service, like lessons, transportation, child care, etc. The fee for services exception requires that such fees be limited to “the estimated costs to the local government of providing the service.” Exception No. 4: Section 1 (e)(4) exception for fees for use of government property – this category includes fees imposed for services such as admission to parks, rental of government property (recreational equipment) and for rental of fields and meeting rooms. The language of this exception does not include the “reasonable costs” limitation. However, a general law city is subject to the constraint on the amount of a fee charged under either category imposed by Government Code SS 50402. Additionally, based on the League of California Cities Implementation Guide (April 2011), there is reasonable agreement that a charge for a lesson, class, program and other participation is not “imposed” within the meaning of P26 if: a) Participants have meaningful private market options, and Packet Pg. 80 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 29 Prepared by NBS b) Participation is meaningfully voluntary We have changed our approach to recreation program fees and facility rental fees analysis since P26 passed. NBS performs a high-level cost analysis by program area to assist local communities in understanding cost recovery performance and in developing cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis at the individual fee level. In our typical scope of services, we also include a basic survey of comparable jurisdictions (Appendix B.9), which may assist the agency in establishing proof of meaningful public market options. We also recommend that a local government document the private or public-private market options available to consumers. We include this information in the final report to demonstrate that participation in the recreational program or facility rental is meaningfully voluntary and to support determination that charges for recreational, cultural and educational programs are not “imposed.” Therefore, they are not subject to P26’s requirement to limit these fees for recreational program participation or facility rentals to the cost of providing service. NBS’ provides this professional opinion on Proposition 26 for informational purposes, and as background to support this Study’s results. NBS does not intend their interpretation of the law as a definitive legal opinion, and recommends each agency consult with their legal counsel for additional support in this area. Fee Establishment The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining the City’s parks and recreation programs and facilities are funded by a mixture of fees collected from various recreation programs and facility rentals, as well as resources from the General Fund. Based on the project’s timeline and information available for analysis, the NBS analysis for the Parks and Recreation Department established the total annual cost of the Department combined, rather than an analysis at the individual recreational program or fee level. The Department performed their own analysis of costs at the program level and individual fee level, and recently reviewed their recommendations for changes to various fee amounts with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Refer to the Parks and Recreation Agenda Report, February 1, 2017 Packet Pg. 81 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 30 Prepared by NBS Section 10 – Conclusion Based on the Cost of Service Analysis, Cost Recovery Evaluation, and Proposed Fee phases of analysis in this Study, the proposed master schedule of fees formatted for implementation has been prepared and included in the City’s accompanying staff report. As discussed throughout this report, the proposed fee schedule includes fee increases intended to greatly improve the City’s recovery of costs incurred to provide individual services, as well as to adjust fees downward where fees charge exceed the average costs incurred. Predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect Department revenues is difficult to quantify. For the near-term, the City should not count on increased revenues to meet any specific expenditure plan. Experience with these fee increases should be gained first before revenue projection s are revised. However, unless there is some significant, long -term change in activity levels at the City, proposed fee amendments should – over time – enhance the City’s revenue capabilities, providing it the ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public at large. The City’s Master Fee Schedule should become a living document but handled with care:  A fundamental purpose of the fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the Council, the fee schedule is the final word on the amount and manner in which fees should be imposed by the departments. Old fee schedules should be superseded by the new master document. If the master document is found to be missing fees, those fees need eventually to be added to the master schedule and should not continue to exist outside the consolidated, master framework.  The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to ke ep pace at least with cost inflation. For all fees and charges, the City could use either a Consumer Price Index adjustment or a percentage of Labor Cost increase, and that practice would be well applied to the new fee schedule. Conducting a comprehensive user fee Study is not an annual requirement; it becomes worthwhile only over time as significant shifts in organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements change. In NBS’ experience, a comprehensive analysis such as this should be performed every three to five years. It should be noted that when an automatic adjustment is applied annually, the City is free to use its discretion in applying the adjustment; not all fees need to be adjusted, especially when there are good policy rea sons for an alternate course. The full cost of service is the City’s only limit in setting its fees. As a final note in this Study, it is worth acknowledging the path that fees in general have taken in California. The public demands ever more precise and equitable accounting of the basis for governmental fees and a greater say in when and how they are imposed. It is inevitable in the not too distant future that user fees and regulatory fees will demand an even greater level of analysis and supporting data to meet the public’s evolving expectations. Technology systems will play an increased and significant role in an agency’s ability to accomplish this. Continuous improvement and refinement of time tracking abilities will greatly enhance the City’s ability to set fees for service and identify unfunded activities in years to come. In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial m atters, conditions and events that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate Packet Pg. 82 1 User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 31 Prepared by NBS data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable; however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions. While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this report, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary signifi cantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by others. Packet Pg. 83 1 Appendices (available in Council Reading File) Packet Pg. 84 1 City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION FEE STUDY SESSION Prepared by: Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the costs of Parks and Recreation user fees that is based on the draft citywide user fee analysis by consulting firm NBS. 2. Provide feedback on proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation user fees to be considered by Council for the 2017-2019 Financial Plan. 3. Identify any areas of further study and discussion. DISCUSSION Background Best practices and City fiscal policy calls for a comprehensive review of service costs every five years. Further, the ongoing review and updates to City service charges is completed on a regular basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in service delivery. State law provides that fees for services need to be roughly proportional to the actual costs for providing said services. Due to the Great Recession and other internal operational factors the City’s most recent comprehensive cost of services study was performed in 2006 and implemented in 2008. NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) has been retained by the City to conduct a cost of services study. Parks and Recreation user fees are guided by adopted policy, actual costs, and market comparisons. The City’s adopted Budget and Fiscal Policies (Section H of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Attachment 1) provide specific policies about cost recovery goals. Recreation Programs are specifically discussed in subsection G. Subsection I is also applicable to Parks and Recreation services as it discusses comparability with other communities. Highlights of the City’s Adopted Parks and Recreation Service Cost Recovery Goals 1.Adults. Cost recovery should be relatively high. Meeting Date: February 1, 2017 Item Number:_________ 2-1Packet Pg. 85 1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 2 2.Youth and Seniors. Cost recovery should be relatively low. 3.Specific Activities have articulated cost recovery goals. Low Range 0 to 30% Mid-Range 30-60% High-Range 60-100% Aquatics Community Gardens Junior Ranger Camp Minor Film Permits Skate Park Special Events Youth Sports STAR Teens Senior/Boomer Services Contract Classes Major Film Permits Adult Sports Banners Child Care Facility Rentals Triathlon Golf NBS Draft Cost of Services Study User fees are charges collected for a service provided or required due to the request or voluntary action of an individual/entity. Common types of fees charged by municipalities include development review; inspection, and approval (planning, engineering, and building); recreational classes and community sports programs; and public safety services. User fees may not exceed the estimated and reasonable costs incurred to provide the service for which the fee is charged. NBS, and Parks and Recreation have worked together to determine the costs of parks and recreation services that are eligible to be user fees. NBS, using time and workload information has provided the department with costs for service associated with staffing, operational and maintenance costs, and administrative and overhead costs. Parks and Recreation fees may be more discretionary in nature (since users are choosing to participate in these activities) than other City fees. NBS in evaluating the costs of services for the City’s Parks and Recreation activities has not delved in the detailed costs associated with each departmental fee. In order to arrive at those conclusions, Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, has lead a further analytic exercise in using NBS’s costs for Parks and Recreation activities along with the number of users, number of hours of use, and other details to derive more specific costs associated with Parks and Recreation Activities. Parks and Recreation Cost of Services Analysis In reviewing the City’s rates of cost recovery for parks and recreation fees most were found to be in or near their adopted policy range. Staff discusses several fees more specifically following this table. Overall many of the proposed adjustments reflect a multitude of inputs including anticipated operational cost increases along with State of California increases to minimum wage as many employees in this department work at our near this rate. On January 1, 2017 minimum wage was increased to $10.50 per hour. On January 1, 2018, it will go to $11.00 and it will continue to increase in the future until it reaches $15.00 in 2022. 2-2Packet Pg. 86 1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 3 2-3Packet Pg. 87 1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 4 Youth Services – High Range Cost Recovery Range for Child Care Youth services provides after school enrichment at five school sites as well as all day activities during teacher work days, spring break, and summer. Cost recovery for youth services should be high which it currently is at the 90% range. Staff suggests considering increasing this fee to directly correlate to minimum wage increases that have been approved during the next two year financial plan given that most employees in this division work at our near that rate. The hourly base has been applied to fees for teacher workdays, spring break and summer camps. Those activities costs significantly more than after school activities due to the length of time, number of attendees, number of staff required. However, significant increases to these activities are anticipated to not be sustainable by the customers. Teens – Low Range Cost Recovery. At this time Teen is at extremely low (1%) cost recovery for after school enrichment and noon activities offered at Laguna Middle School which is consistent with policy. This is a challenging group to create interest with and the activities that are provided reach youth who benefit the most and are often diverted from activities that are not positive in nature. Consistent with the adopted Strategic Plan for the Department which suggests exploring the recasting of the Ludwick Community Center staff recommends further study of the teen program to determine its long-term sustainability and possible repurposing toward the LCC. At this time, a fee increase to $15 in 2017 and $20 in 2018 is proposed. Aquatics - Low Range Cost Recovery for All Ages 2-4Packet Pg. 88 1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 5 By policy, Aquatics is low cost recovery for all ages. The primary activities at the SLO Swim Center include lap swimming, recreational swimming, lessons (group and private) and aqua aerobics and warm water exercise. 1.Lap Swim. At this time, no change is recommended for lap swim because the cost recovery is currently in the medium range, which is greater than the adopted policy level. However, during the two year financial plan if it stays the same it will quickly return to the low cost recovery range due to anticipated increased costs in minimum wage, utilities, and other operational costs. 2.Rec Swim. Recreational swim is a very specialized program during the summer time and the costs are significantly higher than lap swim (many more lifeguards must be on deck). A slight increase to this fee is suggested to keep pace with the known minimum wage increases and continue this as a low cost recovery activity. 3.Lessons, Group and Private. Group swim lessons currently are at an extremely low cost recovery amount of about 10%. They are recommended to increase each year to increase cost recovery to 13% and 18% to reflect a higher rate of cost recovery and to be more competitive with other jurisdictions. Private lessons are at a higher rate to reflect the increased costs of one on one lessons and are low cost recovery even with the proposed increase. 4.Exercise Class. Warm water exercise is extremely low cost recovery. The increase proposed takes it from a rate of 5% cost recovery to 7% cost recovery. This was selected for a modest increase to keep this activity affordable for the predominately-senior based attendees. 5.Lifeguard Training. Lastly, the lifeguard certification program is low cost recovery. It is at market rate and recommended to stay there so that the City’ workforce can continue be developed. Recreational Sports - High Range Cost Recovery Softball is a three season five day a week program, that sees 215 teams play. This is a high cost recovery program. The current cost of $465 per team per season represents 53% cost recovery just shy of the minimum policy level of 60% cost recovery for this program. Over the two-year period, cost increases are proposed to increase the cost recovery to 60%. Those rates per season would be $500 in 2017 at a 55% cost recovery and $550 in 2017 at a 60% cost recovery. Special Events – Cost Recovery Varied by Event Type 1. SLO Triathlon - High Range Cost Recovery is an adult activity with a policy cost recovery level of high. At this time the current cost recovery level is 32% and is therefore in the lower end of the mid cost recovery range. Staff recommends changing the policy for this cost recovery because it is a family oriented beginner triathlon, which 2-5Packet Pg. 89 1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 6 competes with many other events. The proposed increase in fee represents continued mid-range cost recovery. 2. Special Events Produced by the Department – Low Range Cost Recovery. These include events such as the Gobble Wobble fun run at the golf course, which are geared toward intergenerational participation. It is recommended that these events be at the mid level of cost recovery. This would be an addition to this category of cost recovery and staff will calculate fees for these events based on the costs that now know from the NBS and fee study. 3. Banners - High Range Cost Recovery. Banners are currently at mid-range cost recovery. An increase is recommended to put it in high cost recovery. 4. Minor Commercial Film Permits - Low Range Cost Recovery. Presently very few occur. They are currently in the low range cost recovery. A 5% increase in 2017 and again in 2018 is recommended to keep them low range cost recovery. Indoor Facility Rentals - High Range Cost Recovery At this time, excluding the costs of city uses, the cost recovery is in the High Range at 62%. Aside from City programs, the primary users of these facilities are for profit businesses, individuals, and non-profits. The City’s indoor facilities offer an affordable solution for family events and for businesses who require a regular meeting space. To cover projected increases to staffing and operational costs and increase to these fees approximately 5% in 2017 and 2018 to retain the rate of high range cost recovery. Outdoor Facility Rentals Should Be High Range Cost Recovery By policy, outdoor facility rentals should be high range cost recovery. Unfortunately, at this time, in the totality they are at low range of cost recovery of 21%. However, this number is lowered because 59% of outdoor facility rentals (predominately diamond fields and Damon-Garcia) do not have high range cost recovery because they are either youth based or have longstanding past practices of not charging because of “old agreements”. Case in point diamond fields in recognition of the groups’ former contributions to the City (building the SLO Stadium) or their status as a nonprofit youth organization. AYSO and Club Soccer are similarly situated. Staff is seeking guidance from the PRC regarding how it would like this past practice to be further analyzed and potentially revised. More specifically, it is recommended that the field and Damon Garcia fee be further analyzed following PRC direction. SLO Stadium is cost recovering at 83% for the majority of the users since they are adult oriented. No change is recommended at this time as the aging facility presents unique rental by tolerant users (the Blues often do repair works themselves). With the exception of the Jack House and Mission Plaza, for all other outdoor facilities staff recommends an approximately 5% increase in 2017 and again in 2018 to reflect increased costs in staffing, operations, and maintenance. 2-6Packet Pg. 90 1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 7 1. Jack House is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range. The Jack House rental fee will be considered by the Jack House Committee at its February 8th meeting. The Committee has been desirous of setting the rental fee to be at the market rate and directly competitive with the Dallidet Adobe. The Jack House Committee is trying to balance the use with the historic nature and fragility of the house and gardens. The fee for 2017 and 2018 is proposed to be $3,400 for a full day wedding. For an event of less than 50 people at $50 an hour; for 50-100 people at $200 per hour; and for an event of up to 200 people at $300 per hour. This is an unprecedented increase and the public may be stunned. Staff is suggesting these changes in anticipation of direction from the Jack House Committee based on prior discussions. 2.Mission Plaza is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range. Mission Plaza is costing more and more to maintain due to its extensive use for community events and aging nature of its infrastructure. A $100 increase to its use is recommended to account for the wide range of unexpected maintenance costs (which often run in the thousands of dollars – i.e. replacing electrical outlets after an event that damages them) arising from its use that are not accounted for in the operational costs study. Community Gardens are Low Range Cost Recovery. The current cost recovery is in the low range at 5% cost recovery. Staff proposes keeping this a low range cost recovery because of the community building and food orientation of this activity. It is recommended that the base rate be increased by about 5% in each of the next two years which will result in closer to 10% cost recovery in the end. Laguna Lake Golf Course - High Range Cost Recovery The Golf Course is currently recovering at the mid range cost recovery, below policy level. It is an activity that is subject to market influences and multiple competitors. The change in cost recovery reflects a full understanding of all costs associated with this activity combined with the change in supervisorial structure and the now known added costs associated with overhead and management shown in the NBS study. Notably, the users are predominately youth and seniors; two groups that traditionally are in the low cost recovery range. Price sensitivity by users has been a concern in the past. The following fees are proposed as this time to keep these activities within the mid cost recovery range and staff recommends considering a policy change to this cost recovery range. Special Event Permits. This is a fee for service. It should recover 100%. Those events with encroachments onto streets, sidewalks and right of ways are more costly than those for parks only. So a fee of $100 for park only special event permits is recommended and one of $160 for events which also have encroachments. Separate charges will be applied for the actual park use and/or encroachment related activities. Study Session Discussion At the February 1, 2017 PRC meeting, staff suggests a review of the current user fee costs associated with parks and recreation activities followed by feedback on this Agenda Report and 2-7Packet Pg. 91 1 Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 8 Presentation. Staff has provided notification of this meeting to all users identified as having a potential impact as a result in a change in fees. Following staff’s power point presentation, will be public input on this information. Discussion and consensus feedback by the Commission will conclude the study session. Next Steps Following the PRC meeting of February 1, 2017, the Jack House Committee will discuss the Jack House Use fees at its meeting of February 8th. Council will hold a Study Session on all City User Fees at its Meeting of February 21st. The PRC meeting of March 1, 2017 will include consideration of the proposed Parks and Recreation Fees for recommendation to Council for adoption in April. The March meeting will also address items identified by the PRC at the February 1, 2017 meeting for further review and discussion. ATTACHMENTS 1. BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES – SECTION H USER COST RECOVERY GOALS 2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES SECTION H 2-8Packet Pg. 92 1 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES G. Recreation Programs The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs: 1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high. 2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels should be higher. Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform service fee structure to all par ticipants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high- levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status. 3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows: High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%) a.Adult athletics b.Banner permit applications c.Child care services (except Youth STAR) d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses) e.Triathlon f.Golf Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%) g.Classes h.Holiday in the Plaza i.Major commercial film permit applications Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%) j.Aquatics k.Batting cages l.Community gardens m.Junior Ranger camp n.Minor commercial film permit applications o.Skate park p.Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza) q.Youth sports r.Youth STAR s.Teen services t.Senior/boomer services 4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that: Attachment 1 2-9Packet Pg. 93 1 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES a.The fee is reducing attendance. b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance. 5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special -use areas, and recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak times and include a majority of non-resident users. 6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations using City facilities for moneymaking activities. 7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation programs or resurrect existing ones. 8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager determines in writing that an undue hardship exists. 2-10Packet Pg. 94 1 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES Proposed Policy Amendments, February 1, 2017 G. Recreation Programs The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs: 1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high. 2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relative ly low. In those circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels should be higher. Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high- levels of participation in youth and senior recreation act ivities regardless of financial status. 3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows: High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%) a.Adult athletics b.Banner permit applications c.Child care services (except Youth STAR) d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses) e.Triathlon f.Golf Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%) e.Triathlon f.Golf g.Summer and Spring Break Camps g.h. Classes h.Holiday in the Plaza i.Major commercial film permit applications Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%) j.Aquatics Batting cages k.Community gardens l.Junior Ranger camp m.Minor commercial film permit applications n.Skate park o.Parks and Recreation sponsored events Special events (except for Triathlon) and Holiday in the Plaza) p.Youth sports Youth STAR q.Teen services r.Senior/boomer services Attachment 2 2-11Packet Pg. 95 1 BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES Proposed Policy Amendments, February 1, 2017 4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that: a.The fee is reducing attendance. b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance. 5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Dire ctor of Parks and Recreation is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak times and include a majority of non-resident users. 6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations using City facilities for moneymaking activities. 7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation programs or resurrect existing ones. 8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager determines in writing that an undue hardship exists. 2-12Packet Pg. 96 1 TOGETHER WE CAN PLAN OUR FUTURE Visit slocity.org for more information (Government>Advisory Bodies: Agendas>Parks and Recreation Commission) Questions? Contact Melissa Mudgett at (805) 781-7296 WEDNESDAY February 1, 2017 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session: Review of Fees Join the Parks and Recreation Department at our next Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. The Commission will be reviewing the results of the cost of service fee study which includes recommendations on the amount charged for Parks and Recreation Programs. We are inviting you to provide input on the results of the study. 2-13Packet Pg. 97 1 Minutes - DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1 February 2017 Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 1st day of February 2017 at 5:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Whitener. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman, Vice Chair Susan Updegrove and Chair Jeff Whitener Absent: None Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett, Special Projects Manager Marcus Carloni, Recreation Supervisor Facilities Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor Youth Services Meghan Burger, Recreation Supervisor Community Services Dave Setterlund, Recreation Supervisor Sports Rich Ogden, Recreation Supervisor Ranger Doug Carscaden, Administrative Analyst Lindsey Stephenson, Recreation Coordinator Golf Chris Woods PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2017 AS AMENDED, MOTION BY THURMAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLSON. 1. Consideration of Minutes CARRIED 7:0:0:0 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the meetings of 1/4/2017. AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, SCHWAB, SINGLE, THURMAN, UPDEGROVE, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Study Session of the Parks and Recreation Fees: Packet Pg. 98 1 DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 2 Director Shelly Stanwyck opened the public study session by explaining that best practices and City fiscal policy calls for a comprehensive review of service costs every five years. The last citywide fee study occurred in 2006. She added that Parks and Recreation user fees are guided by adopted fiscal policy, actual costs, and market comparisons. Director Stanwyck reiterated that tonight’s Study Session is the first step in reviewing the proposed fees and receiving public input. The City’s Special Projects Manager, Marcus Carloni, and Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, provided a presentation for the Commission of the Parks and Recreation Fee Analysis and proposed fee and policy changes. Staff Hyfield reminded the Commission that adopted fiscal policies specify the current cost recovery levels for adults, youth/seniors and specific recreational activities. Staff Carloni provided a summary of the citywide fee study process and the overall analysis provided by the consultant. Parks and Recreation staff was available in the audience to answer any questions. Staff Carloni shared the next steps in the process would be for the Jack House Committee review on February 8th, City Council Study Session on February 21st, returning to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 1st for recommendation and final adoption of the proposed fees by the City Council at its April 18, 2016 meeting. Public Comment None Commission Comments followed. Commission Avakian asked if Childcare Services was considered as a low range cost recovery activity. Director Stanwyck said that even in the high cost recovery range, the City childcare fees are below market rate with conservative increases proposed. Commission Avakian asked about resident versus non-resident rates and suggested that contractual facility rentals could be analyzed for potential non-resident fees. Commissioner Olson about non-profit discounts. Staff Hyfield responded that the impact on the parks/facilities/and other City Departments remain the same level regardless of profit/non-profit status, but that there are reductions for indoor facilities. Vice Chair Updegrove asked about Community Gardens. Staff indicated that this community activity reflects a proposed moderate cost recovery increase to 10%. Vice Chair Updegrove spoke about housing prices increasing and families having less discretionary income and expressed support for lower, to no, cost recovery for youth sports. Commissioner Schwab asked about Damon Garcia Sports Field rates. Director Stanwyck said that staff is seeking the Commission’s guidance in further analysis of rates for this facility use by recreational and club organizations. Commissioner Single asked about the return on investment (ROI) for Parks and Recreation services and facilities. Director Stanwyck responded that the adopted fiscal policies allow for cost recovery based upon a variety of factors which vary by activity and user group. Commissioner Thurman asked for clarification of fiscal policies and where Parks and Recreation revenues are deposited. Director Stanwyck said all Parks and Recreation fees collected are a part of the City’s General Fund. Packet Pg. 99 1 DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 3 Chair Whitener expressed support for not charging fees for recreational youth sport groups for use of fields. He supported exploring fees associated with sports clubs. By consensus the Parks and Recreation Commission provided feedback and guidance to staff. 1. The costs of services for Parks and Recreation user fees was reviewed. 2. The proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation user fees and cost recovery policies were supported by the Commission as presented and no further changes were proposed 3. The Commission supported staff returning at a future meeting date with a project plan regarding how to analyze recreational costs associated with club sports using City facilities for youth. 3. Presentation of Open Space Annual Report Recreation Supervisor Ranger Service, Doug Carscaden, presented the City of San Luis Obispo 2016 Annual Report for Open Space detailing progress in trail maintenance activities, trailhead amenities, volunteer hours, fuel reduction, trash removal activities, new trail constriction, staff training, public education and enforcement occurring in this past year. Staff Carscaden said that there was a total of 1,461.5 volunteer hours recorded in 2016, which equated to a value of $33,716. A new trail at Reservoir Canyon was completed in 2016 creating a loop and the “M” Trail loop has begun construction and is anticipated to be open for public use by summer. Staff Carscaden provided a summary of annual enforcement activities designed to curb poor behaviors in the open space. He added that ongoing creek maintenance and clean-up days resulted in the removal of approximately 21.87 tons of trash from the creeks. Public Comment None Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Thurman asked about garbage cans. Staff Carscaden said there are garbage cans located at all trailheads. Commissioner Single asked about the Police Department’s patrol of City Parks. Director Stanwyck responded that Police has a Neighborhood Policing program and provide regular patrols of City parks. Chair Whitener expressed his support of the fuel reduction project. He added that the Open Space Maintenance Plan was a result of a Major City Goal and asked for staff to comment about the future for this work effort. Director Stanwyck said that funds from the City’s revenue enhancement measure were allocated by the Council for added ranger resources and anticipates this allocation will continue in the next budget cycle. Chair Whitener asked about the average costs of the five annual contracted creek clean-up services and added he would like to see more creek clean-ups added. Staff Carscaden responded $1,000 - $1,800 and resulted in 26,360 of trash removal. The Parks and Recreation Commission thanked staff for their commitment in expanding and maintaining the trails. Packet Pg. 100 1 DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 4 ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE OPEN SPACE ANNUAL REPORT. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS 4. Director’s Report Director Stanwyck provided a brief update of current Parks and Recreation programming and City updates:  The Wadell Property in the Irish Hills open space is now owned by the City – kudos to Bob Hill.  There is a dramatic uptick in free speech/right to assemble events. Currently City staff are discussing the balancing of protecting the right to assemble and engage in free speech with operations of the City.  #RockAroundSLO kicked-off on February 1st. #RockAroundSLO is a social media campaign to paint and place painted rocks in City parks. The community is encouraged to post pics on Instagram and share with the hashtag. LIAISON REPORTS 5. Subcommittee Liaison Reports  Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single said adult softball registration opens February 6th. The Senior Center will have a Magic Show in March. The Senior Center is in need of volunteers to manage office records. The Senior Center Membership Appreciation luncheon is in a few weeks.  Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Olson said she was unable to attend the last meeting. No Report.  City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Avakian reported that the rain has helped the Course. There were 13 rain-out days this last month. The Golf Course “Groupon” promotion is underway. Night Golf will be held on February 9th. The SLO Swim Center locker-room heaters were repaired.  Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman said that recently the Committee was asked by the City to provide input on commercial development projects. Commissioner Thurman will continue to provide the Commission with updates as this topic of discussion progresses.  Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove added that the Jack House Committee has been pushing for a facility rate increase for events at the Jack House for a long time. There is a Special Meeting tomorrow night to develop a Mission Statement that will be in alignment with the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and City policies. Art After Dark is the first Friday of the month and this event has helped to double attendance/visitors to the Jack House.  Youth Sports: Commissioner Schwab said YSA talked about the update to the Parks and Recreation Element and scholarship requests for youth baseball as a way to retain players. Commission Communications Chair Whitener asked about the Sinsheimer Park Sign kiosk that may be in need of some repairs. Director Stanwyck responded that she would reach out to Parks Maintenance, as they are responsible for maintenance of parks facilities and amenities. Packet Pg. 101 1 DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 5 Chair Whitener said at a recently Mayor’s Meeting, Matt Ritter, spoke about Damon Garcia Sports Field as in the most geographical challenged area in the state (serpentine rock). He said he attended the Council Goal Setting meeting on January 26, 2017 and was initially encouraged about the Commission’s goal for the update of the Parks and Recreation Element being a Major City Goal. As it was not adopted as a Major City Goal Chair Whitener wanted to continue to advocate as an advisory body support for the funding of this work effort. Chair Whitener asked if the Commissioners would like to consider a letter to this effect at its March meeting. Chair Whitener also discussed including in the letter a recommendation to Council that it use funds from the Park Land Fund that were placed there during the 2016-17 budget adoption for potential park acquisition in the area North of Broad Street as updating the element and having a master plan makes sense to come first. Given the unanimous support for this, a letter will be presented to the Commission for consideration at its March 1 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. to the regular Parks and Recreation Commission scheduled for 01, March 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 03/01/2017 Packet Pg. 102 1 Jack House Committee Fees February 8, 2017 Discussion On February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee held a study session to review the facility use charges associated with the Jack House. The Committee recommended the following changes: 1) General rentals by week-end and week-day (not by wedding non-wedding) 2) Institute a resident and non-resident fee 3) Keep the hourly rates but specify a 4-hour maximum limit and for non-wedding events only (they wanted to encourage smaller corporate event rentals) 4) Add Security Deposit of $500. The below table is an excerpt from the table attached to the February 1, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Items in red are suggested modifications by the Jack House Committee Packet Pg. 103 1 u RESOLUTION NO. 9889 (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND MODIFYING THOSE FEES FOR THE RECOVERY OF COSTS RELATED TO FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF ALL MULTI- DWELLING PROPERTIES CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code Section 17921 to annually inspect multi - dwelling rental properties containing three or more dwelling units, including apartments, hotels, motels, lodging houses and congregate residence; and WHEREAS, a typical fire and life safety inspection at these facilities would include, but not be limited to, checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common areas for fire hazards, exiting and fire access issues; and WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146 authorizes cities to charge property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain adequate to achieve adopted cost recovery goals; and WHEREAS, such service charges and fees are set forth in the master fee schedule, adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time; and WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public hearing on May 17, 2005, based on a detailed analysis of costs and funding requirements to meet adopted cost recovery goals, and adopted Resolution No. 9684 (2005 Series) setting fees providing for 94% cost recovery for state - mandated fire and life- safety inspections; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2005, the Council held a public hearing and subsequently by its Resolution No. 9706 (2005 Series) modified fees applicable to sororities and fraternities and very low and low income households; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on April 3, 2007, to consider amending the fee schedule to reduce certain multi - dwelling property fire and life safety inspection fees and increase fees for the third and additional inspections in the event of non - compliance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City's master fee schedule is hereby amended as follows: A. The Multi- Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule shall include the following new fees in place of the existing ones, and all other provisions of that fee schedule shall remain in effect: Packet Pg. 104 1 O Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series) Page 2 Apartments 28.00 per unit per year Administrative Fee of $65.00 /year per facility (County billing fee not included) 10,000 maximum per property Fees are waived for units that are built, owned; and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other governmental agencies, or not - for - profit housing organizations. Hotels, Motels, Lodging House, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities and Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences 1 to 30 units $200 /year per facility (County billing fee not included) 31 to 80 units $300 /year per facility (County billing fee not included) More than 80 units $400 /year per facility (County billing fee not included) B. The "Third & Subsequent Fire Safety Inspections" fee as provided in portion of the Master Fee Schedule entitled "Fire Equipment and Personnel Stand -by Fees Effective July 1, 2006" is changed from $62.00 to $112.50. SECTION 2. These fees shall be effective immediately. On motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Vice Mayor Mulholland, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Settle, Vice Mayor Mulholland and Mayor Romero NOES: Council Members Brown and Carter ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of April 2007. elm Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hoo¢kr City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo 2e' P. Lowell City Attorney Packet Pg. 105 1 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 106 1 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, January 3, 2017 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, January 3, 2017 at 4:00 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. STUDY SESSION 1. BISHOP PEAK EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS AND PUBLIC EGRESS STUDY Fire Chief Olson provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint Presentation and responded to Council questions. Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson, answered Council questions regarding the number of current parking spaces at the location and the number estimated if shifted into other areas. He provided safety measures for pedestrians if the parking location was relocated to a further spot, he noted the possibility of a pathway with a safety barrier however spoke regarding challenges the City faces in the design to be adequate for safety and ease. Public Comments: Bert Forbes, San Luis Obispo referred to a Chorro Street traffic calming experiment; he spoke regarding raised crosswalks and problems they pose. Packet Pg. 107 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 2 Barbara Collins, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding the expense of building an overpass; she feels this in not a viable option and requested for a widening of the street. Peter Karacsony, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding egress, he urged Council to look at a long term solution to access the area noting parking lots as an option. Ruth Holzhauer, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding the management and operation of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve referencing COSE 855, she referenced dangers to visitors. John Ashbaugh, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding issues to emergency access and requested Council reject the current staff recommendations; he spoke regarding existing dangers to visitors and requested a comprehensive solution. Julie Frankel, San Luis Obispo questioned the decision making process and feels this is not in the best interest of the residents; she noted fire threat to night hiking and the need for a ranger presence. Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo feels there is an excessive use of the trail area; he spoke regarding a need to relocate the trail head off highway 1. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo stated she feels an off sight parking location is the best answer; she noted that residents are concerned about open space and the general plan. Mary Neal, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding neighborhood compatibility; she noted the very narrow street and stated that she is in favor of a parking district. Felicia Cashin, San Luis Obispo noted fire and pedestrian safety as the largest issues at this location; she feels that the removal of parking on Highland Drive is the best option. Carol Hall, San Luis Obispo stated that vehicles belonging to visitors of the hiking trail are the larger problem at hand, noting hikers walking in the middle of the street and feels that having a tourist attraction in the middle of a residential area is the problem. ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file a presentation on the public safety issues related to the Bishop Peak Emergency Fire Access and Public Egress based on staff’s preliminary recommendation to prohibit on-street parking on both sides of Highland Drive and Oakridge Drive from the point at which these two streets split to the termination of both cul de sacs and provided input and guidance to staff to analyze and implement pedestrian and traffic safety enhancements at the Patricia Street trailhead. RECESSED AT 5:35 TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M. Packet Pg. 108 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 3 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January 3, 2017 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 Gomez led the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATIONS 2. PRESENTATION - PRESENTATION - UTILITY OF THE FUTURE AWARD PRESENTATION FROM WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly and Pismo Beach Public Works Director Ben Fine provided a presentation regarding the Future Award from the Water Environment Federation. APPOINTMENTS 3. COUNCIL LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2017 City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo asked for a reconsideration to tonight’s recommendation noting that she feels that one individual Council Member should not be asked to sit on five committees. ---End of Public Comments--- Packet Pg. 109 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 4 ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments for calendar year 2017 as outlined in the 2017 Subcommittee Worksheet. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Stewart Jenkins, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding the oath of local officials to support the Constitution and presented each new Council member with a copy of the California Bill of Rights. Erik Ernstrom, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding drug deals feeling unsafe in his own neighborhood. Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding open government and public transparency; she requested Council agendize the issue in the future. Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo noted speaking on behalf of a friend, she suggested small type print on City public notices may be an illegal practice. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding climate change and believes his prior attempts to have Council consider the issue have gone unheard. Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding opportunities in the new year; he noted rigged elections and the need for honest government. Arnold Ruiz, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding restoring the eco system to Laguna Lake and against dredging. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding trees and climate change, she requested the Tree Committee be the first as opposed to the last to review City projects. ---End of Public Comment--- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 10. 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS – WATER AND WASTEWATER ENGINEERING SERVICES CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Approve the Request for Qualifications to provide Water and Wastewater Engineering Services, Specification No. 91537 and authorize staff to advertise the Request for Qualifications. Packet Pg. 110 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 5 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and 3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend Purchase Orders for individual consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized project budget. 6. FY 2015-16 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Review the 2015-16 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 10765 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the 2015-16 annual report on development impact fees, reaffirming the necessity of development impact fees and make findings related to impact fee balances and in-lieu fees.” 7. 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING RESERVATION LETTER TO TRANSITIONS-MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the Community Development Director to execute the attached Reservation Letter authorizing the City to reserve $200,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to Transitions-Mental Health Association for property acquisition of Bishop Street Studios. 8. SAN LUIS OBISPO OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE GRANT APPLICATION CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Authorize Fire Department staff to submit grant application to San Luis Obispo County Off Highway Vehicle grant program in the amount of $32,628.00 to purchase one Off Highway Vehicle, configured with a mobile radio and headset system; and 2. Authorize City Manager to execute documents necessary to appropriate the grant funds upon notification that the grant has been awarded; and 3. Delegate the Purchase Authority to the Finance Director to review quotes and award contracts or purchase orders. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASES FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the Finance Director to execute purchase orders in the total amount of $190,000 to acquire four pieces of heavy duty equipment to accomplish the adopted Major City Goal of Open Space Preservation using funding from the approved $285,000 2015-17 Capital Improvement Project for Open Space Preservation: Maintenance. 10. OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PLAN PROGRESS REPORT CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file the Parks and Recreation Department’s Open Space Maintenance Plan 2016 Progress Report. Packet Pg. 111 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY DAVID BRODIE) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW FOUR STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 17 EXTENDED STAY HOTEL ROOMS AND A REQUEST FOR A MIXED USE/SHARED PARKING REDUCTION OF 25%, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (1042 OLIVE STREET, APPL-4010-2016) Ex Parte Communications: Council Member Pease noted having spoken with two ARC Commissioners in order to gain a better sense of their reasoning behind their votes and the feel for discussion at the meeting; Council Member Christianson noted receiving a phone call from Mr. Garcia inquiring if she had any questions, and stated had none; Mayor Harmon, noted having spoken with several community members about the project and with the owner of the Heritage Inn as well as visiting the site. Council Member Gomez and Vice Mayor Rivoire reported having no Ex Parte Communications. Community Development Director Codron and Planning Technician Van Leeuwen provided with the help of a PowerPoint presentation an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Appellant, David Brodie San Luis Obispo resident noted the assumption of 30 minutes of speaking time, he stated his belief that three new Council Members have not had adequate time to review the Cities Community Design guidelines; adding that the appeal is directed to the ARC and that the project is out of conformance of over 20 guidelines. Appellant, Jamie Loppes, San Luis Obispo resident noted his belief that the ARC departed from their primary charge when they decided to uphold this project of a modern style of architecture; he quoted from the guidelines and with use of a slide show, he provided context. Allen Cooper, speaking on behalf of the appellant noted belief that the ARC did not follow their own guidelines; listing a boxy project design as the reason. By use of a slide show, he provided an alternative project. K. Patel, neighbor to the project and speaking on behalf of the appellant, noted his belief that this design is inappropriate for the proposed area. Madhu Patel, local business owner, speaking on behalf of the appellant noted traffic concerns and parking issues relating to the proposed project. Sanji Vijay, speaking on behalf of the appellant, noted traffic concerns and the loss of views Packet Pg. 112 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 7 to his existing property with the approval of this project. Applicant, George Garcia provided the design overview by discussing the design process and sustainable features of the project. Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo stated that if the project was designed with sustainability in mind, they should have better accommodated the look of the neighborhood. Greg Wynn, San Luis Obispo and ARC Chair noted a 3-2 vote by the ARC on this project, he requested Council be specific in their findings to better help the ARC in their future decision making process. Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding extended stay properties and the length of time resident’s vehicles will remain in the area, he asked Council reconsider this decision. Matt Sansone, San Luis Obispo noted the beauty in modern architecture and the local need for extended stay properties. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding traffic concerns in the area specific to driveways exiting onto Hwy 1 and her belief this is due to the entrance to the 101 freeway. Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding design guidelines, and asked to have the appeal upheld. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding traffic congestion on the proposed project street; she noted difficulty in deciphering commercial from residential properties. Stewart Jenkins, San Luis Obispo believes the appeal should be granted and sent back to the ARC for have more San Luis Obispo style architecture included in the design. Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo noted that he is against parking reductions; he believes character should be infused into the existing neighborhoods. Applicant George Garcia provided closing remarks speaking on the need to be responsive to the environmental needs through socially and energy conscious designs. Appellant, James Loppes, provided answers to Council questions; he added that they are asking for the project to be referred back to the ARC for review of stricter adherence to the guidelines. ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 3-2 ( PEASE AND HARMON VOTING NO) to adopt Resolution No. 10766 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal filed by David Brodie and thereby approving the development of a new four story mixed-use project including ground floor commercial/retail space, 17 extended-stay hotel rooms, and a 25% mixed-use and shared parking reduction, with a categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented Packet Pg. 113 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 8 in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated January 3, 2017 (1042 Olive Street, APPL-4010-2016).” RECESS Council recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m., with all Council Members present. BUSINESS ITEMS 12. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT – DRAFT PREDESIGN AND COST ESTIMATE - CH2M CONTRACT AMENDMENT Utilities Director Mattingly and Utilities Deputy Director Hix provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions. Ron Williams, Public Comments: Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo noted his belief that the addition of fluoride into the City water source is poisoning the water supply; he noted the additional monetary savings to the City by not adding it. Janie Rands, San Luis Obispo noted that San Luis Obispo is the only City within the County that adds fluoride to its water supply. ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to receive and File the 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Second Annual Update. 13. LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION UPDATE Fire Chief Olson and Department staff Cox 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--- By consensus, Council received and filed the 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Action Second Annual Update. Packet Pg. 114 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 9 STUDY SESSION 14. REVIEW OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE AND WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATION REGULATIONS Assistant City Manager Johnson and Principal Analyst Herman provided an in-depth staff report with the help of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Anne Hodges, San Luis Obispo noted for the need for Council to make available, clean alternatives if they decide to take away the plastic water bottle choice of its residents; she added the difficulty surrounding recycling within the City. Cory Jones, San Luis Obispo acknowledged the need for additional water bottle filling stations citing the four currently available refill stations within the City, he noted the positive response to refillable bottles within the community. Janine Rands, San Luis Obispo noted the landfill reduction requirement; and noted the safety of City water. Eric Veium, San Luis Obispo noted support for the installation of dehydration stations as well as the cleaning and maintenance of the stations. Mary Ciesinski, San Luis Obispo, Executive Director of ECOSLO noted the findings of debris collected at their recent coastal clean-up day noting that two of the top ten items found are related to plastic bottles. Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo urged Council follow the proposed restriction and not consider restrictions to the market at large; he stated that people are concerned about having conveniences removed from private residences; he urged Council to consider the future of the City’s financial concerns while weighing the cost of water refill stations. ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file a presentation on single-use plastic water bottle and water bottle filing station regulations on policy options and provided input and guidance to staff regarding phasing of the project as well as changes to current policies and practices. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Harmon inquired whether Council had an interest in agendizing the future topic of tiny homes; City Manager Lichtig stated that an update on this topic is already scheduled for the April 4th City Council meeting. Packet Pg. 115 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 3, 2017 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned to a Special Joint City Council and Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., at the Ludwick Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, California for the purposes of holding a Community Forum to discuss the 2017-19 Goal-Setting and Budget Process. The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 116 3 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director Prepared By: Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A. RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt a Recreation Partnership Agreement between the City and the San Luis Obispo County Y.M.C.A. (YMCA). DISCUSSION Background The City of San Luis Obispo remains committed to providing recreational opportunities within its community. The City and YMCA have a long-standing partnership which has resulted in the use of the SLO Swim Center by members of the YMCA, the use of the Ken Hampian Hockey Rink by the YMCA’s youth roller hockey program and a partnership between the City and the YMCA in programming youth basketball, futsal (indoor soccer), and flag football. The Parks and Recreation Department and the YMCA desire to continue to collaboratively offer programming together and avoid duplication of programs and efforts by memorializing their partnership via this proposed agreement. Proposed Recreation Partnership Agreement For the past year, staff from both parties have met to develop a recreational partnership agreement that memorializes the longstanding relationship between the two and also manages potential liability associated with the use of public facilities by members of the YMCA. As formerly reflected in a series of individual agreements, the terms of the proposed agreement reflects the existing partnership between the City and the YMCA, allows both parties to continue to provide essential and quality recreational opportunities for the community’s youth and adults, and is inclusive of three main recreational services provided for the community. The proposed Recreation Partnership Agreement seeks to avoid duplication of youth recreational programs and where appropriate, partners with the YMCA to provide it members with access to certain City facilities as a member benefit. Highlights of the Proposed Agreement Packet Pg. 117 4 This Recreation Partnership Agreement covers three different “locations” for activities and their associated costs: SLO Swim Center use by seniors, adults, and youth; Ken Hampian Hockey Rink use by the YMCA Youth Hockey Program and three youth sports jointly operated by the YMCA and the City held at City and School District Facilities. The City owns, maintains, and programs the SLO Swim Center, Ken Hampian Hockey Rink and the Damon-Garcia Sports Field Complex. By contract, the City and School District have an agreement regarding the use of school district facilities for youth related activities wherein the City pays to the district a fee for use. The YMCA is responsible for collecting its membership and program revenues and agrees to reimburse the City for use of the SLO Swim Center by its members, use of city-owned recreational facilities for flag football and hockey (Damon-Garcia Sports Field and Ken Hampian Hockey Rink), and for youth sports programs offered jointly (basketball and futsal). Upon the expiration of the agreement in February 2020, the agreement terms will be reviewed and recommendations provided to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council for consideration. Packet Pg. 118 4 CONCURRENCES Parks and Recreation staff have met with YMCA representatives in developing the terms of the agreement. The proposed Recreation Partnership Agreement was presented by the YMCA’s Chief Executive Officer for the consideration of the YMCA Board of Directors at its December 6, 2016 meeting and received unanimous support. The YMCA concurs with the terms of the agreement amendment as proposed. The Parks and Recreation Commission met on January 4, 2017 and provided input on proposed Recreation Agreement (Attachment B, Draft PRC Meeting Minutes). The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously supported the terms of the agreement as presented. Public Works Parks and Building Maintenance staff have reviewed the terms of the agreement and concur that they are maintainable at the City facilities identified. FISCAL IMPACT Consistent with Council Adopted Fiscal Policies for Cost Recovery The proposed Agreement represents cost recovery of 22% annually for shared City/YMCA recreational programming. The annual reimbursement rate of $50,444 to the City denotes a step- up payment plan in which annual payments will increase incrementally through to 2020 to be more reflective of current costs. Adopted City budget and fiscal policies provide a guide for recreational program user fees and cost recovery levels. A lower recovery of 0-30% of the full cost for activities is suggested for youth and senior programming (Attachment C). The YMCA’s reimbursement rate to the City as proposed in the Agreement is reflective of the aggregation of the prior stand-alone agreements and cost recovery at the adopted policy level. A fiscal summary is provided in the table below: Table 1: Proposed Cost Recovery for Shared Recreational Programming COST RECOVERY YMCA YMCA CITY Parks & Recreation Public Works Swim, Hockey, Basketball, Futsal, Flag Football Revenues Collected on behalf of City & YMCA shared programs Agreement Reimbursement to the City LOW 0-30% $ 115,490 $ 108,707 Includes District Facility Rentals & Staff Includes Maintenance & Staff costs 22% EXPENDITURES REVENUES CITY $ 224,197 $ 92,714 $ 121,368 $ 50,444 Packet Pg. 119 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. Revise the Recreation Partnership Agreement As Proposed. Council could direct staff to revise various terms of the Recreation Partnership Agreement to better reflect Council’s intent. If Council has specific revision they should be given when this item is presented for review. 2. Not Approve the Recreation Partnership Agreement. Council could elect to not approve this Recreation Partnership Agreement between the City Parks and Recreation and the San Luis Obispo County YMCA. Staff does not believe that there is a compelling reason to do so. This agreement represents a long term community partnership based on historical use and measureable community benefits that are in alignment with City policies. Attachments: a - Recreation Partnership Agreement b - PRC Meeting Minutes Jan 4 2017 c - Fiscal Policies Section G Packet Pg. 120 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A. THIS RECREATION PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A., a California Corporation, is in support of common youth recreational activities for the benefit of the community is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on February 21, 2017 by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A., a California Corporation, hereinafter referred to as YMCA. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY and YMCA desire to continue to offer residents of the City of San Luis Obispo high-quality recreational opportunities in a collaborative fashion; and WHEREAS, the CITY and YMCA seek to avoid duplication of youth recreational programs and where appropriate to partner in providing access to members of the YMCA to certain City facilities as a member benefit; and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship between the CITY and YMCA as a way to continue to enhance the sense of community for residents; and WHEREAS, the CITY owns, maintains and programs the SLO Swim Center at Sinsheimer Park and YMCA desires to have access to the SLO Swim Center as a member benefit; and WHEREAS, the CITY owns, maintains and programs the Ken Hampian Hockey Rink and Multi - Use Court at Santa Rosa Park and YMCA desires to continue to provide a youth roller hockey league as a programmed use of the Hampian Hockey Rink; and WHEREAS, the CITY through its joint use agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District pays for and has access to certain indoor facilities for youth sports activiti es including basketball, futsal and is willing to coordinate and collaborate with the YMCA to provide shared programming and team activities for youth in those two activities as subject to facility availability through the School District; and WHEREAS, the CITY owns, maintains and programs the San Luis Obispo Damon -Garcia Sports Field Complex and the YMCA desires to have access to outdoor fields to continue to provide a youth flag football league as a programmed use of the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields Complex; and WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that partnerships with community organizations to provide shared services to the community are of great benefit and YMCA has expressed a willingness to continue these shared services, in partnership and in cooperation with and assistance from the CITY; WHEREAS, The CITY pays San Luis Coastal Unified School District an annual fee for the use of district facilities for youth programming and where the programming is shared between the YMCA and the CITY at these district facilities, the YMCA shall assist in offsetting costs associated with youth sport activities by reimbursing the CITY a portion of the revenues collected; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Packet Pg. 121 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 2 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be for four (4) years from March 1, 2017 to February 29, 2020. The terms of this Agreement may be amended upon the mutual written agreement of the parties. 2. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. The CITY and YMCA agree to a series of terms as outlined below to share in the financial costs associated with recreational programming and the use of City and San Luis Coastal Unified School District facilities for the sole purpose of providing shared youth recreational programming for the mutual benefit of the community. Fees for participation in these shared youth activities or use of facilities shall be collected and remitted by the YMCA to the CITY in accordance with the payment schedules as prescribed below in Section 2. Fees for participation are based on the City of San Luis Obispo recreational fees as adopted by the City Council and the facility use fees charged by the San Luis Coastal Unified School District to the CITY under the adopted Joint Use Agreement. Fees included in this Agreement are subject to change with future Joint Use Agreement modifications and/or as directed by the City Council. 2.1 PAYMENT FOR SLO SWIM CENTER USE BY YMCA MEMBERS. The YMCA shall reimburse the CITY for any use of the SLO Swim Center at Sinsheimer Park by its members for its use during lap swim, aqua aerobics, recreational swim and YMCA Summer Camp use. The SLO Swim Center facility use cost recovery shall be as described below. A. The YMCA will pay the CITY for either the equivalent of the daily fee for an adult, youth, or senior OR the monthly fee for adults or seniors if an individual uses the pool more than: 15 times per month for an adult or 14 times per month for a senior and youth for all lap swim, aqua aerobics and recreational swim. B. The YMCA will provide an accounting of each month’s YMCA member uses by the 5th of each month via email and the CITY shall invoice the YMCA for these costs. The YMCA shall remit payment of monthly SLO Swim Center invoices within 30 days or receipt. C. YMCA Summer Camps shall pay the equivalent of child swim script fee which is payment for every 9 swimmers and the 10th is “free”. 2.2 PAYMENT FOR KEN HAMPIAN HOCKEY RINK USE BY YMCA. The YMCA shall reimburse the CITY for its use of the Ken Hampian Hockey Rink for the YMCA’s youth hockey programs. The hockey rink cost recovery shall be as described below. A. The YMCA shall remit payment to the CITY for three (3) youth hockey seasons. i. The fee associated with the use of the rink is based on 20 hours a week for 10 weeks. Currently, that fee would be $1010 per season, or $3,030 annually and shall be included in the payment schedule for youth recreational sports as noted in Section 2.3. It is acknowledged that the base fee of $5.00 an hour is presently under study and review and could change during the term of this agreement. ii. In recognition of the long-standing partnership and the mutual benefit received by providing facilities at a reduced cost for youth recreational activities, the CITY has agreed to not charge the YMCA the standard lighting fee that is applied to all standard facility rentals. The lighting fee is estimated at $3,960.00 annually. 2.3 YOUTH RECREATIONAL SPORT PROGRAMS. The YMCA shall reimburse the CITY for youth sports programs offered jointly. i. Each agency will assume responsibility for expenses associated with the shared youth sports programs. ii. Regardless of program costs, the YMCA shall reimburse the CITY for youth basketball, futsal, flag football and hockey in accordance with the annual payment amounts as follows: i. 2017: $28,030 ii. 2018: $33,030 Packet Pg. 122 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 3 iii. 2019: $38,030 iv. 2020: $43,030 iii. The YMCA shall make equal quarterly payments to the CITY on August 1st, November 1st, February 1st and May 1st of each year. iv. Should there be a dramatic change in revenues collected for shared youth programming, both parties agree to renegotiate the payment terms set forth in this Agreement. v. Sponsorships, donations or grants received for a specific program shall be used for intended program only. Any sponsorships, donations or grants received from either party for specific programs shall not be factored into revenue the calculations for this contract. 3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Director may authorize periodic modifications, within the scope of his/her financial and/or operational authority, to the Roles and Responsibilities as he/she may deem necessary or appropriate to the partnership between the CITY and YMCA. Any written amendment or modifications to the Roles and Responsibilities shall be upon mutual consent of both parties. 3.1 SLO SWIM CENTER A. SCOPE OF SERVICES i. Both parties agree to collaborate in the use of the SLO Swim Center facility to YMCA members for use during lap swim, aqua aerobics and recreational swim. Private swim lessons and warm water exercise classes are not included in this agreement and shall be subject to the current fee for that use. ii. The YMCA uses the SLO Swim Center as a member benefit. Members are charged the current fee for lap swim, aqua aerobics and recreational swim. The computer software allows for a streamlined check-in process for YMCA members. iii. All ages may swim at the SLO Swim Center. iv. The use of the SLO Swim Center shall be for the hours that it is open to the public. Periodic schedule changes occur for maintenance and athletic competitions. v. The maximum number of participants is as follows: Therapy Pool (62 maximum), Olympic Pool (615 maximum). B. CITY OBLIGATIONS i. The CITY will provide access to the SLO Swim Center to YMCA members for the purpose of lap swimming, aqua aerobics, and recreational swim. ii. The CITY Swim Center staff will monitor uses by YMCA members by scanning membership numbers into the Daxco system at the front counter. iii. The CITY shall remit a copy of the monthly billing statement to the YMCA. iv. As required by Department policy, all lifeguards are fingerprinted, American Red Cross certified and trained in Lifeguarding, Professional Rescuer CPR/AED, and First Aid for First Responders in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. C. YMCA OBLIGATIONS i. The YMCA will maintain a current posting in its facility of the SLO Swim Center’s lap swim and aqua aerobics hours. ii. The YMCA will provide all technical support for the Daxco programs at the front desk computer used for YMCA check-in. iii. The YMCA will provide the SLO Swim Center staff the capabilities to look up members that have forgotten their membership card. iv. The YMCA will pay the CITY for this use as described in Section 2 above. v. The YMCA will provide an accounting of each month’s YMCA member uses by the fifth (5th) of each month via email Packet Pg. 123 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 4 3.2 YOUTH ROLLER HOCKEY A. SCOPE OF SERVICES i. Both parties agree to collaborate in the use of the Ken Hampian Hockey Rink for the YMCA’s youth hockey programs ii. The YMCA youth roller hockey program is designed to accommodate a wide range of skill level and is divided up into skill/age divisions. iii. The ages of the YMCA youth roller hockey program is from 5 to 13 years of age. iv. This agreement covers the YMCA’s current three 10-week youth roller hockey seasons held annually as follows: 1. Spring: March - June 2. Summer: June - August 3. Fall: September – November iv. There is no maximum number of participants. Additional coaches are requested based on the amount of entries. B. CITY OBLIGATIONS i. The CITY shall make available to the YMCA use of the Ken Hampian Hockey Rink for the purpose of a community-based youth roller hockey program provided for three hockey seasons annually given that such use does not interfere or impede with the CITY use for community recreational purposes. CITY recreational uses and reservations shall take priority over the YMCA uses. ii. The CITY shall not charge the YMCA the standard lighting fee of $1,320.00 per season (estimated at $22.00/hour) for the rink when used for the purpose of youth hockey activities as determined under this Agreement. C. YMCA OBLIGATIONS i. The YMCA must submit to the CITY Parks and Recreation Facilities Supervisor the practice and games schedules within thirty (30) dates prior to the beginnin g of the season. ii. The YMCA shall remit payment to the CITY as described in Section 2 above. 3.3 YOUTH RECREATIONAL SPORTS PROGRAMS A. SCOPE OF SERVICES Both parties agree to collaborate in offering the following youth recreational sports programs: 1. Youth Basketball a. Youth basketball shall involve the teaching the fundamentals of basketball while focusing on participation, cooperation and team spirit. Teams are formed according to age divisions, school sites and ability. b. The ages of the participants will be youth from 5 to 13 years of age. c. The season for this activity will be annually from January through March during mutually agreed upon dates. d. There will be no maximum number of participants. Additional coaches are requested based on the amount of entries. e. The CITY shall not be obligated to provide the YMCA with additional facilities in the event that indoor facilities as specified in this Agreement, and as provided through the Joint Use Agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District, are unavailable. Should the availability of indoor facilities with the School District change, the CITY and the YMCA shall renegotiate these terms of this Agreement. 2. Youth Futsal a. Youth futsal is a version of indoor soccer that is played inside but not off the walls like traditional indoor Soccer. Basketball court lines are used as boundaries. Packet Pg. 124 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 5 b. The ages of the participants will be youth from 5 to 13 years of age. c. The season for this activity will be annually from the beginning of April through the end of May. d. There will be no maximum number of participants. Additional coaches are requested based on the amount of entries. e. The CITY shall not be obligated to provide the YMCA with additional facilities in the event that indoor facilities as specified in this Agreement, and as provided through the Joint Use Agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District, are unavailable. Should the availability of indoor facilities with the School District change, the CITY and the YMCA shall renegotiate these terms of this Agreement. 3. Youth Flag Football a. Flag football is a non-contact version of football where children have the opportunity to learn basic football skills. b. The ages of the participants shall be youth from 5 to 13 years of age. c. The season of this activity will be annually from the beginning of August through to the end of November. d. A maximum number of 24 teams (240 participants) shall be allowed. e. Flag football shall be played twice per week, with a maximum of 6 games per ½ field, on fields designated by the CITY. Reservation of the City of San Luis Obispo Damon-Garcia Sports Field Complex shall be subject to availability of City facilities. B. CITY OBLIGATIONS i. The CITY Recreational Sports Supervisor will co -direct the Basketball, Futsal and Flag Football programs with the YMCA Sports Director and both will meet and coordinate prior to each season to define the age groups and divisions for each program as well as the marketing and promotion efforts to attract and retain participants. ii. The co-directors will review the program rules prior to the beginning of each season to ensure that all participants will receive equal playing time in each game. iii. As describe more specifically in Section 2 above, the CITY shall invoice the YMCA at the beginning of each year for the annual payment outlined in Section 2. The YMCA will make equal quarterly payments to the CITY in August, November, February and May of each year. iv. At a cost benefit to the YMCA, the CITY shall reserve and pay for the use of all School District facilities through the adopted Joint Use Agreement between the City and San Luis Coastal Unified School District. The CITY will reserve School District facilities for the year by June 1st. School District facilities included in this agreement are Pacheco Gym, Los Rancho Gym, Hawthorne Gym, Sinsheimer Gym, CL. Smith Gym and Taylor Gym and shall be subject to availability. v. The CITY will reserve at no charge City facilities for the purpose of shared youth recreational programming included in this agreement at the Ludwick Community Center and Damon-Garcia Sports Complex. vi. The CITY will provide the online National Alliance of Youth Sports (NAYS) Coaches Training to coaches of the programs offered through the CITY and YMCA. The CITY will be the lead for NAYS training additional to any standard training conducted by the YMCA. The NAYS training will be required to be completed before beginning of each season. Training will be introduced to the coaches during the coaches meeting prior to the beginning of each season. vii. The CITY will have the primary responsibility for activities associated with sports officials and facilities: a) Recruit, hire and train sports officials (including obtaining a fingerprint clearance for all sports officials and providing Child Abuse Mandated Reporter training through the California Department of Social Services). Packet Pg. 125 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 6 b) Reserve and pay for the use of all School District facilities as described above in Section 3.3.B.iv. viii. The co-directors will jointly prepare and distribute a list of key dates ninety (90) days prior to the starting dates for each program. ix. At the end of each program, the co-directors will jointly evaluate the program and make recommendations for the following season. x. Both parties will have copies of all accident forms and retain them in accordance with each agency’s retention schedule. Accident forms shall be shared with the partnering agency within 24 hours of incident. xi. Any program purchases beyond the scope of the agreement shall be discussed between both parties prior to purchasing. C. YMCA OBLIGATIONS i. The YMCA Sports Director will co-direct the Basketball, Futsal and Flag Football programs with the YMCA Sports Director and agree prior to each season the age groups and divisions for each program and marketing and promotion efforts to attract and retain participants. ii. The co-directors will review the program rules prior to the beginning of each season to ensure that all participants will receive equal playing time in each game. iii. The co-directors will agree prior to each season the age groups and divisions for each program. iv. The YMCA will make quarterly payments as described more specifically in Section 2. v. The YMCA shall set an activity fee that is mutually agreed upon by both parties 90 days prior to the start of each program. Participant fees will not be raised more than the published CPI for any given season. vi. The YMCA shall coordinate program registration and collect all program revenues for shared programs for youth Basketball and Futsal. vii. The YMCA will have the primary responsibility for activities associated with players, coaches and the forming of teams: a) Conduct participant registration and collect fees from all participants. b) Collect and maintain on-site (for a period of 3 years) all participant liability waivers. Copy of liability waivers to be provided to CITY prior to start of recreational programs. c) Create and form teams. When possible teams will be formed by school sites, including private schools. Participants may participate at the site of their choice. Participants will be evaluated by program staff and placed on teams that will ensure a fair and enjoyable program. d) Secure and train volunteer coaches (including obtaining a fingerprint clearance for all coaches and staff and providing Child Abuse Mandated Reporter training through the California Department of Social Services). a. A roster of coaches notating fingerprint clearances shall be provided to the CITY prior to the start of programming. e) Purchase all youth sports program equipment for Basketball, Futsal and Flag Football (including but not limited to shirts/jerseys, balls, first aid supplies, etc.) f) Schedule team pictures. g) Conduct coaches training clinics with assistance of the CITY. h) Process all scholarship applications, which are to be reconciled at the end of the season. i) Purchase player/participant awards. viii. The co-directors will prepare and distribute a list of key dates ninety (90) days prior to the starting dates for each program. ix. The YMCA will send all necessary information (coaches contact information, rosters and team names) to the Parks and Recreation Department fourteen (14) days in Packet Pg. 126 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 7 advance to the beginning of each season. The CITY will then form and distribute game and practice schedules. x. At the end of each program, the co -directors will agree to evaluate the program and make recommendations for the following season. xi. Both parties will have copies of all accident forms and retain them in accordance with each agency’s retention schedule. Accident forms shall be shared with the partnering agency within 24 hours of incident. xii. Any program purchases beyond the scope of the agreement shall be discussed between both parties prior to purchasing. 3.4 OTHER YMCA PERMITTING A. ADULT LEAGUES i. Any request for YMCA adult league play are not included under this Agreement. Request for Adult League play must be submitted separately and acquire a recreational use permit. ii. Adult leagues are subject to standard facility rental and permit fees. B. REGULAR EVENTS i. Regular events are not included under this Agreement and will require a separate recreational use permit. Regular events are considered any noncommercial event, typically less than 300 people, held exclusively at a CITY facility or park which does not impact significantly CITY resources outside of established requirements or procedures do not need a special events permit. ii. Regular events are subject to standard facility rental and permit fees. C. SUMMER CAMPS i. Summer Camps sponsored by the YMCA are not included under this Agreement and will require a separate recreational use permit. ii. YMCA Summer Camps are subject to standard facility rental and permit fees. iii. All requests for CITY park use for YMCA youth camps will be subject to approval by the Facilities Supervisor before implementation. iv. Use of the SLO Swim Center for YMCA summer camps is subject to written approval from the Aquatics Coordinator. v. Swim Center date submittal must be received 60 days prior to first usage date. CITY program and recreational uses and reservations shall take priority over the YMCA summer camps. vi. YMCA summer camps may be asked to vacate the therapy pool at the SLO Swim Center if pool capacity is reached (62 maximum). D. SPECIAL EVENTS i. A Special Event is defined as any organized activity of 300 or more persons at any public park or CITY right of way that is to gather for a common purpose under direction and control of a responsible person or agency must have a permit. These events may include weddings, festivals, athletic events, fundraisers, concerts, public assemblies or any organized formation, parade, procession or assembly consisting of persons, animals, vehicles or any combination thereof, traveling in unison with a common purpose on a public street, highway, alley, sidewalk or public way which does not comply with normal and usual traffic regulations or controls. Other organized activities or set of activities that are conducted by an individual, group, or entity for a common or collective use or benefit and which involves the use of public facilities and the possible or necessary provision of CITY services. ii. Special Events sponsored by the YMCA are not included under this Agreement and will require a separate Special Event permit. iii. YMCA Special Events are subject to standard Special Event Permit fees. The YMCA shall complete a Special Event Application Form (with any required attachments) with the CITY no less than ninety (90) calendar days prior to the Packet Pg. 127 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 8 scheduled date of the event. All information requested on the form must be provided before the application can be considered for approval. iv. The YMCA Community Programs Director will coordinate with Parks an d Recreation Community Services Director for permitting special events organized by the YMCA. 4. NEW SHARED RECREATIONAL INITIATIVES. The CITY’s mission is to provide programming that is responsive to the communities needs by implementing new recreational play initiatives when possible. Pilot programs, introduced as new recreational initiatives, could be implemented to address an unmet community need. Pilot programs can be considered with the approval of the CITY Parks and Recreation Director and the CEO of YMCA upon mutual consent. Any jointly proposed pilot program between the CITY and the YMCA must meet the following criteria for consideration: A. Youth oriented recreational activity only. B. The youth recreational activity proposed is not otherwise provided by a community organization. C. New shared recreational initiatives shall be provided within existing program resources. D. Revenues generated by the new recreational initiative shall be equally shared between the CITY and the YMCA, provided that similar permitting and coordination services are provided by the CITY to the other sports outlined in this agreement E. Responsibilities for the YMCA and CITY will remain consistent with this Agreement for new recreational initiatives, unless determined otherwise during the planning process. F. Approval of the proposed pilot activity by the CITY Public Works Department Parks Maintenance division. G. Approval of the proposed pilot activity by the Parks and Recreation Commission. H. Pilot programs shall be limited to a duration of 6-12 months. I. Evaluation of the pilot program shall be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission upon conclusion with future recommendations for programming. 5. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such o ral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 6. AGREEMENT TERMINATION. Either party may terminate the Agreement for convenience provided that 30 days written notice is given. The Agreement may be terminated by eith er party for cause, provided that written notice has been given in the manner specified herein stating the reasons for the intended termination and providing the other party at least 10 days to cure any alleged breach. If the party receiving notice fails or refuses to cure the alleged breach within 10 days, or to make substantial progress toward cure to the satisfaction of the party demanding cure, this Agreement may be terminated 10 days after receipt of the notice as specified herein. 7. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be presented in writing by the City’s Parks and Recreation Director and the YMCA Chief Executive Officer and shall be effective only upon final approval by the City Manager or his/her designee. 8. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY A. Each party to this Agreement shall make the other party, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as separately additionally insured through a CG 20 26 or equivalent, blanket endorsement or section of the policy no later than October 1 of each year. Each party agrees to provide a commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00-01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per Packet Pg. 128 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 9 occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. B. Each party to this Agreement shall name San Luis Coastal Unified School District as an additional insured on its liability and property damage insurance no later than October 1 of each year. Each party agrees to provide a minimum liability and property damage insurance coverage of one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Each party shall maintain worker’s compensation insurance at a level that is consistent with state law requirements. D. Waivers of Liability for programs listed under the agreement shall be required of all program participants prior to their participation in a shared recreational activity. Participant Waivers shall be collected and maintained by the YMCA for a period of three (3) years. Copies of participant Liability Waivers shall be provided to the CITY prior to the start of a program. 9. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION A. The CITY agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the YMCA and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the YMCA’s employees, agents, officers or volunteers, which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the CITY, and its agents, officers, employees or volunteers, in performing its responsibilities hereunder, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the CITY duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the YMCA, its agents, officers, employees or volunteers. B. The YMCA agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the CITY and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the CITY employees, agents, officers or volunteers, which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the YMCA, and its agents, officers, employees or volunteers, in performing its responsibilities hereunder, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the YMCA’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY, its agents, officers, employees or volunteers 10. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by USPS Mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: CITY: Parks & Recreation Director City of San Luis Obispo 1341 Nipomo St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 YMCA: Chief Executive Officer San Luis Obispo County YMCA 1020 Southwood Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 11. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both CITY and YMCA do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. Packet Pg. 129 4 RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – CITY AND YMCA page 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ________________________________ By:________________________________ Carrie Gallagher Mayor Heidi Harmon City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A, a California Corporation By:_________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick Monica Grant City Attorney Chief Executive Officer Packet Pg. 130 4 Minutes PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 4 January 2017 Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 4th day of January, 2017 at 5:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Whitener. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman, Vice Chair Susan Updegrove and Chair Jeff Whitener Absent: Commissioner Schwab, Commissioner Single, Vice Chair Updegrove Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett, Senior Civil Engineer Manny Guzman, Consultant RRM Design Group Leif McKay, Consultant JFR Consulting John Rickenbach. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None PRESENTATIONS, INTRODUCTIONS, APPOINTMENTS None CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2016 AS AMENDED, MOTION BY AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THURMAN. 1. Consideration of Minutes CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the meetings of 12/07/16. AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Presentation of the Preferred Mission Plaza Concept Plan Packet Pg. 131 4 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 2 Senior Civil Engineer, Manny Guzman, and design consultant (Leif McKay of RRM Design Group) presented to the Commission the preferred conceptual design of the Mission Plaza Master Plan. Staff Guzman said the Mission Plaza Master Plan was developed based on community, business, and City feedback which included a year of public review and input through various community workshops, which was used to develop the preferred design concept. Mr. McKay shared that RRM Design Group also evaluated the Mission Plaza’s uses, existing infrastructure conditions, and the feasibility of expanding the Mission Plaza into Broad and Monterey streets. Mr. McKay added that the Mission Plaza Master Plan design as presented to the Commission balances both the active and passive recreational needs, presents options for activating the space to improve safety and encourage positive uses, improves connectivity within, and to, the Mission Plaza, and creates more flexible and functional spaces. Mr. McKay presented the main features of the preferred design Mission Plaza concept, which include the following elements:  Main Plaza with a formal entrance  Raised platform for special event staging  Water feature in Main Plaza  ADA accessible pedestrian bridge crossing the creek  Central Plaza with outdoor café and patio  Historic Adobe retrofitted as an interpretive building  Remodel of public restrooms  Amphitheater renovated to improve functionality and accessibility  Sculpture Garden adjacent to the SLO Museum of Art with pathway to accessible bridge crossing  “Dog-leg” section of Broad Street converted as an extension of the plaza to encourage a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly street (parking preserved and opportunity for a new bus stop location) Mr. McKay added that the Mission Plaza Master Plan preferred concept improves ADA and Emergency Vehicle accessibility to the Plaza. The project could be phased-in over the next decade as funding becomes available. Public Comment None Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Avakian asked about the size of the stage areas. Mr. McKay responded that it was similar to a performance platform which would be approximately 18” high; allowing flexibility for multiple uses. Commissioner Avakian asked if there were historic trees at the plaza that would need to be removed as a result of this design concept. Mr. McKay responded that all heritage trees would be preserved and in accordance with City adopted arboriculture practices. Commissioner Avakian stated he was in support of the multi-functional use of the Mission Plaza. Commissioner Avakian also asked if plaza elements would be added to deter skateboarding. Commissioner Olson was in support of modifying the current amphitheater to a more functional space. Commissioner Olson asked if the Sculpture Garden would include both temporary and permanent public artworks. Mr. McKay responded that the Sculpture Garden is still in the concept stage and would be fully explored at a later date through the City’s Public Art Program. Packet Pg. 132 4 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 3 Commissioner Thurman stated he was in support of the water feature but recommended consideration of an alternative location other than the main entrance to the plaza. Commissioner Thurman asked if there were vehicle barriers proposed for the “Dog-Leg” to limit the interaction between vehicles and pedestrian/bicycles. Mr. McKay responded that the design is conducive to vehicles slowing down but would not completely limit vehicle access. He added that the concept would require further review and study by the City’s Traffic Engineering program. Commissioner Thurman asked about use of permeable paving materials in the construction of the plaza to capture stormwater and he encouraged the use of drought tolerant turf. Chair Whitener asked about if bicycle racks would be added to the Mission Plaza and if complete closure of the “Dog-Leg” was considered. Mr. McKay responded that the City is required to provide street and parking access to the residents located on this “Dog-Leg”. Chair Whitener read a question aloud from Vice Chair Updegrove regarding the location of the restrooms in which Mr. McKay responded that the restroom location is conceptual. The Parks and Recreation Commission is asked to comment on all de sign features and amenities of the draft Master Plan, including but not limited to the following: 1) Is the Commission in support of the overall Mission Plaza design style which includes the Woonerf design concept for the “dogleg” (Broad to Monterey Street), outdoor café, public restroom location and replacement of the amphitheater with a flat surface plaza? The Commission was in support of the preferred Mission Plaza design concept as presented. 2) Does the Commission have any significant concerns regarding the general site layout, plaza design, proposed recreational facilities or use? The Commission expressed some concern about the safety of the “Dog- Leg” with the proposed Woonerf design and intermingling of vehicles and pedestrian/bicycle traffic but recommend approval with further review and study by the City’s Traffic Engineering program. 3) What other types of active or passive recreation would the Commission like to see incorporated on-site? No additional recreation types were recommended by the Commission. 4) Is the Commission in support of the proposed “sculpture garden? The Commission was in support of the proposed public art sculpture garden. 3. Review and Determination of Avila Ranch’s Parks General Plan Policy Conformity; Review of Parks in Construction Phases One through Three; and Feedback on Parks Construction Phases Four through Five. John Rickenbach, JFR Consulting, provided background on the Avila Ranch Development plan. The applicant team received the Commission’s prior feedback in September and Packet Pg. 133 4 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 4 November 2015 and have responded with a modified proposal that is consistent with the General Plan Park and Recreation. The applicant is seeking the Commission’s approval of 18 acres of parks, which include detailed park plans for Parks A through E, and conceptual designs for Parks F through I. Stephen Peck, Avila Ranch Project Applicant, said that specific effort was made to incorporate the Commission’s feedback into a modified design to include many design features and elements that the Commission had earlier expressed was absent in the original design. He added that the proposed Community Facilities District would provide dedicated funding through the assessment of property tax and for the maintenance of the project’s parks, open space trails and facilities within this development through a restricted fund. Melanie Mills, Landscape Architect for the project, shared with the Commission park design features and how the landscape celebrates the existing characteristics of the site. She added that the park landscape will focus on drought resistant native species, neighborhood turf areas, use of recycled water, bioretention integration areas that would receive and integrate stormwater, and low impact development bioretention areas for use of recycled water. Ms. Mills provided a review of the proposed parks within the Avila Ranch Development phases 1 through 5. The Commission was asked to provide feedback on the proposed park plans and recommend the City Council’s approval for the following recommendations: 1. Recommend to the City Council that the project parks proposal is consistent with the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan. 2. Approve detailed park plans for proposed Parks A through E. 3. Review and provide recommendations on conceptual designs for Parks F through I Public Comment Jean Hyduchak, Ambassador for National Pickleball Association and SLO Pickleball Club, spoke about the popularity of pickleball and asked the Commission to recommend that the applicant consider changing the proposal to add pickleball courts to Neighborhood Park G. Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Thurman thanked the project applicant for their thoughtful use of landscape and bioretention in the modified design. He added that the turf could be removed from Park B and that trees planted in decomposed granite typically fail to thrive. Commissioner Thurman expressed concern about the level of water and care needed for an orchard to produce. He added his support for a separate dog park and recommended permanent concrete seating for the farmer’s market area. Commission Thurman was also in support of dedicated pickleball courts. Commissioners Olson and Avakian were in support of the turf area in Park B. Commissioner Olson was in support of the proposed dog park and asked for separate consideration for larger and smaller dogs. Commissioner Olson asked if water would be a cost issue for the community gardens. Director Stanwyck responded that the proposed gardens would most likely use recycled water. Commissioner Olson was in support of dedicated pickleball courts in Park G. Commissioner Avakian asked about the density of the R2 development. Applicant Steven Peck said R2 is low density and is typically 4 to 6 housing units. He added that Park A could be considered as a potential location to add a basketball half-court. Commissioner Avakian asked about BBQ areas and Ms. Mills responded that the neighborhood park does include some BBQ areas. Commissioner Avakian asked if there was a standard size for the community gardens. Director Stanwyck responded that the typical size is a 10x10 raised garden bed and that Packet Pg. 134 4 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 5 construction would be responsive to the surrounding housing. Commissioner Avakian was in support of dedicated pickleball courts for Park G. Chair Whitener asked if the bioretention areas are calculated into the open space requirement for park acreage. Director Stanwyck added that the applicant has provided a comprehensive proposal for parks. Chair Whitener expressed concern about maintenance and safety of the proposed orchard. Chair Whitener added his support for additional soccer turf fields in Park G. ACTION: RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PARK PLANS FOR PARKS A THROUGH I, AS CONSISTENT WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THURMAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AVAKIAN. . CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to recommend Council Adoption. AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE, 4. Review and Recommend to Council Adoption of the Proposed Recreation Agreement between the City and San Luis Obispo County YMCA Director Stanwyck provided an overview of the proposed recreation agreement between the City and the YMCA. The Parks and Recreation Department and the YMCA desire to continue to collaboratively offer programming together and avoid duplication of programs and efforts by memorializing their partnership via this proposed agreement. Director Stanwyck noted that for the past year, staff from both parties have met to develop this recreational partnership agreement that memorializes the longstanding relationship between the City and the YMCA. Public Comment Monica Grant, Chief Executive Officer of the SLO County YMCA, thanked the Commission and Parks and Recreation staff for their support in seeking creative partnership opportunities with the City to continue to offer affordable recreational opportunities for the community. Commission Comments followed. The Commission thanked Parks and Recreation staff and the YCMA for their joint efforts in providing affordable and accessible recreational opportunities. Commissioner Thurman asked for background information about the Ken Hampian hockey rink. Commissioner Avakian asked about the fiscal impact of the agreement, how the fees were calculated and how they will be collected. Staff Mudgett explained the methodology and the tiered-payment recommendation for the 4-year term of the Agreement. ACTION: RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED RECREATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLSON. Packet Pg. 135 4 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of January 4, 2017 Page 6 CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to recommend Council Adoption. AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE, COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS 5. Director’s Report Director Stanwyck provided a brief update of current Parks and Recreation programming and City updates:  Community Forum on January 10th at 6:30pm at the Ludwick Community Center. She added that Advisory Body goals have been forwarded to the City Council and encouraged Commissioners to attend the Forum.  City Council Goal Setting will be held on January 28th at the Library Community Room.  Sinsheimer Playground project will begin construction after Jan uary 23, 2017 and completion is anticipated by Summer 2017. LIAISON REPORTS 6. Subcommittee Liaison Reports  Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single was absent. No report.  Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Olson said there was no meeting. No report.  City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Avakian reported the planting of nine trees at the Course and field closures due to rain.  Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman said there was no meeting. No report.  Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove was absent. No report.  Youth Sports: Commissioner Schwab was absent. No report. Commission Communications ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. to the regular Parks and Recreation Commission scheduled for 01, February, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 02/01/2017 Packet Pg. 136 4 Packet Pg. 137 4 Packet Pg. 138 4 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF SLO TRANSIT’S REVISED TITLE VI PLAN 2017-2020 RECOMMENDATION Adopt SLO Transit’s Title VI Plan for 2017-2020. DISCUSSION Background Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., prohibits discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, and national origin, including the denial of meaningful access for limited English proficient (LEP) persons. This prohibition is a requirement for all programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Under the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Title VI regulations, recipients of Federal financial assistance are prohibited from, among other things, using “criteria or methods of administering its program which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination based on their race, color, or national origin.” For example, facially neutral policies or practices that result in discriminatory effects or disparate impacts violate DOT's Title VI regulations, unless the recipient can show the policies or practices are substantially justified and there is no less discriminatory alternative. In addition, Title VI and DOT regulations prohibit recipients from intentionally discriminating against people on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Tri-Annual Submission of Title VI Plan FTA requires that all direct and primary recipients document their compliance by submitting a Title VI Program to their FTA regional civil rights officer once every three years. The Title VI Program must be approved by the direct or primary recipient’s board of directors or appropriate governing entity or official(s) responsible for policy decisions prior to submission to FTA. FTA will review and concur or request the recipient provide additional information. The City of San Luis Obispo submitted its last Title VI Plan in 2013. A revised version encompassing fiscal years 2017 thru 2020 is now needed. Staff has addressed the most recent Federal Circular 4702.1.B regarding Title VI obligations and in the updated Title VI plan. The plan is consistent with previously adopted plans but now also takes into account modern technology use such as social media. In accordance with Federal requirements, the revised plan was brought before the public in a special meeting held on January 31st, 2017 and was made available for public review and comment prior to final recommended adoption. Packet Pg. 139 5 FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City’s General Fund by submitting the revised Title VI policy to the Federal Transit Administration. However, Federal funds could be withheld from the Transit Enterprise fund should the City fail in submitting an updated Title VI Plan. ALTERNATIVES Provide modifications to the prosed policy as needed. Staff recommends caution in changes to the document in that Title VI policies are specific and need significant verification prior to adoption and submittal to the Federal government. Attachments: a - Title VI Program (Jan 2017) b - Title VI - Public Comments Packet Pg. 140 5 Title VI Plan | Page 1 Title VI Plan City of San Luis Obispo - San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit ) Date Adopted: February 21, 2017 I. Plan Statement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Specifically, Title VI provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" (42 U.S.C. Section 2000d). The City of San Luis Obispo-San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of its transit services on the basis of race, color, or national origin, as protected by Title VI in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 4702.1.B. This plan was developed to guide SLO Transit in its administration and management of Title VI- related activities. Title VI Contact information: City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager (Title VI Coordinator) Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7121 slotransit@slocity.org As of July 1, 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo contracts with First Transit Inc. for maintenance and operations of SLO Transit. The contractor(s), by extension, will also assist and comply with the adopted Title VI policy. Packet Pg. 141 5 Title VI Plan | Page 2 II. Title VI Information Dissemination Title VI information posters shall be prominently and publicly displayed in the city owned SLO Transit facility and on their revenue vehicles. The plan information, along with contact information for the City’s Title VI coordinator is available on the SLO Transit website (slotransit.org). Additional information relating to nondiscrimination obligation can be obtained from the SLO Transit Title VI Coordinator. Title VI information shall be disseminated to SLO Transit employees annually via the Employee Education form (see Appendix A) in payroll envelopes. This form reminds employees of SLO Transit’s policy statement, and of their Title VI responsibilities in their daily work and duties. During New Employee Orientation, new employees shall be informed of the provisions of Title VI, and SLO Transit’s expectations to perform their duties accordingly. All employees shall be provided a copy of the Title VI Plan and are required to sign the Acknowledgement of Receipt (see Appendix B). Title VI information shall also be made available in non-English languages, consistent with the City’s Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plan. III. Subcontractors and Vendors All subcontractors and vendors who receive payments from SLO Transit where funding originates from any federal assistance are subject to the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended. Written contracts shall contain non-discrimination language, either directly or through the bid specification package which becomes an associated component of the contract. IV. Record Keeping The Title VI Coordinator will maintain permanent records, which include, but are not limited to, signed acknowledgements of receipt from the employees indicating the receipt of the SLO Transit Title VI Plan, copies of Title VI complaints or lawsuits and related documentation, and records of correspondence to and from complainants, and Title VI investigations. V. Title VI Complaint Procedures How to file a Title VI Complaint? The complainant may file a signed, written complaint up to one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the alleged discrimination. Packet Pg. 142 5 Title VI Plan | Page 3 The complaint should include the following information: Your name, mailing address, and how to contact you (i.e., telephone number, email address, in-person, etc.) How, when, where and why you believe you were discriminated against. Include the location, names and contact information of any witnesses Other information that you deem significant The Title VI Complaint Form (see Appendix C) may be used to submit the complaint infor mation. The complaint may be filed in writing with SLO Transit at the following address: Title VI Contact information: City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager (Title VI Coordinator) Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7121 slotransit@slocity.org NOTE: SLO Transit encourages all complainants to certify all mail that is sent through the U.S. Postal Service and/or ensure that all written correspondence can be tracked easily, but is not required. For complaints originally submitted by facsimile, an original, signed copy of the complaint must be mailed to the Title VI Coordinator as soon as possible, but no later than 180 days from the alleged date of discrimination. What happens to the complaint after it is submitted? All complaints alleging discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in a service or benefit provided by SLO Transit will be directly addressed by SLO Transit. SLO Transit shall also provide appropriate assistance to complainants, including those persons with disabilities, or who are limited in their ability to communicate in English. Additionally, SLO Transit shall make every effort to address all complaints in an expeditious and thorough manner , as herein described. A letter of acknowledging receipt of complaint will be mailed within thirty (30) days (Appendix D). Please note that in responding to any requests for additional information, a complainant's failure to provide the requested information may result in the ad ministrative closure of the complaint. Packet Pg. 143 5 Title VI Plan | Page 4 How will the complainant be notified of the outcome of the complaint? SLO Transit will send a final written response letter (see Appendix E or F) to the complainant. In the letter notifying complainant that the com plaint is not substantiated (Appendix F), the complainant is also advised of his or her right to 1) appeal within seven calendar days of receipt of the final written decision from the SLO Transit, and/or 2) file a complaint externally with the U.S. Department of Transportation and/or the FTA. Every effort will be made to respond to Title VI complaints within 60 working days of receipt of such complaints, if not sooner. In addition to the complaint process described above, a complainant may file a Title VI complaint with the following offices: Federal Transit Administration Office of Civil Rights Attention: Title VI Program Coordinator East Building, 5th Floor – TCR 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 VI. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan SLO Transit is required to take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information and other important portions of our programs and activities of individuals who are Limited English Proficient (LEP). SLO Transit consulted the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)’s LEP Guidance and performed a four factor analysis of our contact with the public to determine the appropriate mix of LEP services to offer. The plan has been prepared in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Federal Transit Administration Circular 4702.1B dated October 1, 2012, which states that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. This plan outlines how to identify a person who may need language assistance, the ways in which assistance may be provided, staff training that may be required, and how to notify LEP persons that assistance is available. In order to prepare this plan, the City utilized the U.S. DOT four-factor LEP analysis which considers the following factors: 1.The number or proportion of LEP persons in the service area who may be served or are likely to encounter a City Transit program’s activity of service. Packet Pg. 144 5 Title VI Plan | Page 5 2.The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with City Transit programs, activities or services. 3.The nature and importance of programs, activities or services provided by the City to the LEP population. 4.The resources available to City staff and overall costs of providing LEP assistance. A summary of the results of the City four-factor analysis is in the following section. Four Factor Analyses: 1.The number or proportion of LEP persons in the service area who may be served or are likely to encounter a City Transit program’s activity of service. Data was gathered from the following sources to identify information on persons who do speak languages other than English at home and who speaks it less than well or not at all and would be classified as limited English proficient or “LEP”: a. 2010 Census Data. b. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Fact Finder Surveys. c. Department of Labor LEP Special Tabulation website. A review of the census data on the numbers of limited English proficient or LEP persons revealed that in San Luis Obispo, CA the highest percentage of total population 5 years and over that spoke a language other than English at home were Spanish speakers. The total Spanish speaking population was 14.7% of the 45,119 total population of San Luis Obispo, CA (see U.S. Census Bureau Data). The number of Spanish speaking LEP individuals that spoke English “not well” or “not at all” in San Luis Obispo was 13.9%. Documents related to fares, transfers, passes, pass sale locations, days of service, and contact information are available in both English and Spanish translations. 2.The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with City Transit programs, activities or services. We serve LEP persons daily via our fixed route transit system that operates 10 peak vehicles from Labor Day to mid-June and reduced service from mid-June-Labor day. Within the First Transit Inc. operations-maintenance staff located at 29 Prado Road, there are (2) bilingual employees available for Spanish translation, including (1) daytime road supervisor and (1) evening technician. Staff translated in person approximately 10 -15 times a month and over the phone 5- 10 times a month during the previous 12 months. Within the Public Works Department located Packet Pg. 145 5 Title VI Plan | Page 6 at 919 Palm Street, there is (1) bilingual approved transit employee in addition to (3) bilingual approved employees available for Spanish translation. No calls or requests for translation were received by SLO City staff during the previous 12 months. SLO Transit will continue to monitor the following key program areas such as: Use of bus; Participation in public meetings; Customer service interactions; Ridership surveys; Operator surveys; Purchase of passes and tickets through outlets, and the Rideshare website. 3.The nature and importance of programs, activities or services provided by the City to the LEP population. The City of San Luis Obispo is centrally located in California between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The City has an estimated population of 45,119 (2010 Census Bureau estimate). San Luis Obispo is also home to the California Polytechnic State Universit y (Cal Poly), a major source of population, employment, and other overall economic and social impacts. SLO Transit, a program operated out of the Department of Public Works, is the City of San Luis Obispo’s transit provider and operates fixed route service throughout the City and trolley service downtown. Other regional and paratransit service providers also offer service to the City. SLO Transit, a City entity with service operation contracted to First Transit Inc., provides fixed- route bus service throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. SLO Transit operates a total of seven regular bus routes on weekdays, six routes on Saturdays, and four routes on Sundays, as well as a San Luis Drive Tripper (SLD Tripper) and Kennedy Library Tripper (KLT Tripper) on weekdays and a Downtown Trolley Thursday through Saturday. Five routes operate Monday through Friday evenings during the school year. 4.The resources available to City staff and overall costs of providing LEP assistance. SLO Transit currently provides some information in Spanish such as surveys, bus routes and fares, public service announcements and information on the buses. Documents related to fares, transfers, passes, pass sale locations, days of service, and contact information are available in both English and Spanish translation. Within the First Transit Inc. operations-maintenance staff located at 29 Prado Road, there are two (2) bilingual employees available for Spanish translation, including one (1) daytime road supervisor and one (1) evening technician. Within the Public Works Department located at 919 Palm, there is one (1) bilingual approved transit employee in Packet Pg. 146 5 Title VI Plan | Page 7 addition to three (3) bilingual approved employees available for Spanish translation. About $2,500/year could be allocated in FY 2016-17 for additional language services. Implementation Plan: Based on the four factor analysis, SLO Transit recognizes the need to continue providing language services in the region. A review of SLO Transit relevant programs, activities and services that are being offered or will be offered by the City as of December 2016 include: Spanish speaking translators are available upon request during normal business hours Route and schedule brochures are available in both English and Spanish Route and schedule information available in Spanish on the SLO Transit website (slotransit.org) Transit surveys to be conducted by SLO Transit will be available in Spanish Public meetings will include outreach to the Spanish speaking community in San Luis Obispo. Information will be provided in Spanish and a translator will be on site to help with questions or concerns Meetings to be scheduled at times and locations that are convenient and accessible for minority and LEP communities Different meeting sizes and formats to be employed Radio, television, or newspaper ads on stations and in publications that serve LEP populations to be considered by SLO Transit Public participation opportunities through means other than written communication, such as personal interviews or use of audio or video recording devices to capture oral comments will be considered by SLO Transit SLO Transit will perform a four factor analysis every three years to identify what, if any, additional information or activities might better improve SLO Transit’s services to assure non-discriminatory service to LEP persons. SLO Transit will then evaluate the projected financial and personnel needed to provide the requested services and assess which of these can be provided cost - effectively. VII. Community Outreach As an agency receiving federal financial assistance, SLO Transit has made the following community outreach efforts: The City of San Luis Obispo Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) Advisory Body holds public meetings bi-monthly to review SLO Transit service and performance. All meetings are compliant with the Brown Act of California which guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in Packet Pg. 147 5 Title VI Plan | Page 8 meetings of local legislative bodies. Agendas and minutes are available at http://www.slocity.org/advisorybodies.asp. At these meetings the public is welcome to attend and share in discussion with a variety of Community Outreach discussions. Additionally, SLO Transit works with the other transit agencies in the service area and other stakeholder organizations to review and discuss the planning and have involvement in the decision making process. SLO Transit from time to time will provide on-board survey hand-outs to customers for their feedback about a variety of issues. SLO Transit held public meetings for public review and comment regarding the Title VI Program. Public meetings are held in convenient, accessible, and diverse locations along bus routes whenever possible. Public meetings are held under the supervision of the SLO Transit Manager. Public comments are recorded and filed. Public meetings may be held at regular MTC meetings. Spanish speaking assistance will be available. SLO Transit submits to the California Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration annually an application for funding. The application requests funding for both capital and operating assistance. Part of the annual application is a public notice, which includes a 30-day public comment period. VIII. Mass Transportation Committee The City of San Luis Obispo Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) Advisory Body has nine (9) members: (1) Cal Poly designated employee (1) Cal Poly student representative designated by Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) (1) senior citizen (62 years of age or older) (1) person from the business community (1) person with technical transportation planning experience (1) disabled person (1) member at-large (2) alternate members Amongst these volunteer members, there is currently Three (3) Non-White members. Committee vacancies are listed on the City of San Luis Obispo website (slocity.org), as well as on the SLO Transit website (slotransit.org) and SLO Transit social media. The City Clerk’s Office and Packet Pg. 148 5 Title VI Plan | Page 9 City Council review the submitted applications in fairness and equity, evaluating the necessary qualifications for the vacant position. Packet Pg. 149 5 Title VI Plan | Page 10 APPENDIX A Employee Annual Education Form Title VI Policy No person shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. All employees of San Luis Obispo Transit (currently contracted by First Transit Inc.) are expected to consider, respect, and observe this policy in their daily work and duties. If a citizen approaches you with a question or complaint, direct him or her to the City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager who is the Title VI Coordinator. In all dealings with citizens, use courtesy titles (i.e. Mr., Mrs., Ms., or Miss) to address them without regard to race, color, or national origin. Packet Pg. 150 5 Title VI Plan | Page 11 APPENDIX B Acknowledgement of Receipt of Title VI Plan I hereby acknowledge the receipt of the San Luis Obispo Transit’s Title VI Plan. I have read the plan and am committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of its transit services on the basis of race, color, or national origin, as protected by Title VI in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 4702.1.B. _________________________________ Your signature _________________________________ Print your name _________________________________ Date Packet Pg. 151 5 Title VI Plan | Page 12 APPENDIX C Title VI Complaint Form City of San Luis Obispo Transit – SLO Transit Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ City: ______________________________________ State: ____________ Zip Code: ______________ Home Telephone No: ( ) ___________________________ Work Telephone No: ( ) ____________________________ Email Address: ______________________________________ What do you believe is the reason for your discrimination?: Race Color National Origin Other (specify) _______________________ Date of Alleged Incident: ______________________________ Explain as clearly as possible what happened and how you believe you were discriminated against. Indicate who was involved. Be sure to include the names and contact information of any witnesses. If more space is needed please use the back of the form. Have you filed this complaint with any other federal, state, or local agency; or with any federal or state court? Yes No Packet Pg. 152 5 Title VI Plan | Page 13 If yes, check all that apply: Federal agency Federal Court State Agency State Court Local Agency Please provide information about a contact person at the agency/court where the complaint was filed: Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ City: ______________________________________ State: ____________ Zip Code: ______________ Telephone Number: _________________________________ Please sign below. You may attach any written materials or other information that you think i s relevant to your complaint. Signature: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________________ Please mail this form to: City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7121 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The City of San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) respects civil rights and operates its programs and services without regard to race, color or national origin. SLO Transit is committed to complying with Tile VI requirements in all of its programs and services. Any person who believes he/she has been subjected to discrimination in the delivery of or access to public transportation origin, may file a complaint with SLO Transit. Such complaint must be filed in writing with SLO Transit no later than 180 days after the alleged discrimination. A letter of acknowledging receipt of complaint will be mailed within 30 days. For more information on the Title VI transit obligations and how to file a complaint, please contact SLO Transit: City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager, Public Works Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Packet Pg. 153 5 Title VI Plan | Page 14 APPENDIX D Sample Letter Acknowledging Receipt of Complaint Today’s Date Ms. Jo Doe 1234 Main St. San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Ms. Doe: This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your complaint against San Luis Obispo Transit allegin g _____________________________________________________________________________. An investigation will begin shortly. If you have additional information you wish to convey or questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office by telephoning _____ _____ ______, or write the address listed below. Sincerely, Title VI Coordinator City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7121 Packet Pg. 154 5 Title VI Plan | Page 15 APPENDIX E Sample Letter Notifying Complainant that the Complaint Is Substantiated Today’s Date Ms. Jo Doe 1234 Main St. San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Ms. Doe: The matter referenced in your letter of ______________ (date) against San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) alleging Title VI violation has been investigated. (An/Several) apparent violation(s) of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including those mentioned in your letter (was/were) identified. Efforts are underway to correct these deficiencies. Thank you for calling this important matter to our attention. You were extremely helpful during our review of the program. (If a hearing is requested, the following sentence may be appropriate.) You may be hearing from this office, or from federal authorities, if your services should be needed during the administrative hearing process. Sincerely, City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager (Title VI Coordinator) Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7121 Packet Pg. 155 5 Title VI Plan | Page 16 APPENDIX F Sample Letter Notifying Complainant that the Complaint Is Not Substantiated Today’s Date Ms. Jo Doe 1234 Main St. San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Ms. Doe: The matter referenced in your complaint of ______________ (date) against San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) alleging ____________________________ has been investigated. The results of the investigation did not indicate that the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, had in fact been violated. As you know, Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal financial assistance. San Luis Obispo Transit has analyzed the materials and facts pertaining to your case for evidence of the city’s failure to comply with any of the civil rights laws. There was no evidence found that any of these laws have been violated. I therefore advise you that your complaint has not been substantiated, and that I am closing this matter in our files. You have the right to 1) appeal within seven calendar days of receip t of this final written decision from San Luis Obispo Transit, and/or 2) file a complaint externally with the U.S. Department of Transportation and/or the Federal Transit Administration at Federal Transit Administration Office of Civil Rights Attention: T itle VI Program Coordinator East Building, 5th Floor - TCR 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Thank you for taking the time to contact us. If I can be of assistance to you in the future, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager (Title VI Coordinator) Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7121 Packet Pg. 156 5 Title VI Plan | Page 17 APPENDIX G Samples of Narrative to be included in Posters to be displayed in Revenue Vehicles and Facilities Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Specifically, Title VI provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" (42 U.S.C. Section 2000d). The City of San Luis Obispo-San Luis Obispo Transit is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of its transit services on the basis of race, color, or national origin, as protected by Title VI in Federal Transit Admin istration (FTA) Circular 4702.1.B. If you feel you are being denied participation in or being denied benefits of the transit services provided by San Luis Obispo Transit, or otherwise being discriminated against because of your race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, you may contact our office at: City of San Luis Obispo Transit Manager (Title VI Coordinator) Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7121 slotransit@slocity.org For more information, visit our website at slotransit.org. Packet Pg. 157 5 slotransit.org Public Comment - 2017 Title VI Plan Comment Staff Response "insert a map for the location of the your office"Staff supports this change to the Title VI plan Packet Pg. 158 5 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Molly Cano, Tourism Manager David Setterlund, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: AMGEN TOUR OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the report regarding the Amgen Tour of California bike race coming through the City on May 16, 2017, and the plans to accomplish this using City staff resources to be reimbursed by the event. DISCUSSION Background Established in 2006 the Amgen Tour of California (ATOC) is an international, world-class cycling road race that features the top elite professional teams and athletes from around the world. It has grown to become the largest professional cycling race in North America, the largest annual spectator sporting event in California, one of the most important cycling events in the world, and a spectacular forerunner to the Tour de France. The 2017 race will mark the first year the race has been elevated to UCI1 World Tour status, making it the only stage race in North America to receive this prestigious classification. For the nine-day event, the ATOC attracts over two million spectators along the course and throughout the various cities and towns it passes through. Based on the ATOC’s self reported data, the average spectator of this race is college educated, environmentally conscious, lives an active lifestyle, and maintains a high average household income. As the largest professional cycling race in North America, ATOC attracts national and international media coverage. The global broadcast viewership is over 11 million through NBCSN, many of whom tune into the final two hours daily of live race coverage. In addition, ATOC’s digital media metrics showed over 750,000 views live streaming the race online with more than 181,000 hours streamed during the race week. (Attachment A– ATOC Information Deck) Over the eleven-year history of the race, the Tour of California course has crossed through the City in various ways ranging from the City hosting a finish stage in downtown for the first three years of the race to passing through the City’s outlying streets as the riders made their way to our neighboring cities. 1 Union Cycliste Internationale, is the world governing body for sports cycling and oversees international competitive cycling events. Packet Pg. 159 6 This year the race will make its way across California from May 11 to 20, 2017. San Luis Obispo County will host the race on Tuesday, May 16 with the start stage in Pismo Beach and the finish stage in Morro Bay. Amgen Tour of California has applied for a special event permit with the City to have the race come through downtown San Luis Obispo as part of the course. Race Route & Impact City staff have been working with the race organizers to identify a course through the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed race route map is attached to this report (Attachment A). The race will enter city limits on Buckley Road and wrap around to South Higuera then through the downtown before turning from Chorro Street to Foothill Boulevard and out of town. The race will pass through San Luis Obispo within an approximately 15-minute window around 3:00 pm. Race organizers will be working with City departments including: Administration, Public Works (Parking, Streets, Traffic, and Transit), Parks & Recreation, Fire and Police to ensure the closure is smooth and safe. ATOC will reimburse the City for all costs incurred for this event. A mix of rolling and hard street closures (some short term using California Highway Patrol, some longer term using barricades and traffic personnel) will be in place for the race. The Downtown area will have a hard closure with no parking along Higuera Street and Chorro Street for a portion of the day. (Attachment B – Route Map) Staff is aware of the impact that the race will create for residents, businesses and the schools along the course. Staff intends to work in partnership with the race organizers and the Downtown Association to educate and inform those impacted early on to mitigate that impact. Downtown Association’s Community Event The Downtown Association Board of Directors unanimously agreed to support the effort to bring the race through the downtown and is creating a community festival that will be held preceding and immediately following the race. The community festival is designed to encourage community participation in the race by cheering along the sidelines and then invite the fans to experience the downtown longer into the evening. Attendees will have a festive “concerts in the plaza” type atmosphere but will also be able to participate in healthy living activities while enjoying the downtown. The remainder of race will be shown on a large screen to allow the attendees to continue to watch the action of the race. The Downtown Association has created a team of stakeholders to design this event including: downtown merchants and business owners, Bike SLO County, San Luis Obispo Coalition of Governments, RideShare, and San Luis Obispo County Bike Club. Together with this team the Downtown Association will work with the City to educate and inform those impacted by the race in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods early in the planning process. Next Steps In preparation for the event, staff will be working closely with the race organizers to create the traffic plan for the race which includes the street closures and traffic control specifications. Staff will also be preparing an Incident Action Plan to ensure the safety of our residents impacted by the race route. The City’s Special Events Team is reviewing the special event permits submitted Packet Pg. 160 6 for the race and for the community festival, and is expected to issue the permits with reasonable conditions in March. Lastly, the Staff is developing a communication plan to educate and inform the community about the race, closures, and the festival. Advisory Body Review and Recommendation The Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) has reviewed the proposed event including the request for event funding from the Downtown Association for the community festival. The PCC was extremely supportive of the event based noting the positive impact it will have on the community The committee felt strongly that an event of this scale will position San Luis Obispo as an attractive community on a global level. Additionally, the committee was supportive of the community festival as it provided a new opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy the spirit of the race while keeping the spectators in the downtown. Ultimately, the PCC allocated $5,000 of special event funding to the Downtown Association for the community festival. (Attachment C – Draft PCC Minutes) FISCAL IMPACT There is limited fiscal impact to the city for this event because ATOC will pay the City for all of the direct costs relating to allowing the race to pass through the downtown . These include street closures, public safety, and resident and business owner communications. The City will support the community festival coordinated by the Downtown Association for the extended street closure and functions similar to Farmers Market. Additionally, the Promotional Coordinating Committee has allocated $5,000 in event funding for the Downtown Association for the execution of the festival. ALTERNATIVES The race route from Pismo Beach to Morro Bay and the existing street network requires the race pass through the City of San Luis Obispo. Staff explored alternatives such as having the route connect to O’Conner Way via Los Osos Valley Road and Foothill Road. Another alternative considered was connecting the route to O’Conner via Johnson to California to Foothill. These routes were ultimately dismissed because they did not feature the cultural heart and center of the City. Attachments: a - 2017 Amgen Tour of California Info Deck b - Race Map c - 01-11-2017 PCC Minutes DRAFT Packet Pg. 161 6 1 YOUR CITY, YOUR DATE Packet Pg. 162 6 AEG is the owner/operator of the Amgen Tour of California and the largest Sports & Entertainment company in the world. AEG is the largest owner of sports teams in the world (11), including the LA Kings and the LA Galaxy; the owner/operator of 100+ sports and entertainment venues worldwide, including STAPLES Center and The O2 in London; the #2 concert promoter in the World, producing more than 6,000 concerts worldwide; the owner of L.A. LIVE, the $3 billion downtown Los Angeles entertainment district; and much more. 2Packet Pg. 163 6 AMGEN –TITLE SPONSOR AMGEN TOUR OF CALIFORNIA Established in 2006 the Amgen Tour of California is an international, world-class cycling road race that features the top elite professional teams and athletes from around the world. It has grown to become the largest professional cycling race in North America, the largest annual spectator sporting event in California, one of the most important cycling events in the world, and a spectacular forerunner to the Tour de France. Amgen is the world’s largest independent biotechnology company.Since 1980, Amgen’s scientific and medical discoveries have helped millions around the world in the fight against cancer. Amgen has been the title sponsor since the race’s inception in 2006, to promote its national Breakaway from Cancer®initiative. In 2016, after a successful decade-long partnership, Amgen extended its sponsorship with the race.This expanded renewal includes title sponsorship of the women’s race, and supports the launch of Breakaway from Heart Disease, Amgen's new cardiovascular health awareness campaign.3 MAY 2017 Packet Pg. 164 6 …Largest annual spectator sporting event in California with more than 2 million on-site spectators annually KEY METRICS REPRESENTING 33 COUNTRIES TOUR DE FRANCE CONTENDERS WORLD CHAMPIONS OLYMPIC MEDALISTS PROFESSIONAL FIELD OF RIDERS LARGEST PROFESSIONAL CYCLING EVENT IN NORTH AMERICA LARGEST ANNUAL SPECTATOR SPORTING EVENT IN CALIFORNIA WITH 2 MILLION+ ON-SITE SPECTATORS 5.41 BILLION+ MEDIA & MARKETING IMPRESSIONS IN 2016 15 MILLION+ SOCIAL MEDIA INTERACTIONS DURING 2016 RACE WEEK BROADCAST DAILY ON NBCSN WITH OVERALL FINISH ON NBC NETWORK –2016 GLOBAL VIEWERSHIP OF 11.3 MILLION Packet Pg. 165 6 WHO ATTENDS THE AMGEN TOUR OF CALIFORNIA? 55% 45% 47 62%have a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Turnkey Third-Party Research (2015 & 2016) $130,000 Median Household Income Packet Pg. 166 6 71% own their dwelling Attendees own average of 1.4 Real Estate Properties $38,000 Median Expected Budget for Next Vehicle ATTENDEE SPENDING HABITS Median Household Income of Attendees compared to California and the United States 77%of attendees plan to buy one of the following sustainable products within the next 12 months $400,000+ US CA $57K$52K $130K Turnkey Third-Party Research (2015 & 2016) 30% of attendees have house hold investable assets of 31%30% 19%18%18% Green Cleaning Products Energy/Water Efficient Appliances Electric/Hybrid Vehicle Solar Panels Smart Thermostats have credit cards85% Attendees had average of 2 Credit Cards in his/her possession Packet Pg. 167 6 70% of Attendees ride their bike at least 1 time/week 2.5 Avg. number of road bikes per Attendee household ATTENDEES LIVE ACTIVE LIFESTYLES Attendees regularly exercise 2+times/week 93% of Attendees own a road bike Turnkey Third-Party Research (2015 & 2016) Packet Pg. 168 6 LOYAL & PASSIONATE FAN BASE Turnkey Third-Party Research (2015 & 2016) 80% 62%60%58%57%49%46%44% ATOC Major Marathon Major Racing Event NFL Major Rodeo Event NBA March Madness NHL Likelihood to Consider Trying Product/Service if it is an Event/League Partner 80%of attendees are likely to try a new product if it comes from an Amgen Tour of California Sponsor Packet Pg. 169 6 9 BROADCAST & DIGITAL 2016 BROADCAST VIEWERSHIP •Global Viewership: 11.3 Million •30+ Hours over Eighteen (18) Total Broadcasts covering Event •Fourteen (14) Hours of Live Coverage on NBCSN •Two (2) Hours of Live Coverage for Final Stage on NBC 2016 DIGITAL METRICS •Website Visitors: 1.26 Million •E-Newsletter Distribution: 74,626 Active Clean List Contacts •Digital Race Program: 198,000+ Page Views (Average of 14 Pages per visit) Packet Pg. 170 6 SOCIAL MEDIA 10 SOCIAL MEDIA METRICS •193,000+ Combined Followers on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram 2016 RACE WEEK SOCIAL MEDIA •Snapchat Feature Story Reach: 6.88M+ Snap Views •Facebook Reach: Average of 677,464 Users per Day •Twitter Reach: 1.96M Impressions Packet Pg. 171 6 11Packet Pg. 172 6 Pacific Ocean Point Sal Beach Santa Margarita Lake Lopez Lake LagunaLake Arroyo Grande C ree k Morro Bay Pr e fu m o C re ek S alin as Ri verOld Creek Islay Creek Coon Creek TwitchellReservoir East Betteravia RdOrcutt Rd La Panza Rd Carris a Hwy Huasna Rd Foxen Ca nyon Rd East Betteravia RdOrcutt Rd La Panza Rd Carris a Hwy Huasna Rd Foxen Ca nyon Rd 1 1 41 227 227 135 135 135 135166 166 166 229 58 58 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 58101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 1 VandenbergAir Force BaseVandenbergAir Force Base CALIFORNIA Los Alamos VandenbergVillage Vandenberg Air Force Narlon Casmalia Mission Hills Betteravia Santa Maria HuasnaGroverBeach Chorro Baywood-Los Osos Cayucos Atascadero Santa Margarita Pozo Bromela Avila Beach Los Alamos VandenbergVillage Vandenberg Air Force Narlon Casmalia Guadalupe Orcutt Garey Sisquoc Callender Nipomo Oceano Village Verde Edna San Luis Obispo Guadalupe Orcutt Mission Hills Betteravia Garey Sisquoc Santa Maria Callender Nipomo Huasna Oceano GroverBeach Village Verde Edna Chorro San Luis Obispo Baywood-Los Osos Cayucos Atascadero Santa Margarita Pozo Bromela Avila Beach 3rd Stage - PISMO BEACH > MORRO BAY Tuesday, May 16th - 186,5 km / 115.8 mi 3,5 km 3.5 mi0 m 200 m 400 m 600 m 800 m 1 000 m 1 200 m 1 400 m 1 600 m MORRO BAYEmbarcadero Marina St Main St O’Connor Way State Park Rd South Bay Blvd Cabrillo Hwy Chorro St Edna Rd Georgia St Vachell Ln Hollister Rd Buckley Rd Foothill Blvd Corbett Canyon Rd Valley Rd Cabrillo Hwy Los Berros Rd Thompson Ave Cuyama Hwy Orcutt Garey Rd Tepusquet Rd Foxen Canyon Rd East Clark Ave Dominion Rd Cabrillo Hwy Cabrillo Hwy South Halcyon Rd Pacific Blvd Tepusquet Rd (Harbor St)(Harbor St) San Luis Obispo Orcutt South Higuera St PISMO BEACH (Cliff Ave)(Cliff Ave)Pomeroy Ave Packet Pg. 173 6 Minutes - DRAFT PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 11, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Promotional Coordinating Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Promotional Coordinating Committee was called to order on Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 5:31 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Roberson. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Daniel Levi, Patricia Loosley, Deborah Lewis, Sasha Palazzo (5:38), Vice-Chair Jill LeMieux and Chair Stephanie Roberson. Absent: Committee Member Matthew Wilkins Staff: Tourism Manager Molly Cano, and Recording Secretary Kevin Christian. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Council Member Carlyn Christianson introduced herself as the PCC Council liaison for this year and reminded the committee that there will be an Advisory Body recognition event on Tuesday, February 28, 2017. CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LEVI, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR LEMIEUX, CARRIED (5-0 PALAZZO NOT YET PRESENT) to approve the Consent Agenda items C1 to C8. C.1 Minutes of the Meeting on December 14, 2016 C.2 Community Promotions Budget Report C.3 Public Relations Report C.4 Grants-in-Aid (GIA) Support Report C.5 Visitors Center Report C.6 SLO Happenings Promotions Report Packet Pg. 174 6 DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of January 11, 2017 Page 2 C.7 SLO Happenings Technology Report C.8 TOT Report PRESENTATIONS 1. SLO Chamber of Commerce Quarterly Report Chamber of Commerce representatives Molly Kern, Director of Communications and Business Education, and Dusty Colyer-Worth, Visitor Center Manager, presented their public relations activities report for the second quarter and responded to Committee Member inquiries. Highlights included an increase in Asian visitors, a review of the GIA Marketing support, and international print and media placements. 2. SLO Happenings Program Quarterly Promotions Update Representative from FreshBuzz Media presented the quarterly promotions activity report and responded to committee member questions. Highlights included the Golden Ticket Giveaway promotion, the #Ticket Tuesday contest, and the launch of the SLO Happenings app version 3.0 on January 10, 2017. 3. SLO Happenings Program Technology Quarterly Update Representative Mike Holiday, GFL Systems, presented the second quarter activity report for the technology developments on the SLO Happenings program and discussed the new version of the SLO Happenings app. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. 2017 Amgen Tour of California Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the history of the Amgen Tour of California in the City of San Luis Obispo and announced that this year’s race will come through the City, Tuesday May 16, 2017. The race will pass through town with a Sprint point on Chorro Street in front of the Mission, rather than be a start or stop location as it has been in the past. San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Executive Director, Dominic Tartaglia, requested funding for a bicycling themed event to coincide with the Tour of California. It was noted that the race date occurs during Bike to Work Week of Bike Month. Challenges with closing streets in the downtown, for both businesses and residences, along with the benefits and opportunities to engage the community were discussed. Public Comments: None. Packet Pg. 175 6 DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of January 11, 2017 Page 3 ---End of Public Comments--- ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LEWIS, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PALAZZO, CARRIED (6-0) to supply $ 5,000 to the Downtown Association to support an event centered on the Amgen Tour of California. 2. 2017-18 GIA Application Final Review The committee reviewed the revised 2017-18 GIA application form and timeline. Public Comments: None. ---End of Public Comments--- ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LEVI, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LOOSLEY, CARRIED (6-0) to approve the revised application form and timeline. PCC LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATION 1. GIA Update A subcommittee for GIA application review was formed consisting of Committee Members Daniel Levi, Deborah Lewis, and Matthew Wilkins. 2. TBID Board Report Tourism Manager Cano presented a review of the minutes from the December meeting, noting that Tourism Intern Katie Conroy presented her Senior Project, that hotelier tradeshow representatives were selected, and that the Board reviewed their strategic plan update. Packet Pg. 176 6 DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of January 11, 2017 Page 4 3. Tourism Program Update Tourism Manager Cano,  Reviewed the programs and projects that the new Tourism Coordinator, Liesel Kuehl will be working on, noting that she begins work January 12, 2017.  Announced that Chair Roberson will be leaving the PCC due to a change in residence, and the Committee Member Lewis has applied for reappointment.  Reported that the recently released Visit California digital guide highlights San Luis Obispo for a “perfect day” itinerary in for the Central Coast.  Upcoming meetings: o February 8th - Mandatory Meeting for GIA applicants, followed by the regular PCC meeting. o February 28th - Advisory Body recognition event at the SLO Little Theatre. o May 17th - PCC Preliminary Grant Recommendation, special meeting. o January 19th and February 4th, Strategic Planning workshops. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Promotional Coordinating Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 177 6 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 178 6 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3063-PHASE 1, 3987 ORCUTT ROAD (TR/ER 114-14) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the Final Map for Tract 3063-Phase 1 located at 3987 Orcutt Road and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement, Private Drainage Easement Agreement and a Restrictive Covenant for Open Space. REPORT-IN-BRIEF A vesting tentative map for Tract 3063 was approved by the City Council on May 19, 2015. Phase 1 of the final map has been submitted and the Public Works Director has determined that the Phase 1 final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map. Once the map is approved by the Council and all of the appropriate fees and securities are submitted to guarantee completion of the Phase 1 improvements, the map can be recorded. Phase 1 will be constructing some of the required Tract 3063 public improvements along Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, and at the Orcutt/Tank Farm intersection. Other required improvements are being deferred to future phases in order to make the various phases of the project economically viable. The improvements being constructed in each phase will adequately mitigate the impacts being generated by that particular phase. An open space lot for Righetti Hill and a lot for a future central neighborhood park are being dedicated to the City with this first phase. An agreement to satisfy Tract 3063’s affordable housing requirements will be submitted to Council for consideration at a later date. This agreement will be recorded prior to or concurrent with the Phase 1 final map. DISCUSSION Background Tract 3063 (TR/ER 114-14) is located at 3987 Orcutt Road (Attachment A). This subdivision is commonly known as the Righetti subdivision. A vesting tentative map for Tract 3063 was approved by the City Council on May 19, 2015, by Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) (Attachment B). The tentative map approved the creation of 272 single-family residential lots, 32 multi-family residential lots, one lot for a central neighborhood public park, three lots for smaller public parks, eight lots for private pocket parks, one lot for a private drainage basin, and multiple lots for public and private open space. One of the public open space lots will include Righetti Hill, which will be made accessible through a public trail system. One of the private Packet Pg. 179 7 open space lots includes the Parsons homestead site at the corner of Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road. Due to the size of the tentative map, only sheets of the tentative map that are pertinent to the final map approval are included in Attachment C. Tract 3063-Phase 1 will create 172 lots consisting of: 1. 151 single-family lots 2. One central neighborhood public park lot 3. Three small public park lots 4. Seven private park lots 5. One private drainage basin lot 6. Four public open space lots, one of which includes Righetti Hill 7. Three private open space lots, one of which includes the Parsons homestead 8. One lot for future Phase 2 subdivision 9. One lot for future Phase 3 subdivision There are many requirements for the project as established by the conditions of approval for the project as well as mitigations from the environmental review. The Subdivider has requested deferment of some of the improvements for the project to coincide with the scale of the phased areas as well as address financial outlay issues. The following are descriptions of these requests and staff recommendations. Tank Farm Road Frontage Improvements The frontage improvements on Tank Farm Road required by the OASP and the tentative map for Tract 3063 consist of:  A new intersection at Tank Farm and Righetti Ranch Road  Curb, gutter and sidewalk on the northerly side of Tank Farm  Left-turn pockets at the existing intersections of Brookpine and Wavertree There already exists one travel lane and one bike lane in each direction and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the southerly side. Pursuant to policies that were established with the adoption of the new Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan (LUCE 2014), intersections that are identified as needing higher level traffic control should consider roundabout control as the preferred control methodology. Staff has worked with the Subdivider to design and install a roundabout at the new intersection of Tank Farm Road at Righetti Ranch Road. The roundabout will provide substantial improvements along this segment by slowing traffic along Tank Farm and allowing pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Tank Farm. The roundabout at Tank Farm and Righetti Ranch Road is being installed as part of Phase 1 at substantial cost to improve condition s along Tank Farm Road rather than wait for future signalization needs as volumes and delay increase. Conditions #30 and #116 require construction of all the frontage improvements on Tank Farm Road with Phase 1 unless otherwise deferred by the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. The Subdivider (Righetti Ranch LP) is requesting deferral of some of the Tank Farm frontage improvements to make the project economically viable and to offset some of Packet Pg. 180 7 the increased cost of constructing the Tank Farm/Righetti Ranch Road roundabout up front. The limits of the frontage improvements on Tank Farm Road currently proposed for Phase 1 are shown in Attachment D. The roundabout will allow pedestrians to cross Tank Farm at Righetti Ranch Road and travel on the south side of the street to Islay Park. This reduces the need for the full sidewalk connection on the north side of Tank Farm Road all the way to Orcutt Road as part of Phase 1. Left-turn pockets (interim) at the Brookpine and Wavertree intersections will be constructed with Phase 1, improving the safety at these intersections by removing the turn queues in the through lanes that currently exist. The remainder of the Tank Farm Road frontage improvements from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road, including permanent left-turn pockets for Brookpine and Wavertree, will be deferred to a future phase. Orcutt Road Frontage Improvements The frontage improvements on Orcutt Road required by the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) consist of, at a minimum:  One 12’ wide travel lane in each direction  A 6’ wide bike lane in each direction  A center turn lane  Curb, gutter and sidewalk on the westerly side of Orcutt Conditions #27 and #116 of the tentative map for Tract 3063 require construction of all the improvements on Orcutt Road from Tiburon Way to Tank Farm Road and along the Tract 3066 (Jones) frontage with Phase 1 unless otherwise deferred by the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. This requirement was established prior to finalization of phasing for all of the subdivisions in the area. In order to make the project economically viable, the Subdivider (Righetti Ranch LP) is requesting that some of the frontage improvements be deferred to spread out the costs among the various phases of the project. The limits of the full-width frontage improvements on Orcutt Road currently proposed for Phase 1 are shown in Attachment D. The remainder of the Tract 3063 Orcutt Road improvements will be deferred to a future phase. Tank Farm/Orcutt Intersection Improvements There were three potential improvements envisioned in the OASP for the intersection of Tank Farm Road at Orcutt Road. These consisted of 1) initial improvements by constructing an extension of the southbound right turn lane on Orcutt Road, 2) major realignment of the intersection to square up the Orcutt approach and 3) increasing traffic control when warranted. The traffic study for the EIR of the OASP was conducted in 2010. Assessment at that time indicated that the intersection would likely satisfy traffic signal warrants in the PM Peak but that installation of a 200’ right turn pocket on southbound Orcutt would offset the additional delay caused by the project (by separating right and left turning traffic). Constructing the lane extension is required as part of OASP development along with the payment of fees associated with future signalization of the intersection. It is important to note these improvements were predicated on full development of the entire OASP area and not analyzed for individual Packet Pg. 181 7 subdivision phasing or timing. Subdivisions approved to date, including Tract 3063, have not been required to construct a signal at the Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection as part of approval. Rather, Tract 3063 was required to construct the 200’ long right turn lane to help mitigate the increase in traffic from the subdivision. Mitigation Measure T-1(a) of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (prepared for Tract 3063) requires the project to construct the 200’ long right-turn lane prior to issuance of any building permit for Phase 1. This language was different from the OASP EIR which recommended completion of the work by issuance of occupancy permits. Condition #28 also discusses the turn pocket but requires the southbound right turn lane (and the skew be eliminated) prior to occupancy. Additionally, language in other conditions of Tract 3063 allow the Subdivider to request deferment or scaling of improvements subject to approval of the Public Works Director. The Subdivider has requested clarification of the language conflict between the mitigation measure and conditions of approval and based upon field constraints, requested deferment of the full 200’ right turn pocket until Phase 2. The constraints that are affecting implementation of the improvements include: 1) inability to complete property acquisition due to complexity and Figure 1 - ROW and Above Ground Utility Conflicts TFR at Orcutt Road Limited ROW Culvert Above Ground Power Poles 200’ Packet Pg. 182 7 timing from a clouded title for the northwest corner property, 2) inability to acquire the right of way to relocate exiting above ground power poles and utilities, and 3) inability to acquire the right of way to widen the creek culvert and receive permitting for work during seasonal allowance. The Subdivider has requested deferment based upon these issues and has proposed a partial improvement of extending the right turn lane to 100’ (temporarily avoiding the creek culvert) and constructing the full improvement when right of way is acquired. Staff analyzed this request and performed an assessment of the traffic a ssociated with Phase 1 development of Tract 3063. As part of that review, approximately 300 units could be built w ith the 100’ right turn lane extension and the City Level of Service (LOS) would be acceptable. As long as the Subdivider continues to acquire the right of way and completes the full improvements as part of Phase 2, staff can support the deferment request at this time. It is important to note that the subdivider will be submitting a security to guarantee completion of the 200’ long right turn lane and elimination of the skew prior to recordation of the Phase 1 map. Figure 2 - ROW and Above Ground Utility Conflicts TFR at Orcutt Road Traffic Control @ Tank Farm Road/ Orcutt Road Deferment of the full improvements also allows the City to analyze the appropriate intersection traffic control at Tank Farm/Orcutt Road. Since the EIR traffic study was completed, there has been a substantial increase in traffic using this intersection from outside the city limits (drivers avoiding HWY 227 congestion), which has created delay level of service issues during the PM Packet Pg. 183 7 peak hour. Because of the location of this intersection and the unique “peaking” of the traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not an ideal control since it would be in operation 24 hours a day regardless of need. Rather, pursuant to the new recommendations of the LUCE, a roundabout would be a much preferred control for the location. The OASP transportation impact fee (TIF) program includes approximately $928,000 to improve the intersection of Tank Farm and Orcutt. The City is in the process of evaluating possible intersection controls, such as a roundabout or signal, and when sufficient funding from the OASP TIF or other sources becomes available, then a signal or roundabout can be programmed for design and construction. Deferring the relocation of the intersection improvements will allow time for this design to be considered and if possible, included as the work required in the later phases of Tract 3063. Tract 3063 is required to dedicate the right of way to accommodate a future signal at this intersection. Secondary Access Condition #16 requires secondary access for all phases of the subdivision where more than 30 dwelling units are proposed. Condition #18 requires construction of the Tiburon Bridge with Phase 1 of Righetti. The Tiburon Bridge will give the Jones subdivision (Tract 3066) secondary access to Tank Farm and it will give the Righetti subdivision (Tract 3063) secondary access to Orcutt. The Subdivider has requested that the City allow deferral of the secondary access requirement if it isn’t needed for fire protection or traffic operations. The Fire Department and the Public Works Department are reviewing this request, but a determination has yet to be made. Central Neighborhood Park Condition #111 requires dedication of all public lands, including the central neighborhood park, with the initial phase of the final map. Dedication of the central neighborhood park (Lot 168) to the City is shown on the Tract 3063-Phase 1 final map. Condition #32 requires Tract 3063 to rough grade the central neighborhood park lot. Rough grading of the park lot is included on the subdivision improvement plans for Phase 1. Condition #52 requires plans to be submitted for the public park improvements. The Subdivider satisfied Condition #52 when Master Plans for each of the public parks were approved by Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council last year to guide future public park improvements. Under the OASP, the Righetti site was required to dedicate the lion’s share of the land needed for the central neighborhood park, due to its central location in the OASP community. Every new residential unit in the OASP area will be required to pay an OASP park in-lieu fee. This fee will generate funding for two park components – parkland acquisition and park improvements. Since Tract 3063 is dedicating land for the park, the Subdivider will be eligible for fee credit for that portion of their park in-lieu fee that is allocated to parkland acquisition. Tract 3063 is not required to construct the park facilities. Although Tract 3063 is not required to construct the central neighborhood park, it is an important amenity that would benefit sales of their units. The Subdivider would consider constructing the park improvements at some point during development of their project if sufficient funding is made available to them by the City through park in-lieu fee credits (the portion of the fee allocated to park improvements), reimbursements made from park fees collected from other developments within the OASP area, Packet Pg. 184 7 or other sources. Completion of the initial park improvements are anticipated to occur in Year 3 of the OASP development, subject to available funding. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Condition #32 requires completion of bicycle and pedestrian paths to connect Tracts 3063, 3066 and adjoining OASP neighborhoods with Islay Park in Phase 1. A mix of pedestrian/bicycle trails, sidewalks, and on-street bike lanes, are being constructed in Phase 1 to satisfy this condition. These paths will provide connectivity from Islay Park to the Tract 3063 central neighborhood park and to future Orcutt Area Specific plan developments immediate adjacent to Tract 3063. Some of the paths may be eligible for TIF credit consistent with the OASP and the updated OASP Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) approved by Council on 11/15/16. Transit Bus stops are proposed at the locations shown on Attachment D. These stops are consistent with planned service improvements described in the City’s proposed update of the Short Range Transit Plan. Some of the bus stops may be eligible for TIF credit consistent with the OASP and PFFP. Open Space On April 3, 2012, the property owner of the subdivision at that time (Parsons, Helphenstine, and Esajian) recorded a Deed of Open Space and Conservation Easement (County Recorder Doc. # 2012-018089) in favor of the City over a portion of their property that will now be dedicated in fee to the City as Public Open Space Lot 169 (Righetti Hill). This easement was required by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as a condition of annexation of this area into the City limits. The easement allows hiking trails on the hill, while still protecting natural resource values, including wildlife and plant resources, and scenic open space values. As required by LAFCO, Section 17 of the easement includes language that if ever the City acquires fee title interest to the easement area, the City shall transfer the easement to a private non-profit organization or other approved entity. The Subdivider will be granting Lot 169 in fee to the City with Tract 3063-Phase 1. In discussions between the City’s Natural Resources Manager and a local non-profit, it was determined that the cost to have the non -profit assume the obligation of protecting and maintaining the open space area was going to be cost prohibitive. LAFCO has expressed a willingness to waive the transfer requirement if the City enters into a covenant to restrict the use of that area similar to the restrictions set forth in the easement. The resolution approving the final map (Attachment F) allows the Mayor to act on behalf of the City on any documents related to the transfer of the easement to an approved non-profit or other approved entity, or to enter into a Restrictive Covenant to preserve this area as open space. The Restrictive Covenant would allow hiking trails on the hill. Conditions #5 and #111 state that all public Open Space and public Park Land shall be dedicated in fee to the City with Phase 1 map recordation. Open Space Tentative Map Lot 319 lies entirely outside the boundary of the Phase 1 subdivision and portions of Open Space Tentative Map Lots 307, 320, and 326 also lie outside the boundary of Phase 1. Because the boundaries of these open space lots back up to the proposed Phase 3 subdivision and the exact configuration of Phase 3 lot lines has not yet been determined, Subdivider has requested that dedication of the open space lots and portions of open space lots outside the Phase 1 boundary be deferred to Phase 3 map Packet Pg. 185 7 recordation. In order to preserve the intent of this condition, which is to preserve open space values as soon as possible within the project boundaries, a Restrictive Covenant for Private Open Space will be recorded concurrently with the map for the proposed open space that is outside the boundaries of the Phase 1 subdivision. This covenant restricts the uses on the covered property to preserve the open space values. A sunset clause will be included in the covenant so it automatically terminates once the land is dedicated in fee to the City. A Notice of Requirements is being recorded with the Phase 1 map requiring dedication of the remaining portions of these open space lots with Phase 3 map recordation. Drainage There are some concrete drainage channels being constructed on public open space Lot 161 to divert upslope drainage away from the new residential lots. There are also stormwater control measures such as pipes, shallow basins, and special soil and planting mixes being constructed on public open space Lots 159 and 164 and within the parkways along the public street right-of-way to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. These improvements are to be maintained by the homeowner’s association. An easement agreement outlining terms of Subdivider’s and HOA’s responsibilities with regards to constructing and maintaining the drainage improvements within the City property and right-of-way will be required prior to map recordation. Resolution No. 5370 (1984 Series) authorizes the Mayor to accept easements on behalf of the City, but there is no similar resolution authorizing the Mayor to grant easements on public property. Therefore, the resolution approving the Tract 3063-Phase 1 final map (Attachment F) also authorizes the Mayor to approve a Private Drainage Easement Agreement granting an easement for the private drainage facilities to the Subdivider. The Subdivider has acquired fee title to the Islay Hill HOA drainage basin north of Tank Farm Road, adjacent to Tract 3063 and the railroad tracks. The Subdivider will be conveying title to this basin to the Righetti Ranch Master Association, which will then be responsible for maintenance of the basin. Although not specifically stated in the grant deed, the Islay Hill HOA retained the right to drain to this basin by inserting a provision in Exhibit A of the Grant Deed stating that any modifications to the design and/or drainage basin capacity of the property must first be approved by the City. Tract 3063 is designing improvements to the basin that continue to accommodate drainage from the subdivisions south of Tank Farm. Affordable Housing As identified in Condition #110, the City is actively working with the Subdivider to complete the Affordable Housing Agreement. The Agreement outlines the transfer of inclusionary units between the various OASP tracts and identifies a future parcel which shall be dedicated to a non-profit housing Subdivider for construction of affordable units. The agreement will be recorded prior to recordation of the final map. Minor Adjustments of Lot Lines The lot line between Lots 161 (public open space) and Lot 162 (private open space) (Tentative Map Lots 321 and 322) was slightly modified from the original tentative map approval to address the public/private interface issue of Condition #9. The line was modified so that no portion of City Lot 161 fronts Tank Farm Road. There is no need for Lot 161 to front Tank Farm because there is no trailhead access proposed at this location. Furthermore, the HOA is required Packet Pg. 186 7 to maintain the frontage landscaping along Tank Farm and Orcutt. This maintenance includes those portions that front the City’s Righetti Hill open space lot (Lot 169) and the Parson’s homestead lot (Lot 170). The lot line between Lot 172 (future Phase 3) and Lot 170 (Parsons homestead lot) was slightly modified from the original tentative map approval in order to add a secondary access to Phase 3 to line up with Hansen Lane. This secondary access will require modification of an existing conservation easement on the Parsons homestead lot. The modification can be deferred to Phase 3 because that is when the impact occurs. Reimbursement Agreement Conditions #36 and #117 allow the Subdivider to present financing and reimbursement programs for infrastructure improvements to be considered with any final map application. Subdivider has submitted a draft reimbursement plan. The City is in the process of reviewing this request and it will be presented to City Council for approval at a later date. Approving the Final Map The tentative map has an initial two-year life per Municipal Code Section 16.10.150, so this vesting tentative map has an expiration date of May 19, 2017. All phases of the map must record prior to expiration of the tentative map. Recording of this first phase of the map will affect the expiration date of the tentative map once a certain amount of money (approximately $250,000) is expended by the Subdivider for off-site improvements pursuant to Section 66452.6(a) of the California Government Code (aka Subdivision Map Act). Furthermore, the Subdivision Map Act allows for time extensions to be requested by the Subdivider and granted by the City. The final map for Tract 3063-Phase 1 (Attachment G) is ready to be approved and recorded. Pursuant to Section 16.14.080 of the Municipal Code, the Public Works Director has determined that the final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map and approved modifications thereof. Section 66474.1 of the Subdivision Map Act states that “a Legislative body shall not deny approval of a final or parcel map if it has previously approved a tentative map for t he proposed subdivision and if it finds that the final or parcel map is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map.” The approval of a final map is considered a ministerial action. Appropriate securities will be submitted prior to map recordation to guarantee completion of the required subdivision improvements as shown in the Subdivision Agreement (Attachment E). The resolution approving the final map (Attachment F) also authorizes the Mayor to sign the Subdivision Agreement requiring the Subdivider to complete the subdivision improvements. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department and Natural Resources Manager concur with the recommended action. Packet Pg. 187 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Orcutt Area Specific Plan and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The Righetti Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3063 (VTM) was analyzed in a project-specific Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which tiered off the 2010 FEIR. The VTM was approved and the IS/MND was adopted on May 19, 2015. Both the 2010 FEIR and subsequent IS/MND constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. Approval of the final map is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects (approval of final subdivision maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Therefore, no further environmental review is required. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City associated with approving the final map for Tract 3036-Phase 1. However, the public improvements that will be constructed with this phase will result in an increase in maintenance costs for the public streets, public utilities, open space, parks and other infrastructure upon acceptance of the improvements by the City. Furthermore, it takes approximately one person to maintain every 10 acres of park. The total parkland being dedicated with Righetti is 12.4 acres, which means at least one additional Public Works maintenance employee will need to be added to the park maintenance budget once the parks are constructed and accepted by the City. Furthermore, additional park ranger personnel may be needed to patrol the parks and open space that are being dedicated with this subdivision. The costs associated with additional maintenance of parks, open space, and infrastructure, together with the additional employees needed to perform the maintenance are typically funded by the General Fund. As the facilities are accepted and begin to require standard maintenance, funds will be requested in future Financial Plans during the appropriate budget process. An analysis prepared by Applied Development Economics (ADE) concluded that, in total, new land uses if built out per the densities would generate adequate revenue to pay for needed City services at the same per capita levels enjoyed in 2014. ALTERNATIVES Deny approval of the final map. Denying approval of the final map can apply if findings are made that the requirements or conditions of the tentative map have not been met or performed (Section 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act) or if findings are made that the final map is not in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map (Section 66474.1 of the Subdivision Map Act). Since the final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map, Sections 66474.1 and 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act require that City Council approve the map. Therefore, denying approval of the final map is not a recommended alternative unless the required findings are made. Packet Pg. 188 7 Attachments: a - Vicinity Map b - Resolution No. 10619 (2015 series) Approving Tentative Map c - Excerpted Pages from Tentative Map d - Phase 1 improvements e - Subdivision Agreement - Phase 1 f - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map g - Final Map Packet Pg. 189 7 Packet Pg. 190 7 RESOLUTION NO. 10619 (2015 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3063 CREATING 328 LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3987 ORCUTT ROAD TR/ER 114 -14; TRACT #3063 RIGHETTI) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings on March 25, 2015 and April 8, 2015 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering TR/ER 114 -14, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map subdividing an approximately 144 -acre site into 328 lots, and recommended the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Hearings were for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; 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 reviewed and considered the initial study of environmental impact as prepared by staff, 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 City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Cl~QA Findings, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following CEQA findings in support of the Vesting Tentative Map 114 -14 (Tract No. 3063): 1. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified and adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and this approval incorporates those FEIR mitigation measures as applicable to VTM #3063, as detailed herein. 2. A supplemental initial study has been prepared for VTM #3063 addressing potential environmental impacts which were not identified or detailed in the FEIR for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The Community Development Director has recommended that the results of that additional analysis be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) o f environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of additional mitigation measures to those imposed by the FEIR, all of which are incorporated below. R 10619 Packet Pg. 191 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 2 2. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR and IS- MND, and reduced to a level of insignificance, provided the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the development project and the mitigation monitoring program: AESTHETIC MITIGATION AES -3 Special Building Height Limits, Scale and Massing Design Standards for Western Flank of Righetti Hill (Righetti Ranch VTM #3063). Added building design restrictions shall be required for residential lots and units (Lots 35 -50) adjoining the Righetti Hill URL on the western flank of the hillside. These standards are intended to reduce the massing of residential units abutting the URL. These standards will include use of the following building techniques, and considered during ARC and /or staff review of any project applications for residential units in this location: 1. Residential Building Heights shall not exceed 25' as measured above average finished grade; 2. Grading for lots abutting the URL will be encouraged to be split -pads, to reduce the scale of the building mass by stepping down the hillside; 3. The upper pad shall be limited to one -story (a maximum of 15') in height; 4. First floor massing and footprint shall be encouraged to be built into the topography (recessed) into the hillside; 5. Second floor square footage shall be set back from the first floor elevation, creating a stepped appearance to the buildings; 6. Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 50 %; and, 7. Roof lines on the upper pad will align front -to -back to narrow the high point of the roof when viewed from the street. AES -3 Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed and implemented at two (2) stages. First, any final map recorded for subdivision of lots abutting URL along the western flank of the Righetti Hill shall include a special deed restriction incorporating this mitigation and special development criteria on such lots. This requirement will be verified by the City Engineer's office prior to recordation of such a final map. Second, Community Development Department staff will insure ARC and staff level application of these standards during review of any design review and building permit submittals. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION Operational Phase Mitigation AQ -1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Packet Pg. 192 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 3 Area. The following energy- conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff. increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency /Department of Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; use double -paned windows; solar panel plumbing; grey water recycling; tank -less water heaters; dedicated hot water line loops. AQ -1(b) Transit. Bus turnouts and shelter improvements with direct pedestrian access shall be installed at all bus stops. AQ -1(c) Shade Trees. All parking lots shall include shade trees within the parking area. There shall be at least one shade tree for every six vehicle parking spaces. AQ -1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with internal wiring /cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and tele- learning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home. AQ -1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul -de -sacs and dead -end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. AQ -1 Monitoring Program: Compliance with operational phase mitigation measures will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Construction Phase Mitigation AQ -3( a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre. Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction. Packet Pg. 193 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 4 Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications. Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off -road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed off -road diesel is acceptable). Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. AQ -3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM 10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction: Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. All dirt- stock -pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast - germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. AQ -3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material Packet Pg. 194 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 5 shall be tarped from the point of origin. AQ -3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off -site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. AQ -3 Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) before the onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION B -3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 1 :1 ratio. B -4( c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and /or wetland habitat are proposed for removal pursuant to development under the Specific Plan, such development shall apply for all applicable permits and submit a Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance to wetlands and /or riparian habitat. The plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on- site using regionally collected native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat created to habitat impacted) in areas shown on figure 4.4 -2 as directed by a biologist. The resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional Basin is necessary as a mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be designed as directed by a biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and erosion control and using the final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out of the buffer area for riparian and wetland habitat. B -5(a) Bird Pre - Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to nesting special- status bird species and raptors including the ground- nesting burrowing owl, all initial Packet Pg. 195 7 Resolution No. 10619 ( 2015 Series) Page 6 ground- disturbing activities and tree removal shall be limited to the time period between September 15 and February 1. If initial site disturbance, grading, and tree removal cannot be conducted during this time period, a pre- construction survey for active nests within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities (for ground- nesting burrowing owl survey see below). If active nests are located, all construction work must be conducted outside a buffer zone of 200 feet to 500 feet from the nests as determined in consultation with the CDFG. No direct disturbance to nests shall occur until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding /nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to the start of construction. B -5(b) Burrowing Owl Survey. When an applicant requests entitlements from the City under the Specific Plan a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for burrowing owls during both the wintering and nesting seasons (unless the species is detected on the first survey) in potentially suitable habitats prior to construction in accordance with the guidelines described in the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (1995). Winter surveys shall be conducted on the entire project site between December 1 and February 1, and the nesting season survey shall be conducted between April 15 and July 15. If burrowing owls are detected within the proposed disturbance area, CDFG shall be contacted immediately to develop and implement a mitigation plan to protect owls and their nest sites. B -5(c) Monarch Pre - Construction Survey. If initial ground- breaking is to occur between the months of October and March a pre - construction survey for active monarch roost sites within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities. If active roost sites are located no ground- disturbing activities shall occur within 50 feet of the perimeter of the habitat. Construction shall not resume within the setback until a qualified biologist has determined that the monarch butterfly has vacated the site. B -5(d) VPFS Sampling Surveys. Prior to development in areas shown as potential VPFS habitat on Figure 4.4 -2, current USFWS protocol level sampling surveys shall be conducted in all such areas. A report consistent with current Federal, State, and local reporting guidelines shall be prepared to document the methods and results of surveys. If VPFS are found, the report shall include a map that identifies the VPFS locations. Should the presence of additional special- status wildlife species be determined including California linderiella, a map identifying locations in which these species were found shall be prepared and included in the report. B -5(e) FESA Consultation and Mitigation Regarding VPFS. If any VPFS individuals are located onsite pursuant to Mitigation Measure B -5(d), substantial setbacks from their identified habitat shall be implemented to avoid take of a Federally listed species. If complete avoidance is not economically or technically feasible, then Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) shall be used to authorize incidental take when no other Federal agency such as the Corps is Packet Pg. 196 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 7 involved. This process include development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for protecting and enhancing the Federally listed species at a specific location in perpetuity. Species take can also be authorized under Section 7 of the FESA if a Federal agency is involved in the project (e.g., Corps Section 404 permitting for impacts to waters of the U.S. and /or Federal funding) and agrees to be the lead agency requesting Section 7 consultation. This consultation process takes at a minimum 135 days from the official request by the Federal lead agency. The compensatory mitigation ratio shall be determined by the appropriate resource agencies. Suitable replacement habitat shall be constructed either within the site boundaries or offsite. [GASP FEIR] Figure 4.4 -2 identifies areas that could be appropriate for onsite VPFS mitigation. Figure 4.4 -2 is not intended to preclude development but shall be used as a starting point for incorporating VPFS mitigation sites into the development plan. While the Orcutt Regional Basin included in the potential VPFS mitigation sites may need regular maintenance and may be seasonally flooded, depressions could be created on the upper edges of the terrace in such a manner that they are protected from flooding. VPFS mitigation areas shall be approved by a biologist familiar with VPFS habitat " creation" techniques. Enhancement of the onsite seasonal freshwater wetland habitat that is undisturbed by project activities may also be a part of the mitigation program. Alternatively, fairy shrimp cysts could be collected during the dry season from the existing habitat and placed into storage. Topsoil could also be removed and stored in conditions suitable to retain cysts. Wetland habitat could be enhanced /created in the areas shown on Figure 4.4 -2 by grading depressions in the landscape and "top dressing" the depressions with the preserved topsoil. Preserved cysts would be added to the recreated wetlands in December or January, after sufficient ponding has occurred. It is important to note that VPFS habitat mitigation is still considered experimental. VPFS habitat mitigation is ambitious as it is costly, labor intensive, and difficult to ensure success. Habitat may be "created" only in an existing vernal pool landscape that provides suitable soils and a number of other specific ecological factors (USFWS, 2004). An alternative to onsite mitigation is the purchase of mitigation bank credits. Credits can be purchase by the acre as suitable mitigation for VPFS. There is currently no known mitigation bank with VPFS habitat occurring within San Luis Obispo County, however, mitigation banks may be available in the future. B -3a, B -4c, B -5 Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Natural Resources Department staff consultation and implementation at time of review and prior to approval of grading plan(s) and during tract construction (B -3a, B -4c, B -5). B -6( c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall Packet Pg. 197 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 8 prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals. B -6(c) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive non - native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan: African sumac (Rhus lancea) Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius) Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula) Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus) Edible fig (Ficus carica) Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) French broom (Genista monspessulana) Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) Myoporum (Myoporum spp.) Olive (Olea europaea) Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus) Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. T. ramosissima) Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) B -6c Monitoring Program: j ubata) parviflora), Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION CR -1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of Packet Pg. 198 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 9 project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. An archaeologist shall monitor construction grading within 50 meters (164 feet) of the two isolated finds. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc.), work in the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material. If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. CR -1 d Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY MITIGATION D -2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization. Vegetative or biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering) approaches to bank stabilization are preferred over structural approaches. Bank stabilization design must be consistent with the SLO Creek Stream Management and Maintenance Program Section 6. Streambank stabilization usually involves one or a combination of the following activities: Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks and create a more stable slope; Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites; Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade stabilization structures; Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment deposition; Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by -pass channel; Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularly at the toe of slopes. The bank stabilization design will: Packet Pg. 199 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 10 Be stable over the long term; Be the least environmentally damaging and the "softest" approach possible; Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream instabilities; Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat. D -2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The OASP proposes riparian enhancement of creek corridors. Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual shall be followed for riparian areas that are modified, created and /or managed for flood damage reduction, stream enhancement, and bank repair. Linear park terrace vegetation, streambank repair and channel maintenance projects may require stream channel modifications that include shaping, widening, deepening, straightening, and armoring. Many channel management projects also require building access roads for maintenance vehicles and other equipment. These construction activities can cause a variety of impacts to existing sensitive riparian and aquatic habitat that, depending on the selected design alternative, range from slight disturbances to complete removal of desirable woody vegetation and faunal communities. In urban areas within the SLO creek watershed, riparian vegetation often provides the only remaining natural habitat available for wildlife populations. D -5( a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed swales biofilters) into the project drainage system where feasible for runoff conveyance and filtering of pollutants. D -5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7, the applicant shall be encouraged to use pervious paving material to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. D -2a, D -2c, D -5a, D -5c Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Natural Resources Department staff consultation and implementation at time of landscaping construction plan review and Engineering - Public Works staff at the time of tract construction. NOISE MITIGATION N -1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the following: Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can be shielded with a barrier. Packet Pg. 200 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 11 Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory- recommended mufflers. Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment. N -1 a Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. PUBLIC SERVICES MITIGATION PS -4 Wastewater Main System Extensions. Prior to recordation of a final map for Righetti Ranch (TR 3063), the improvement plans for the tract shall include connections to future improvements planned by Tract 3066 (Jones Ranch) to convey sanitary sewer service to the existing connection points on Tank Farm Road. PS -4 Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed and implemented by the City Engineer's office with the subdivision plans and accompanying final map prior to recordation of the final map. PUBLIC SAFETY MITIGATION S -2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall develop Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC &R's) that disclose to potential buyers or leasers that aircraft over - flights occur, and that such flights may result in safety hazard impacts should an aircraft accident occur. In addition, prior to recordation of final map, avigation easements shall be recorded over the entire project site for the benefit of the SLO County Regional Airport. S -2b Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Community Development, City Attorney and Engineering staff approvals of the Disclosure(s) prior to recordation of a final tract map. TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION T -1(a) Orcutt Road /Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements. Applicant shall install a 200' right -turn lane on the southbound Orcutt Road approach to Tank Farm Road shall be installed with Phase 1 Tract 3063 improvements. T -1(a) Monitoring Program: Packet Pg. 201 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 12 Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer's office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 1 of Tract 3063. T -2(d) Orcutt Road /Tank Farm Road Intersection Signalization. Applicant shall provide right -of -way as necessary as a part of Phase 1 Tract 3063 improvements, and pay "fair share" OASP Impact Fee contributions. T -2(d) Monitoring Program: Compliance will be addressed by (1) dedication of right -of -way as needed for signalization at the time of final map recordation and (2) payment of OASP Impact Fees at time of issuance of building permits for Tract 3063. T -3 Street E -2 & Hanson Lane Alignment. Applicant shall align centerlines of E -2 Street & Hanson Lane with side street stop control and a Two Way Left Turn Lane T -3 Monitoring Program: Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer's office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 1 of Tract 3063. T -5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage Improvements. Applicant shall design and install frontage improvements along Tank Farm Road & Orcutt Road, providing pedestrian access along both street frontages and the connecting gap. T -5 Monitoring Program: Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer's office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 1 of Tract 3063. T -6 Traffic Calming & Safety Measures. Applicant shall provide raised intersections at D& D4 Streets and C & C3 Streets. Provide single lane urban compact roundabout control at intersection D & Tank Farm with speed reduction curves and at intersection A & B. Provide side street stop control at Street E & Orcutt Road Intersection. T -6 Monitoring Program: Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer's office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 1 of Tract 3063. Packet Pg. 202 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MITIGATION USS -1 Off -site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP To Meet Fire Flow and Storage Standards. Concurrent with applications for Final Map(s), the applicant shall submit a water supply plan to meet adequate fire flow standards for all lots within each Final Map. Implementation of such a water line extension plan shall be included as a part of public improvement plans for the subdivision, and approved by Utilities, Public Works and the City Engineer. This implementation plan may include a financing plan, including reimbursement provisions, approved by the City Council at the time of considering any Final Map. Required water main line extension(s) to the subdivision shall be completed and operational to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director, prior to occupancy of any of the residential and /or commercial uses. USS -1 Monitoring Program Compliance will be reviewed and implemented by the City Engineer's office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for Tract 3063. SECTION 2. Vesting Tract Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The City Council does hereby approve application TR/ER 114 -14 (VTM #3063, "Righetti Ranch "), a tentative tract map to create up to 328 residential, detention basin, parklands, and open space lots, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions being incorporated into the project: FindinL-s• 1. As conditioned, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, results in parcels that meet minimum density standards, and will be consistent with the density, lot sizes and project amenities established by the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C /OS- SP, P -F -SP, R -1 -SP, R -2 -SP and R -3 -SP zoning districts. 3. The design of the vesting tentative tract map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since further development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with VTM 3063 and the required architectural review process, which will allow for detailed review of development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards. Packet Pg. 203 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 14 4. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision, and the project is consistent with the pattern of development prescribed in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. 5. The proposed project will provide affordable housing consistent with the intent of California Government Code §65915, and in compliance with City policies and the Housing Element. 6. The tentative map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation measures prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, the OASP Final EIR, and the Initial Study- Mitigated Negative Declaration IS -MND). 7. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Conditions: Dedications and Easements 1. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, public and private streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and /or shall be recorded separately prior to or concurrent with the first phase of the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. 2. The final map and improvement plans shall show the extent of all on -site and off -site offers of dedication. Subdivision improvement plans and or preliminary designs may be required for any deferred improvements so that dedication limits can be established. These improvements may include but are not limited to road construction and widening, grading and drainage improvements, utility easements, bridges, bike bridges, transit stops, bikeways, pedestrian paths, signalized intersections, traffic circles, and roundabouts. 3. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road and along the Union Pacific Railroad right of way except at approved driveway locations and intersections as shown on the tentative map or as otherwise approved by the city. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10' wide street tree easement and 6' public utility easement (P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right -of -way lines bordering each lot. A 10' wide street tree easement and 6' P.U.E. shall be provided along the frontage for all private streets. A 10' street tree easement and 15' P.U.E. shall be provided along the Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road frontages (tract boundary). Packet Pg. 204 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 15 5. The subdivider shall dedicate Righetti Hill, all public Open Space and all public Park Land in fee to the City, consistent with the GASP, in conjunction with or prior to the Phase 1 map recordation. The land shall be granted free and clear of all encumbrances to the satisfaction of the City. Unless otherwise amended by the City, the public lots include Lot 307, 311, 312, 316, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, and 328. 6. The subdivider shall include a separate offer of dedication for all sections of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) Streets B, C, and D located outside the phase boundary, but within the tract boundary in accordance with the tentative map street alignments and map conditions in conjunction with or prior to the Phase 1 map recordation. The developer shall include the offers of dedication for the Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road widening improvements in conjunction with or prior to the Phase 1 map recordation. The developer shall include any other out -of -phase offers of dedication related to the need for public utility extensions related to orderly development of the OASP where not otherwise located within a public street. 7. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property owners or the Homeowner's Association (HOA) as applicable. Private improvements include but are not limited to streets, sidewalks, private pedestrian/bike paths, sewer mains, drainage systems, detention basin(s), street lighting, landscape, landscape irrigation, common areas, pocket parks, and linear park improvements. 8. The private open space, pocket park, and detention basin Lots 308, 309, 310, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 322, 323 and 327, along with the proposed improvements, including but not limited to trails, bikeways, and landscaping shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. Open Space and bikeway easements along with any public utility easements shall be offered to the City and shown and noted on the final map. An easement agreement shall be provided for specific open space areas, bikeways, and utility corridors in a format approved by the City. 9. The final location of the boundary between HOA open space Lot 322 and City open space Lot 321 shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Natural Resources Manager depending upon the final trail head location off Street D -2 and the area of the private /public maintenance interface. 10. A wildland fuel management /reduction zone along with any required easements and /or zone limits shall be shown and noted on the final map and improvement plans for reference. The limits of the zone shall be in accordance with the adopted Fire Code and approved to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and City Natural Resources Manager. The HOA shall be responsible for wildland fuel management and weed abatement within the established fuel reduction zone and private open space areas. 11. Unless otherwise waived or deferred by the City, the subdivider shall improve all neighborhood trail extensions to the limits of open space Righetti Hill Lot 328 to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. Packet Pg. 205 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 16 12. A notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo may need to be recorded in conjunction with the Final Map for Phase 1 and subsequent map phases to clarify development restrictions, conditions of development, and references to any pertinent conditions of approval related to future map phasing. 13. Off -site easements and /or dedications may be required to facilitate through street access and public water and sewer main extensions beyond the tract boundary and in accordance with the OASP. Looped water mains may be required in accordance with the tentative map, development phasing, and the City water model to provide adequate service and compliance with adopted codes and standards. 14. Off -site dedication/acquisition of property for this public right -of -way purpose is necessary to facilitate orderly development and the anticipated OASP improvements. The subdivider shall work with the City and the land owner(s) to acquire the necessary rights -of -way. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said rights -of -way, the City Council may consider lending the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off -site right -of -way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off -site right -of -way acquisition (including attorney fees and court costs). 15. With respect to all off -site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the subdivider shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or, b. Demonstrate, in writing, that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and request that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462 .5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the subdivider shall submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California; ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; Packet Pg. 206 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 17 ill. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so; iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off -site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. V. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. Transportation 16. Secondary access is required from all portions and /or phases of the subdivision where more than 30 dwelling units are proposed. The location and development of the proposed secondary access shall be presented to the City for review and approval prior to the preparation of the related improvement plans or final map approval. 17. Secondary access from the E Street neighborhood shall be aligned with Hansen Lane unless a suitable alternate secondary access point can be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors. 18. The proposed westerly Phase 1 of Jones Ranch shall require access to Orcutt Road in conjunction with development of Phase 1. Secondary access will be provided to Tank Farm Road through Tract 3063. This requires completion the B Street Bridge as part of Phase 1 development. Regardless of access, the required water supply to this phase may require a looped water main with indications that the B Street bridge may need to be constructed in support of the required water main extension to serve Righetti VTM #3063 prior to commencing with combustible construction. 19. Fire Department access shall be provided for each construction phase to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Phased street construction shall consider and provide suitable Fire Department hydrant access, circulation routes, passing lanes, and turn- around areas in accordance with current codes and standards. 20. All public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards and OASP including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps as approved by the City Engineer. Where conflicts occur between the City Engineering Standards and Packet Pg. 207 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 18 concepts identified in the OASP, final determination of shall design shall be provided by the City Engineer. Traffic calming improvements may be required at select locations within in the subdivision. Improvements may include bulb -outs, elevated sidewalks /speed tables, or alternate paving materials to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 21.The developer shall record a Notice of Requirements with each map phase regarding the designed and installed traffic calming devices and that the subdivisions are not eligible for future Residential Parking District or Neighborhood Traffic Management program processing. 22. Horizontal curvature along Street "C" does not meet current City Uniform Design Criteria regarding geometries; "All streets shall intersect other streets at right angles, and shall have at least 50 feet of centerline tangent, as measured from the prolongation of the cross - street property line to the angle point or beginning of curve ". The applicant shall revise subject segments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23. The improvement plans shall include all final line -of -sight analysis at applicable intersections to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Fence heights and plantings in the areas of control shall be reviewed in conjunction with the analysis. A separate recorded agreement or Notice of Requirements for private property owner or HOA maintenance of sight lines shall be required where necessary. 24. The final map and improvement plans shall include the required right -of -way, transit stop easements, and all details of the required bus turnouts to accommodate all proposed and future bus stops per City Engineering Standards, the OASP and current Short Range Transit plan. The final location of all North -South and East -West route stops shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Transit Manager and Public Works Director. 25. The public improvement plans shall include full frontage improvements on Orcutt Road from B Street to Tank Farm Road and along the Tract 3066 (Jones) frontage, including the Imel and Garay properties. The plans shall show, at a minimum, all improvements including concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards on the west side of Orcutt; 6' bike lanes, 12' travel lanes, and a 12' two -way left turn lane in accordance with the tentative map, GASP, City Engineering Standards, and the Cal Trans Highway Design Manual; undergrounding of the overhead utilities on the west side; and complete details for the Orcutt Road points of access. 26. The east side of Orcutt Road where widening is proposed or required may terminate in an AC berm to match the existing adjoining road sections per City Engineering Standards or the appropriate County rural road standards where approved by the City Engineer. The Orcutt Road plans shall include all phases of construction including road widening, stormdrain improvements, culvert extensions, grading /walls, and any water quality BMP's. Some off -site dedication of property for public right -of -way purposes may be required to facilitate the Orcutt Road improvements and transitions between the Packet Pg. 208 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 19 OASP full build -out road section and adjoining road segments beyond the tract boundaries. 27. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to Tank Farm Road and along the Tract 3066 (Jones) frontage shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdvider and granted by the City. Prior to approval of any deferrals, the subdivider shall demonstrate that the construction of the required improvements is impractical. 28. Prior to occupancy of Phase 1 the Tank Farm / Orcutt intersection shall be modified to provide a southbound right -turn lane on Orcutt Road and to eliminate the skew, as required in the GASP. All overhead utilities conflicting with this improvement shall be undergrounded. 29. The public improvement plans shall include full frontage improvements on Tank Farm Road from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road. The plans shall show, at a minimum, all improvements including concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards on the north side of Tank Farm; and left -turn pockets at Brookpine and Wavertree subject to approval of the City Engineer. The Tank Farm Road plans shall include all phases of construction including road widening, stormdrain improvements, and any water quality BMP's. Some off -site dedication of property for public right -of- way purposes may be required to facilitate the Tank Farm Road improvements and transitions between the OASP full build -out road section and adjoining road segments beyond the tract boundaries. 30. The Tank Farm Road improvements from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdvider and granted by the City. Prior to approval of any deferrals, the subdivider shall demonstrate that the construction of the required improvements is impractical. 31. All bikeways shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards and the Highway Design Manual. Final details of the bikeway connections to the adjoining streets shall be approved by the City. The proposed path located between Street D -3 and the UPRR shall be revised to connect to Street C and Tank Farm Road in accordance with the OASP. 32. Rough grading of the park lot and completion of bicycle and pedestrian paths connecting Tract 3063, Tract 3066, and adjoining OASP neighborhoods with the existing park facilities at Islay Park shall be required with Phase 1 of the map. 33. The applicant shall obtain consult with the City and obtain an encroachment permit prior to establishing form of temporary access point at near the intersections of "D" Street & Tank Farm Road and E -2 Street & Hansen Lane. 34. The applicant shall conduct neighborhood speed surveys one year after occupancy of each phase at locations approved by the Director of Public Works. If 85th percentile speeds exceed current City NTM thresholds additional traffic calming Packet Pg. 209 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 20 measures shall be installed. The applicant shall bond for these potential additional traffic calming measures. 35. All mitigation measures (MM) specific to Transportation requirements shall be provided as detailed under CEQA section 1, above, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 36. The subdivider may present financing and reimbursement programs for transportation improvements to be considered with approval and recordation of the initial final map for VTM #3063. Any such program(s) will be subject to approval by the City Council. 37. The subdivider shall be responsible for securing the off -site right -of -way needs for VTM #3063, and dedicating that right -of -way to the city as a condition of final map approval. 38. The final map and improvement plans shall include the required right -of -way and all construction details of the required improvements per City Engineering Standards and the OASP. 39. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads except at approved driveway locations as shown on the tentative map. 40. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires along all public streets including Orcutt Road per City Engineering Standards. 41. Private street lighting shall be provided along the private streets per City Engineering Standards and /or as approved in conjunction with the final ARC approvals. 42. Final street sections shall be approved in conjunction with the review and approval of the final project drainage report. The final design shall consider drainage, transitions, and accessibility. 43. All future public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps. Traffic calming improvements may be required at select locations within in the subdivision. Improvements may include bulb -outs, elevated sidewalks /speed tables, or alternate paving materials to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 44. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15- gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. Landscape plans may include grouping of trees to vary this standard, to achieve visual variety within the subdivision. Packet Pg. 210 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 21 ImprovementPlans 45. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off -site improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, and Fire Department prior to map recordation. Off -site improvements may include but are not limited to roadways, sewer mains, water mains, and stormdrain improvements. Off -site improvements shall include off -site access roadways, the water main extensions provided by MM USS -1, and Tiburon Way, Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road improvements. 46. A separate demolition permit will be required from the Building Division for the removal of any existing structures and related infrastructure. Building removals are subject to the Building Demolition Regulations including the additional notification and timing requirements for any structure over 50 -years old. 47. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site improvements, utilities, water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire services, etc. The plan shall include any pertinent off -site water well and private waste disposal systems that are located within regulated distances to the proposed drainage and utility improvements. The plan shall include the proposed disposition of the improvements and any proposed phasing of the removal and demolition. All structures and utilities affected by the proposed lot lines shall be removed and receive final inspection approvals prior to map recordation. 48. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed, the phasing shall provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management Plan) prior to acceptance by the City. The engineer of record shall detail this requirement in the public improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 49. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete construction phasing plan in accordance with the conditions of approval and map phasing. A truck circulation plan and construction management and staging plan shall be included with the improvement plan submittal. General truck routes shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City. The engineer of record shall provide a summary of the extent of cut and fill with estimates on the yards of import and export material. The summary shall include rough grading, utility trench construction, road construction, AC paving, concrete delivery, and vertical construction loading estimates on the existing public roadways. The developer shall either; 1) complete roadway deflection testing before and after construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall complete repairs to the pre- construction condition, or 2) shall pay a roadway maintenance fee in accordance with City Engineering Standards and guidelines, or 3) shall propose a pavement repair /replacement program to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 50. Retaining wall and /or retaining wall /fence combinations along property lines shall be Packet Pg. 211 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 22 approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and shall conform with the zoning regulations for allowed combined heights or shall be approved through the ARC or separate Fence Height exception process. 51. The ARC plans and public improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed mail receptacles or mail box units (MBU's) to the satisfaction of the Post Master and the City Engineer. Provide a mailbox unit or multiple units to serve all dwelling units and lease spaces within this development as required by the Post Master. MBU's shall not be located within the public right -of -way or public sidewalk area unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. Contact the Post Master at 543 -2605 to establish any recommendations regarding the number, size, location, and placement for any MBU's. 52. Separate plans shall be submitted for the public park improvements and for any deferred private site development. Parking lot designs shall comply with the parking and driveway standards and Engineering Standard 2010. All parking spaces must be designed so that vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed so that vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in not more than two maneuvers. 53. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Tree species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15- gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. Street trees shall be planted along private streets as required for public streets. The subdivision improvement plans /landscape plans shall include street tree plantings along the Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road frontages of Lot 327. Utilities 54. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving utility companies. All public and private sewer mains shall be shown on the public improvement plans and shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards unless a waiver or alternate standard is otherwise approved by the City. The plans shall clearly delineate and distinguish the difference between public and private improvements. 55. Specialized street pavement in the area of public water and /or sewer mains may create maintenance /replacement concerns and additional costs. The final pavement sections shall be reviewed and approved in conjunction with ARC approvals and public improvement plan review. A separate agreement and /or CC &R provision shall be required to clarify that the Righetti Ranch Master HOA will have final street maintenance responsibility in areas of specialized pavement where said pavement is damaged or removed in conjunction with public improvements or maintenance of said public water and /or sewer mains. Packet Pg. 212 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 23 56. Recycled water mains shall be installed in public streets in order to serve recycled water to the city park, HOA maintained landscaped areas, temporary irrigation for mitigation areas, and detention basins. The applicant shall work with the Water Division of the City's Utilities Department to determine the appropriate size of all proposed recycled water mains. 57. City recycled water or another non - potable water source, shall be used for construction water (dust control, soil compaction, etc.). An annual Construction Water Permit is available from the City's Utilities Department. Recycled water is readily available near the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road. 58. Final grades and alignments of all public and /or private water, sewer and storm drains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals and meters shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and /or public improvement plans. 59. The improvement plans shall show the location of all domestic and landscape water meters. The plan shall include service lateral sizes and meter sizes. Sizing calculations may be required to justify service and meter sizing. Water impact fees related to the irrigation water meter(s) shall be paid prior to approval of the subdivision improvement plans for each pertinent map and /or construction phase. 60. Off -site utility improvements shall include the water main upgrade /replacement and extension from the High Pressure /Bishop pressure zone at the intersection of Tanglewood /Johnson Avenue to serve the subdivision. Pipe sizing is contingent upon the modeling for the proposed development phases and looping of the main. Improvement plans may be required to clarify the design for main extensions outside the Phase 1 improvements. Pressure regulating valves, control valves, or other appurtenances may be required by the Utilities Department as a part of the required water system improvements to be certain that the new area interacts properly with the existing water system. 61. Relocation of the existing pressure regulating valve (the Industrial Way PRV), including the City's SCADA system, as well as the abandonment of the existing 12" water main, shall be coordinated with the Water Division of the City's Utilities Department. 62. A reimbursement request, if proposed for the off -site water main upgrade, shall include all pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the City Council. 63. The sewer main and storm drain improvements within the E Street neighborhood shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards but shall be privately maintained by the HOA along with the other private street and private utility improvements. Public easements will be required for the water main, services, meters, fire hydrants, public Packet Pg. 213 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 24 utilities, and any appurtenances. Private easements for access and drainage will be required. A limited public sewer easement may be required for a terminal end manhole in the private street where the private sewer transitions to the public sewer. 64. The City will not be responsible for replacement of any specialty street pavement within private streets. City trench repairs within private streets will be backfilled and finished per City Engineering Standards. 65. A final sewer report and supporting documentation for the OASP public sewer main design shall be approved by the Utilities Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans. The final sewer report shall discuss and present additional information and assumptions on the system elevations and grades that will allow other OASP parcels to utilize the proposed public sewer main in accordance with the OASP Wastewater Plan. The applicant shall submit an analysis of a backbone system that shows the elevations and grades that serve the adjacent parcels described in the study. The City will have the final discretion on the extent and limits of the study if additional properties could reasonably benefit from the proposed alignment. 66. The depth of the off -site and on -site sewer mains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. The depth analysis shall consider the balance between the possible extent of the gravity sewer basin needed to serve the other OASP properties and the long- term public maintenance requirements related to sewer depth. 67. The analysis of sewer depth shall be considered at the intersection of Street A and Street B, at Street A and Sponza in Tract 3044, and at Street A and the northerly limits of Tract 3044. The analysis shall include the additional extension to the terminal end manhole as presented in the GASP. The analysis shall further consider the sewer depth at the Street B and C intersection and the potential for a future northerly projection to serve the Pratt, Anderson, Evans, and Pratt parcels in accordance with the GASP. The study shall evaluate the controlling invert at the Tank Farm Road connection to although for the main location within D and C Streets with the goal of avoiding the sewer easement between Lot 209 and Lot 210. 68. The sewer report shall further evaluate the potential sewer options for future service to the adjoining Garay parcel. The subdivider shall provide a minimum 15' sewer easement from the southerly corner of the Garary property to the nearest available public sewer located in Street C -1. Some shifting or merging of lots may be required to provide access between Lots 182 and 183. The report and plans shall consider the potential development limits on the Garay parcel and the most appropriate area for the future creek crossing to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department and Natural Resources Manager. The public improvement plans shall include the pertinent grading, retaining walls, and main extensions needed to support orderly OASP development. 69. The public improvement plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed overhead wire utilities. Any existing overhead wiring within the tract boundary and adjoining Packet Pg. 214 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 25 Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road frontages shall be undergrounded in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. Areas of road widening along Bullock Lane shall include undergrounding where applicable unless otherwise deferred or waived by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. Unless otherwise specifically approved, pole relocation in lieu of undergrounding is not supported. 70. Terminal end utility poles shall be located off -site unless otherwise approved by the City. 71. Preliminary undergrounding plans for the entire subdivision shall be processed through PGE and any respective wire utility companies in conjunction with Phase 1 of the Map. The undergrounding improvements shall be completed with each subsequent phase unless otherwise required earlier for orderly development or deferred to the satisfaction of the City. 72. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires along all public streets including Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road per City Engineering Standards. 73. Private street lighting shall be provided along the private streets per OASP lighting requirements, City Engineering Standard and /or as approved in conjunction with the final ARC approvals. 74. Lighting fixtures, including public streetlights shall not exceed 16' in height in accordance with the OASP unless otherwise required for traffic safety. The developer shall submit a streetlight proposal for approval by the City Engineer for any public streetlights. Street lights associated with the Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road improvements, signalized intersections, or round -a -bouts shall comply with the Highway Design Manual and City Engineering Standards. Grading, Drainage& Stormwater 75. Any permit approvals required from the Army Corp of Engineers, Californian Fish and Wildlife, or the Regional Water Control Board shall be secured and presented to the City prior to the approval of any subdivision grading and /or improvements related to the proposed phase of construction. The engineer of record shall review the permit approvals and any specific permit conditions for compliance with the plans, subdivision improvement designs, drainage system design/report, and soils report. The engineer of record shall forward the permits to the City with a notation that the permits have been reviewed and are in general conformance with the design of the improvements. 76. The public improvement plans submittal shall clarify how the several wetlands, creek corridors, and riparian habitat areas will be preserved to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. Include any specific details for the proposed creek crossings in accordance with any preservation strategies, mitigation measures, and Packet Pg. 215 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 26 higher governmental authority agency permits. Sensitive areas shall be staked, fenced, or otherwise delineated and protected prior to commencing with construction, grading, or grubbing. 77. Expansion index testing or other soils analysis may be required on a lot -by -lot basis for all graded pads and for in -situ soils on natural lots in accordance with the current Building Codes or where deemed necessary by the City Engineer or Building Official. 78. Final pad certifications shall include the certification of pad construction and elevations. The soils engineer shall certify all grading prior to acceptance of the public improvements and /or prior to building permit issuance. The certification shall indicate that the graded pads are suitable for their intended use. 79. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as recommended by the soils engineer. Brow ditches, drainage collection devices, and drainage piping may be required. The public improvement plans and final map shall reflect any additional improvements and private easements necessary for slope protection and maintenance. Unless otherwise approved for public maintenance by the City Engineer, brow ditches and drainage collection devices upslope of building sites shall be maintained by the HOA. 80. The subdivision improvement plans shall include a complete grading plan to show site accessibility in accordance with State and Federal regulations for all public and /or private roads, transit stops, trails, paths, walks, bikeways, parks, and bridges where applicable. The submittal shall provide additional analysis if site accessibility will not be provided and for any feature or element where accessibility is purportedly not required. The accessibility regulations or guidelines in effect at the time of subdivision improvement construction will be applied. 81. Unless updated by subsequent regulations or guidelines, the sidewalks within the private streets E neighborhood shall be widened to 5' or shall provide a 4' clear width with 5' passing lanes in accordance with the current ADA regulations. 82. The subdivision improvement plans, grading plans, drainage plans, and drainage reports shall show and note compliance with City Codes, Standards and Ordinances, Floodplain Management Regulations, OASP stormwater provisions, Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, whichever pertinent sections are more restrictive. 83. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. The proposed grading shall consider the proposed construction phasing. Historic off -site and upslope watersheds tributary to the area of phased construction shall be considered. Run -on from adjoining developed or undeveloped parcels shall be considered. Packet Pg. 216 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 27 84. The calculated 100 -year flood limits shall be shown and noted on the improvement plans and an additional final map sheet for reference. The drainage report and final plans shall clarify the 100 -year flood elevations, clearances, and freeboard at all new vehicle bridge, pedestrian bridge, and pipe bridge crossings of the creek corridors. 85. The engineer of record shall provide a digital copy of the final HEC -RAS modeling to the City in accordance with Section 4.0 of the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. 86. The developer shall prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for review and approval by the City in conjunction with the development of any stormwater BMP's that will be maintained by the HOA or by the respective private property owner. The existing Islay Hill basin shall be included in the overall maintenance program or the existing basin conditions of approval and agreement shall be updated to conform with the current permit requirements. A Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to final inspection approvals and acceptance of subdivision improvements. 87. The subdivider /developer shall provide notification to private property owners regarding any individual maintenance responsibility of backyard stormwater BMP's in accordance with Section E.2 of the RQWCB Resolution R3- 2013 -0032. The notification may be by Notice of Requirements or other method acceptable to the City. 88. The stormwater improvements other than City Standard public stormdrain infrastructure shall be maintained by the HOA. A separate encroachment /hold harmless agreement may be required in conjunction with certain improvements proposed for location within the public rights -of -way. 89. The final details for the proposed bioretention facilities located within the public right - of- way shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project soils engineer shall review and provide recommendations on the proposed site constructed and /or proprietary retention systems. Analysis of impacts to the public improvements, protection of utilities, and methods to minimize piping and protection of private properties shall be addressed in the final analysis. 90. The proposed detention basin and any pre -basin shall be designed in accordance with the GASP requirements and the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. The proposed surface runoff and drainage from the detention basin(s) shall include a non- erosive outlet to an approved point of disposal. The outlet(s) design and location should replicate the historic drainage where feasible. Any off -site detention basin, temporary basin, or other drainage improvements shall be approved by the City. Any required or proposed off -site grading or drainage improvements shall be completed within recorded easements or under an appropriate license or other private agreement. 91. The subdivider shall submit CC &R's with the Final Map that establishes a Packet Pg. 217 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 28 Homeowner's Association (HOA). The HOA shall provide for the optional automatic annexation of all other tracts in the OASP as it relates to the shared regional detention basin. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how they will provide storm drainage mitigation through their own subdivision design and HOA. The HOA shall provide for maintenance of all private common area drainage channels, on -site and /or sub - regional drainage basins, water quality treatment and conveyance improvements. The CC &R's shall be approved by the City and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map. A Notice of Annexation or other appropriate mechanism to annex other subdivisions into the HOA, including but not limited to the shared regional detention basin, shall be recorded concurrently with the map. 92. The naming of the local creeks and drainages shall comply with the appropriate and pertinent creek naming standards and justifications. The inclusion of the naming on the final map and /or improvement plans shall be approved by the City prior to map and /or plan approval as applicable. 93. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels along with any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be in compliance with the OASP, city standards and policies, the Waterways Management Plan and shall be approved by the Natural Resources Manager, Public Works Department, Army Corp of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Fish & Wildlife. 94. Any existing areas of swale, creek and /or channel erosion shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Natural Resources Manager, and other permitting agencies. The existing creek crossing and roadside swale located along the frontage of Lot 327 shall be relocated away from the existing and proposed edge of roadway and shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the City and permitting agencies. 95. The existing upslope drainage along and from the quarry access road on Righetti Hill shall be evaluated in detail. Any re- grading of the road to correct or revise existing areas of concentrated drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager. The final road grading and drainage management should consider passive conveyance strategies that will minimize erosion and on -going maintenance on behalf of the City and HOA. 96. The public improvement plans shall show and note the existing and /or proposed improvements to the existing off -site Islay Hill basin. The plan shall show any changes to the basin including but not limited to access, outlet /metering alterations, low -flow channel development, silt /trash catchment, plantings, irrigation, and security fencing. 97. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low Impact Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific recommendations related to public improvements, site development, utility, and Packet Pg. 218 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 29 building pad /foundation construction related to the proposed LID improvements. The project soils engineering report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and City Engineering Standards. 98. The final plans and drainage report shall show and note compliance with City Engineering Standard 1010.13 for spring or perched groundwater management and for water quality treatment of run -off from impervious streets, drive aisles, parking areas, and trash enclosures. 99. A SWPPP is required in accordance with State and local regulations. A hard copy of the SWPPP shall be provided to the City in conjunction with the Public Improvement Plan submittal and subsequent building plan submittals. The WDID number shall be included by reference on all construction plans sets. An erosion control plan shall be included with the improvement plans and all building plan submittals for demolitions, grading, and new construction. 100. The project development and grading shall comply with all air quality standards and mitigation measures. The developer shall provide written notification from the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations including but not limited to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations related to Naturally Occuring Asbestos (NOA). Fire 101. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from an existing public way wherever there are more than 30 housing units. Emergency Vehicle Access points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access. 102. All streets that are less than 28 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" on both sides. Streets less than 36 feet in width shall be posted on one side only. 103. The project shall provide water mains and city- standard fire hydrants to provide a minimum needed fire flow of 1500 GPM for 2 hours to within 300 feet of the exterior walls of all proposed structures. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet. Homeowners' Association 104. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC &R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval that establishes a "Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). To the extent desired by the subdivider, individual phases of the project may include sub- associations as described in the applicant's "Master Declaration of CC &R's for Righetti Ranch ", dated 6/6/ 14. CC &R's shall minimally contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: i. The initial set of CC &R's provided for the VTM #3063 final map shall provide Packet Pg. 219 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 30 for automatic annexation of subsequent phases to the Master HOA, including the potential to incorporate the adjoining Jones Ranch (VTM #3066) within the Master HOA. A graphic or other exhibit describing all properties to be annexed to the Righetti Ranch Master HOA shall be included with any CC &R's for VTM #3063. ii. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property owners, sub - associations or the Master Homeowner's Association as applicable. Private improvements include but are not limited to streets, sidewalks, pedestrian and bike paths, sewer mains, drainage systems, detention basin(s), street lighting, landscape, landscape irrigation, and common area improvements iii. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the HOA fails to perform, and to assess the HOA for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC &R's and final map are being met. iv. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. V. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long- term storage of inoperable vehicles. vi. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. vii. The responsibility for the placement of the trash and recycling containers at the street on collection days will be the responsibility of the property owner's association. The property owner's association shall coordinate with San Luis Garbage Company regarding the collection time and preferred location for the placement of trash and recycling containers to minimize the obstruction of project streets viii. No changes in city- required provisions of the CC &R's will be considered valid and in effect without prior City Council approval. ix. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions. Plannin aRea uirements 105. At the time of submittal of a request for a final map, the subdivider shall provide a written report detailing the methods and techniques employed for complying with all required environmental mitigation measures as adopted herein. 106. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 107. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or Packet Pg. 220 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 31 otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. 108. 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. Proposed refuse storage area(s) and on -site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the HOA and shall be included in the CCR's or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. The solid waste solutions shall be shown and noted on the submittal(s) for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approvals. 109. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential units, the Architectural Review Commission shall review the residential building program, including building and landscape improvements, and provide comments and reconunendations to the Community Development Director. Final architectural design approval authority shall be vested in the Community Development Director. Director decisions may be appealed pursuant to standard city policies. 110. Prior to the recording of any phase of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City Council that details the timing of construction of affordable units on -site, proposed "transfers" of affordable units to another site, contains guarantees for failure to complete any or all of the affordable housing units (such as collecting affordable housing in -lieu fees, cash guarantees for the completion of the affordable units, providing a letter of credit, bond or other financial guarantee to assure compliance). 111. The subdivider shall dedicate all public lands, including the neighborhood park (Lot 312), with the initial final map. This neighborhood park will be designed under the direction of the City's Parks & Recreation Commission with a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission and City Council, who will be responsible for the final design approval of the park. 112. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 113. The subdivider shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings and/or a phase of buildings. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the Construction Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone numbers. The Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and requirements: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated Packet Pg. 221 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 32 construction access routes. b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring, c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for materials, equipment, and vehicles. d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to surrounding neighbors. e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise reducing measures: i. Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. ii. All equipment shall have sound - control devices no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un- muffled exhaust pipes; and iii. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent possible. f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity. i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking. 114. Pursuant to Government Code §66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 115. Access corridors of 15' between lots 200 -201 and 50' along lots 58 and 84 will be added to the Final Map. 116. Conditions relating to phasing and timing of infrastructure are approved as contained herein, or as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors during review of public improvement plans and final maps. 117. Financing and "fair share" contribution plans may be submitted for City Council review with any final map application. The City Council will have sole discretion as to any reimbursement and /or fee credit programs implemented with said final maps. Packet Pg. 222 7 Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) Page 33 Upon motion of Vice Mayor Ashbaugh, seconded by Council Member Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Carpenter, Christianson and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of May 2015. MaffJan Marx ATTEST: thony " , C City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this 1 a' day of.: 2 s' Packet Pg. 223 7 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 2247 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863•••Packet Pg. 2257 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 2267 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 2277 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 2287 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 2297 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 2307 RIGHETTI RANCHOctober 16, 2014#1013028L-4Trails and Public AccessLEGENDClass 1 Multi-Use TrailClass 2 Bike LaneClass 3 Bike RouteHiking/ Pedestrian PathBike Staging/ Trailhead0100400200500100200Packet Pg. 2317 "C" STREET BRIDGEPHASE 1ORCUTT RIGHT TURN LANE(PHASE 1)TANK FARM ROUNDABOUTPHASE 1STREET CONSTRUCTION - PHASE 1TRANSIT STOPSPHASE 1TRANSIT STOPPHASE 1TRANSIT STOPSPHASE 11/26/2017 2:02:18 PMJonesImelGarayRighetti RanchPacket Pg. 2327 1 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is dated this ______ day of ___________201___ by and between Righetti Ranch LP, a California limited partnership, herein referred to as "Subdivider," and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, herein referred to as the "City." RECITALS REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE to that certain proposed subdivision of real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, a description of which is shown on the Final Map of Tract 3063-Phase 1, City of San Luis Obispo, California, as approved by the City Council on the ____ day of _______________, 201___. The Subdivider desires that said Tract 3063-Phase 1 be accepted and approved as a Final Map pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations of the City of San Luis Obispo (Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code), and It is a condition of said regulations that the Subdivider agree to install the improvements as set forth on the plans therefore. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: In consideration of the foregoing, the Subdivider does hereby agree to construct and install the following subdivision improvements in accordance with said subdivision regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, City of San Luis Obispo, to wit: 1. CURB, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS 2. STREET BASE AND SURFACING 3. WATER MAINS and SEWER MAINS, including sewer laterals to the property line and water services to the curb stop. Packet Pg. 233 7 2 4. LANDSCAPING 5. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 6. STREET LIGHTS 7. ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION: In addition to the inspection and approval of such facilities by the City, each public utility shall be required to file a letter stating that the developer has properly installed all facilities to be provided by him, and that the said utility is prepared to provide service to residents upon request. 8. ANY & ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS shown on plans or required by project approvals. All of the above facilities shall be installed in the locations designated and to the plans and specifications on file and approved by said City Engineer. The lines and grades for all of said improvements shall be established by the Subdivider in accordance with said approved plans and specifications. The Subdivider agrees that the work of installing the above improvements shall begin within thirty (30) days from the date of recording of the final map, and that the work shall be completed within twelve (12) months of said recording date, unless an extension has been granted by the City, provided that if completion of said work is delayed by acts of God or labor disputes resulting in strike action, the Subdivider shall have an additional period of time equivalent to such period of delay in which to complete such work. Any extension of time hereunder shall not operate to release the surety on the Improvement Security filed pursuant to this agreement. In this connection, the surety waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the Civil Code of the State of California. No building permits will be issued nor occupancy granted after the expiration date of the agreement until completion and acceptance of all subdivision improvements unless specifically approved by the City. Packet Pg. 234 7 3 The Subdivider does also agree to comply with the conditions established by the City Council and has paid the necessary fees as indicated on the attached Exhibits 1 and 2. The restoration of lost section corners and retracement of section lines within the Subdivision shall be in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 8771 et seq., of the Professional Land Surveyors Act, Chapter 15 of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California. The Subdivider attaches hereto, as an integral part hereof, and as security for the performance of this agreement, instrument(s) of credit or bond approved by and in favor of the City of San Luis Obispo, and conditional upon the faithful performance of this agreement. Said instrument of credit or bond is/are in the amount(s) shown in Exhibit 2, which is the amount of the estimated cost of said improvements. Subdivider agrees to remedy any defects in the improvements arising from faulty workmanship or materials or defective construction of said improvements occurring within twelve (12) months after acceptance thereof. In accordance with Sections 66499.7 and 66499.9 of the Government Code of the State of California, upon final completion and acceptance of the work, City will release all but 10% of the improvement security, that amount being deemed sufficient to guarantee faithful performance by the Subdivider of his obligation to remedy any defects in the improvements arising within a period of one year following the completion and acceptance thereof. Completion of the work shall be deemed to have occurred on the date which the City Council shall, by resolution duly passed and adopted, accept said improvements according to said plans and specifications, and any approved modifications thereto. Packet Pg. 235 7 4 Neither periodic nor progress inspections or approvals shall bind the City to accept said improvements or waive any defects in the same or any breach of this agreement. “AS-BUILT” record drawings are to be submitted within four weeks of completion of construction and prior to City acceptance of the public improvements. If the Subdivider fails to complete the work within the prescribed time, the Subdivider agrees that City may, at its option, declare the instrument of credit or bond which has been posted by Subdivider to guarantee faithful performance, forfeited and utilize the proceeds to complete said improvements, or city may complete said improvements and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the Subdivider or his surety. The Subdivider has deposited with the City a labor and materials surety or sureties in the amount of 50% of the above described subdivision improvements in accordance with State law . Said Subdivider shall pay an inspection fee for City to inspect the installation of said subdivision improvements, and to verify that they have been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. If off-site dedication of property is necessary to facilitate the construction of the required subdivision improvements, the subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said off-site dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said property, the City may lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site dedication, including any necessary construction, slope, and drainage easements. The Subdivider shall pay for all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site dedication, including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation through the condemnation process. Prior to proceeding with the condemnation process, Packet Pg. 236 7 5 the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled "Subdivision," all plans and specifications on file with said City Engineer as a part of said Subdivision Map, and all other documents filed with the City by the Subdivider and approved by the City Engineer are hereby referred to for further particulars in interpreting and defining the obligations of the Subdivider under this agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. It is understood and agreed by and between the Subdivider and the City hereto that this agreement shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective Parties to this agreement. It is agreed that the Subdivider will furnish copies of the successful bidder's contract unit prices and total bid prices for all of the improvements herein referred to. Packet Pg. 237 7 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by: SUBDIVIDER Righetti Ranch, LP a Delaware limited partnership BY: NRE Manager, LLC a Delaware limited liability company ITS: General Partner BY: Ambient Righetti Manager, LLC a California limited liability company ITS: Sole Member BY: _______________________________ Travis Fuentez, President BY: _______________________________ Dante Anselmo, Vice-President CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAYOR Heidi Harmon ATTEST: CITY CLERK Carrie Gallagher APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY Christine Dietrick Packet Pg. 238 7 7 EXHIBIT 1 TRACT 3063-PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Page 1 of 2 1. The Subdivider has deposited a monumentation guarantee in the amount of $_____ to cover the installation of survey monuments in accordance with the approved map and payment for same. Said guarantee will be released to the Subdivider upon receipt by the City of a letter from the Engineer indicating that they have completed the work and have been paid. Subdivider shall adhere to the requirements of California Business and Professions Code Section 8771 with regards to monument conservation. 2. A Special Status Plant and Natural Community Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (“Monitoring Plan”) dated August 2016 was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. and is on file at the City. The Plan was prepared to comply with Mitigation Measures B-2(b) through B-2(g) of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Vesting Tentative Map #3063 Mitigation Measures B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6 to mitigate for the loss of special status plant species and vegetation community as a result of project implementation. The Subdivider has deposited a surety in the amount of $__________ to guarantee the collection, salvage, storage, site preparation, planting, establishment, restoration, maintenance, protection, monitoring and reporting of the designated plant species and topsoil for a period of five (5) years or until the Success Criteria listed in Section 6.0 of the Monitoring Plan has been achieved, whichever is longer. 3. Pursuant to Condition #34 of Council Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series), the Subdivider has deposited a faithful performance security in the amount of $200,000 to retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct neighborhood speed surveys one year after final occupancy of Phase 1 at locations approved by the Director of Public Works. If the 85th percentile speeds exceed current City Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) thresholds, additional traffic calming measures shall be installed. The $200,000 security will be retained by the City to guarantee that Subdivider installs additional City-approved traffic calming measures to reduce the speeds to comply with City NTM thresholds. The additional measures shall be installed within six (6) months following notice from the City to install said measures. Additional speed surveys shall be conducted twelve (12) months after completion of construction of the additional traffic calming measures. The $200,000 security will be released to the Subdivider once City-approved speed surveys demonstrate that traffic speeds comply with City NTM thresholds. 4. The Subdivider has deposited a security or securities in the amount specified in Exhibit 2 to guarantee completion of the design of the subdivision improvement plans specified in Exhibit 2. The security or securities shall be released upon City approval of the plans. 5. The Subdivider has deposited a security or securities in the amount specified in Exhibit 2 to guarantee completion of the subdivision improvements specified in Exhibit 2. Release of the security or securities shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Subdivision Agreement, the City’s Municipal Code, California Government Code and California Civil Code. Packet Pg. 239 7 8 EXHIBIT 1 TRACT 3063-PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2 6. The Subdivider has deposited a security in the amount specified in Exhibit 2 to guarantee acquisition of the necessary off-site right-of-way to construct the required subdivision improvements. The security shall be released once offers of dedication for all the necessary off-site right-of-way have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and are recorded. In the event the Subdivider is unsuccessful in acquiring all necessary right-of-way, the City may utilize the security for condemnation purposes. 7. The Subdivider has deposited a security in the amount specified in Exhibit 2 to guarantee completion of the Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road frontage improvements and the Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection improvements. This security guarantees the completion of Phase 1 Tank Farm and Orcutt frontage improvements as shown on the approved plans for Tract 3063, the 200’ long right turn lane on Tank Farm at the intersection as required per Mitigation Measure T-1(a), the realignment of the Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection to eliminate the skew per Condition #28, and installation of interim or permanent left-turn pockets at the Tank Farm/Wavertree and Tank Farm/Brookpine intersections. 8. Deposits for plancheck and inspection fees for the subdivision improvements have been paid as listed in the attached Exhibit 2. The remainder of the plancheck and inspection fees for each plan shall be paid prior to each plan approval. 9. Park-in-lieu fees will be paid at time of issuance of building permit per the fee schedule in effect at that time. Credit is available to subdivider for dedication of approved parkland. 10. Water and sewer impact fees shall be paid at time of building permits through the Community Development Department per the fee schedule in effect at that time. 11. Transportation impact fees shall be paid at time of building permits through the Community Development Department per the fee schedule in effect at that time. 12. The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of Council Resolution 10619 (2015 Series) approving the tentative map. 13. The Subdivider has elected to pay a roadway maintenance fee to satisfy Condition #49. The fee of $__________ was approved by the City Engineer in accordance with City Engineering Standards and guidelines and satisfies the requirements of Condition #49 solely for Tract 3063-Phase 1. The Subdivider will be required to review this condition with the City Engineer upon each subsequent phase of development to determine if additional fees, testing, or pavement repair will be required as a result of impacts from future phases. Packet Pg. 240 7 9 EXHIBIT 2 TRACT 3063-PHASE 1 - FEE AND BOND LIST 3987 Orcutt Page 1 of 2 Amount Form Date Received Bond Release Status Bonds and Guarantees: Total Faithful Performance to guarantee construction and completion of the following subdivision improvements $22,623,000 xxx xxx Can be released upon City acceptance of improvements and deposit of one-year warranty surety. Offsite Water Main Extension (FMAP-2242-2015/ FMAP-4024-2016) $554,100 On-Site Grading (FMAP-3901-2016) $277,700 Tiburon Road Improvements (FMAP-2241-2015) $2,837,600 On-Site Improvements (FMAP-2631-2016) $1,0027,700 Off-Site Landscaping (FMAP-4234-2016) $175,200 Hansen Creek Bridge (FMAP-4247-2016) $2,200,000 Tiburon Bridge (FMAP-4312-2016) $2,200,000 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage & Intersection (FMAP-1718-2015/FMAP-4096-2016) $3,991,000 Park Lot 168 Rough Grading (FMAP-xxxx-xxxx) $360,000 Labor & Materials (50% of total cost of above improvements) $11,311,500 xxx xxx Can be released 90 days after acceptance of improvements, if no claims. (Civil Code Section 8412) Total Faithful Performance to complete design of above subdivision improvements $1,000,000 xxx xxx Can be released upon City’s approval of the required subdivision improvement plans Total Faithful Performance to complete acquisition of off-site right-of-way to construct the above improvements $5,000,000 xxx xxx Faithful Performance for completion of traffic speed surveys and installation of additional traffic calming measures $200,000 xxx xxx Faithful Performance of the Special Status Plant and Natural Community Mitigation and Monitoring Plan $xxx xxx xxx Monument Guarantee $xx,xxx CD or Letter of Credit xxx Can be released upon verification that monuments have been set and surveyor has been paid. 10% Warranty $2,262,300 To be collected prior to release of Faithful Performance Bond Can be released one-year after acceptance of improvements, if no defects. Packet Pg. 241 7 10 EXHIBIT 2 TRACT 3063-PHASE 1 - FEE AND BOND LIST 3987 Orcutt Page 2 of 2 Fees: Map Check Fee $29,458 Check 2/14/16 Plan Check Fee Deposit $8,860 Check xxxx Remainder of fee due prior to plan approval Improvement Plan Inspection Deposit $287,615 Check xxxx Remainder of fee due prior to plan approval Roadway Maintenance Fee (Condition #49) $xxx xxx xxx Park In-Lieu Fee1 To be collected with building permit. Credit to be given for approved parkland dedication. Affordable Housing Requirements See Affordable Housing Agreement Water Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit Wastewater Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit Transportation Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit 1 All Impact Fees are adjusted annually (July 1) based on CPI. Credit given for demolished units. Packet Pg. 242 7 R _____ RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3063-PHASE 1 (3987 ORCUTT ROAD, TR/ER 114-14) WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning the vesting tentative map for Tract 3063, as prescribed in Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series); and WHEREAS, Section 17 of a recorded Deed of Open Space and Conservation Easement (Doc.# 2012-018089) requires the City transfer this easement to another entity if City ever takes fee possession of the property. Subdivider will be granting the property encompassing the easement area in fee to the City. City has determined that the cost to transfer the easement is prohibitive. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has indicated a willingness to waive the transfer requirement if City enters into a covenant to restrict the use of that area; and WHEREAS, there are certain private drainage easements being proposed to be constructed on City open space lots and within City right-of-way which will require that the City grant a Private Drainage Easement to the subdivder/homeowner’s association to construct and maintain these improvements; and WHEREAS, the City is actively working with the subdivider on an Affordable Housing Agreement for proposed transfer of affordable housing units and dedication of land to a non-profit housing developer which shall be completed prior to map recordation; and WHEREAS, all the requirements, conditions and mitigation measures of said Resolution No. 10619 (2015 Series) that are applicable to Phase 1 are completed or appropriate securities will be in place prior to map recordation to guarantee their completion; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all required subdivision improvements applicable to Phase 1 or will submit appropriate securities to guarantee installation of the required subdivision improvements as shown on the approved plans prior to map recordation, and all fees have been received or will be received prior to map recordation, as prescribed in the Subdivision Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The Righetti Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3063 (VTM) was analyzed in a project-specific Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which tiered off the 2010 FEIR. The VTM was approved and the IS/MND was adopted on May 19, 2015. Both the 2010 FEIR and subsequent IS/MND constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. Approval of a final map is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects (approval of final subdivision maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Packet Pg. 243 7 Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2 R _____ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City is subject to the requirements of a Deed of Open Space and Conservation Easement described in Doc. #2012-018089 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County. The Mayor is authorized to act on behalf of the City and execute any documents in a form approved by the City Attorney related to the transfer of the easement to an approved non-profit or other approved entity; alternatively, the Mayor is authorized to execute a Restrictive Covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney, Natural Resources Manager and the Community Development Director. SECTION 2. The Mayor is authorized to act on behalf of the City to approve a Private Drainage Easement Agreement for Tract 3063-Phase 1 to allow private drainage improvements within City-owned lots and street right-of-way in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. SECTION 3. The final map for Tract 3063-Phase 1 is found to be in substantial compliance with the tentative map. SECTION 4. The Subdivision Agreement for Tract 3063-Phase 1 is approved and the Mayor is authorized to approve minor revisions to the agreement and execute the document. SECTION 5. Approval of the final map for Tract 3063-Phase 1 is hereby granted. SECTION 6. The Mayor and City staff are authorized to take action necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. SECTION 7. Environmental Review. The 2010 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3063 constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. Approval of a final map is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects (approval of final subdivision maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Packet Pg. 244 7 Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2 R _____ The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 245 7 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107Packet Pg. 2467 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107Packet Pg. 2477 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107Packet Pg. 2487 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107Packet Pg. 2497 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#1211071050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107MATCH LINEMATCH LINE SEE SHEET 6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 8MATCH LINESEE SHEET 8MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 8SEE SHEET 7MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 9Packet Pg. 2507 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107SEE SHEET 9Packet Pg. 2517 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107MATCH LINE - SEE SHEETS 6SEESHEET 8MATCH LINESEE SHEETS 5Packet Pg. 2527 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107MATCHLINESEE SHEET 9MATCHLINESEE SHEET 9MATCHLINESEE SHEET 5MATCHLINESEE SHEET 7Packet Pg. 2537 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107MATCH LINESEE SHEET 08SEE SHEET 06MATCH LINESEE SHEET 05MATCH LINEPacket Pg. 2547 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107Packet Pg. 2557 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107Packet Pg. 2567 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#121107Packet Pg. 2577 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 258 7 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: PROJECT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the Project Plan for Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation. DISCUSSION Background At the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of August 16, 2016, upon receipt of public testimony pertaining to a request for reconsideration of the City’s published hours of use for open space, “a majority of the City Council directed staff to bring back on a future agenda a project plan for revising the ordinance limiting public access of the open space from dusk to dawn.” (Council Minutes, Tuesday August 16, 2016, Regular Meeting of the City Council, pgs. 1-2). The City’s current Open Space hours of use regulations, as codified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, are as follows: 12.22.050: Rules and regulations applicable in city open space lands. The following rules and regulations apply in all open space lands within or under the control of the City of San Luis Obispo, unless expressly stated otherwise elsewhere in this chapter. B. Presence in Open Space Lands Restricted to Certain Hours—No Overnight Usage. Open space lands where public access is permitted shall be open to the public from dawn to dusk. It shall be unlawful to enter or remain within such lands between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise of the following day without approval from the director. Project Plan Overview The overarching strategy contemplated in the Project Plan (Attachment A) is to conduct a formal policy analysis in order to provide a rational fully informed decision-making process for assessment and evaluation of current regulations pertaining to Open Space hours of use. Staff proposes to utilize the process set forth by Eugene Bardach in his text, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving (2nd Edition, 2005): 1. Problem Definition 2. Assemble Evidence 3. Construct Policy Alternatives 4. Select Evaluative Criteria 5. Project Outcomes of Alternatives 6. Evaluate Trade-Offs 7. Make a Recommendation Packet Pg. 259 8 8. Provide Rationale for Recommendation To implement this strategy, there are five phases proposed for the project: 1. Internal and comparative external policy review; 2. Review of academic, peer reviewed literature and nocturnal wildlife survey data; 3. Conduct stakeholder and affected user group interviews, as well as public outreach (website, interested parties list, etc.) consistent with the Public Engagement and Notification Manual; 4. Prepare a “white paper” of major findings and recommendations; 5. Public Hearing / Study Session. CONCURRENCES The City’s Ranger Service, responsible for Open Space maintenance and patrol, and the City’s Fire Department, responsible for Open Space emergency medical and wildfire response, have reviewed the Project Plan and have provided their concurrence. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required to conduct the elements contemplated by the Project Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Depending on Council’s direction resulting from the Study Session, if significant changes to the City’s existing ordinance are requested, an environmental review and determination will be required. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are available in the Natural Resources Program’s operating budget to support the staff time necessary to implement the Project Plan. Depending on Council’s direction resulting from the Study Session, if significant changes to the City’s existing ordinance are requested, fiscal impacts would likely result that are related to Ranger Service staffing, as well as changes that would need to be made to Open Space signs and kiosks, for example. ALTERNATIVES The City Council’s alternatives could include the following: 1. Direct staff to discontinue work on this topic and not implement the Project Plan. 2. Request clarification or revisions to the Project Plan. Attachments: a - Open Space Hours of Use Project Plan Packet Pg. 260 8 Project Plan Project Title : Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation BACKGROUND The City of San Luis Obispo formalized its open space program in 1994 with the adoption of an updated General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element, with the allocation of open space acquisition funding in 1995, and the hiring of the first Natural Resources Manager in early 1996. In 1998, the City adopted an Open Space Ordinance that was codified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as chapter 12.22. A subsequent General Plan update resulted in the establishment of the Conservation and Open Space Element that was adopted in 2006. Another key policy document is the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002). The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,700 acres of open space lands comprised of 12 major properties held in open space reserve or natural reserve status that are open to the general public for passive recreation and has constructed a trail network of over 50 miles. The City’s current Open Space hours of use regulations: 12.22.050: Rules and regulations applicable in city open space lands. The following rules and regulations apply in all open space lands within or under the control of the City of San Luis Obispo, unless expressly stated otherwise elsewhere in this chapter. B. Presence in Open Space Lands Restricted to Certain Hours—No Overnight Usage. Open space lands where public access is permitted shall be open to the public from dawn to dusk. It shall be unlawful to enter or remain within such lands between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise of the following day without approval from the director. Council Direction: At the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of August 16, 2016, upon receipt of public testimony for items not on the agenda, “a majority of the City Council directed staff to bring back on a future agenda a project plan for revising the ordinance limiting public access of the open space from dusk to dawn.” (Council Minutes, Tuesday August 16, 2016, Regular Meeting of the City Council, pgs. 1-2). PROJECT STRATEGY AND SCOPE The overarching strategy contemplated in this Project Plan is to conduct a formal policy analysis in order to provide a rational decision-making process for assessment and evaluation of current regulations pertaining to Open Space hours of use. Staff proposes to utilize the process set forth by Eugene Bardach in his text , A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving (2nd Edition, 2005): 1. Problem Definition PURPOSE Establish a rational decision-making framework for assessment and evaluation of the City of San Luis Obispo’s current Open Space Hours of Use regulations. Last Updated: 1 /2 7 /17 Packet Pg. 261 8 2. Assemble Evidence 3. Construct Policy Alternatives 4. Select Evaluative Criteria 5. Project Outcomes of Alternatives 6. Evaluate Trade-Offs 7. Make a Recommendation 8. Provide Rationale for Recommendation To implement this strategy, there are five phases proposed for the project: 1. Internal and comparative external policy review; 2. Review of academic, peer reviewed literature and nocturnal wildlife survey data; 3. Conduct stakeholder and affected user group interviews, as well as public outreach (website, interested parties list, etc.) consistent with the Public Engagement and Notification Manual; 4. Prepare a “white paper” of major findings and recommendations; 5. Public Hearing / Study Session. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 1. Continued support from the City Council. 2. Active and collaborative dialogue with stakeholder groups, natural resource agencies (e.g. CA Department of Fish and Wildlife), and community members. PROJECT CONSTRAINTS 1. No formal budget or funding has been identified for this Project Plan, or to implement any subsequent direction from the City Council. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND TEAM Project Manager: Bob Hill - Natural Resources Manager Project Team: Derek Johnson – Assistant City Manager Freddy Otte – City Biologist Shelly Stanwyck – Parks and Recreation Department Director Doug Carscaden – Senior Ranger Garret Olson – Fire Chief STAKEHOLDERS Greenbelt open space conservation and passive recreational use is a topic of considerable interest and concern for a wide array of stakeholders. Among those effected are: This project is fundamentally a stakeholder outreach process. Accordingly, each level of the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual will be reached. Identified stakeholder groups include: Residents Neighbors Property owners Passive recreation users Emergency Response Personnel Academia Regional partners, natural resource agencies, and non- governmental organizations Native plant communities and wildlife Future generations Packet Pg. 262 8 Environmental and Conservation Groups: Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO) The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County Open Space User Groups: Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers SLO Trail Runners Various informal hiking clubs PROJECT TASKS AND SCHEDULE AVAILABLE REFERENCES Adopted Policy Documents (available on-line): 1. Open Space Ordinance (Ord. 1332 § 1 (part), 1998) 2. Conservation and Open Space Element (2006) 3. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002) 4. Land Use Element (2014) Adopted Open Space Conservation Plans (available on-line): 1. Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve (2011) 2. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2015 Update) 3. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005) 4. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2011 Update) 5. Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan (2008) 6. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2014) 7. South Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2007) 8. Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2009) 9. Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2013) 10. Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan (2015) Adopted Maintenance Plan (available on-line): 1. Open Space Maintenance Plan (2015) Literature Review (available on-line): 1. Nighttime Access Management White Paper Analysis (City of Boulder, CO, 2012) 2. Effects of Recreation on Animals (Larson, Reed, Merenlender, Crooks, 2016) Task Who When 1. Policy Review Hill 1/2017 2. Literature and Data Review Hill 1/2017 3. Stakeholder Meetings Hill, Project Team 2/2017 4. “White Paper” of Major Findings and Recommendations Hill, Project Team 3/2017 5. City Council Study Session Hill, Project Team 3/21/2017 Packet Pg. 263 8 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 264 8 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3095 AND ASSOCIATED EXCEPTIONS, TREE REMOVALS, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO CREATE 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO DETENTION BASIN LOTS, AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS ON THE IMEL RANCH PROPERTY WITHIN THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WHICH TIERS OFF THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (3777 ORCUTT ROAD) RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the following actions: 1. Adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, including recommended modifications to identified mitigation measures; and 2. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) #3095 based on findings of consistency with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Regulations, subject to conditions of approval that incorporate Planning Commission recommendations; and 3. Approve identified height, road design, rear yard, and creek setback exceptions as recommended by the Planning Commission and based on required findings; and 4. Approve requested tree removals. Applicant Travis Fuentes, Dante Anselmo Ambient Communities Representative Todd Smith, Cannon Associates Zoning R-1-SP, C/OS-SP General Plan Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), Low Density Residential Site Area 5.49 acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration tiering off the OASP Final EIR (certified 2010). REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant, Ambient Communities, is requesting approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) #3095 on property identified as Imel Ranch (the project site) in the Orcutt Area Specific Packet Pg. 265 9 Plan (OASP), which would create 23 lots including: 18 residential lots, two lots to support onsite detention basins, and three open space lots. The project includes: mature tree removals; road design exception; residential structure height exceptions on identified lots; grading and construction within the 20-foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks on specified lots. The OASP and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The OASP designated the project site for residential development, including 16-17 single-family residential homes. The project site (as part of the overall Specific Plan area) was annexed into the City in 2012. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project tiers off the certified OAS P FEIR and addresses any potential impacts not previously assessed in the FEIR. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on January 25, 2017 at a public hearing and unanimously recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approval of VT M #3095, and approval of road design, height, rear yard, and creek setback exceptions. In addition to staff’s and the applicant’s presentations and testimony regarding the project, public comments and correspondence considered by the Planning Commission included, but was not limited to: concerns regarding the proposed tree removals and associated loss of habitat for avian species and monarch butterfly, including the removal of Eucalyptus trees and their associated carbon sequestration properties; support for the provision of additional housing in the City; and support of the project as proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission provided recommendations to staff regarding modifications to identified findings, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval, as clarified further in this agenda report (see Project Analysis). The staff recommendation is to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project, as recommended by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND Site Information/Setting The Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) includes 230.85 acres located in the southeastern portion of the City. Imel Ranch (the subject site) is located within and along the eastern edge of the OASP, immediately west of Orcutt Road, opposite from Tiburon Road. Recent subdivision approvals within the OASP include Jones Ranch VTM #3066 and Righetti Ranch VTM #3063 (both approved May 19, 2015) (refer to Figure 1. Project Site (Imel) and proximate Jones and Righetti subdivisions below). The 5.49-acre project site is zoned R-1-SP and C/OS-SP, and consists of gently sloping land traversed by two seasonal creeks (i.e. one named “Crotalo”, the other is unnamed). Existing vacant non-historic residential and accessory structures are proposed to be removed from the site. Onsite vegetation includes non-native annual grassland, eucalyptus stands, sycamore, oak, pepper trees, and riparian woodland. Lands surrounding the property are largely undeveloped within the City (with the few exceptions of sporadic homestead lots and homes). Packet Pg. 266 9 Figure 1. Project Site (Imel) and proximate Jones and Righetti subdivisions Project Description The proposed plan is to build 18 market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each (Lots 1 through 18). Two lots 0.25 and 0.13 acres each are proposed within the southern and western portions of the project site (Lots 19 and 20), which would support above or below ground detention basins. Two centrally-located open space parcels (Lots 21 and 22, approximately 0.51 and 0.15 acres each) for the existing (“unnamed”) creek and associated pedestrian trail are proposed within the project. A third approximately 0.83 - acre open space lot (Lot 23) along the Crotalo Creek corridor is provided in the site design. Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots. A total of three affordable housing units are required, which are proposed to be transferred from the Imel Ranch project (VTM #3095) to Jones Ranch (Tract 3066). The applicant for Imel Ranch, Ambient Communities, is the same developer for Jones Ranch; therefore, sharing of these affordable units can be considered. The applicant’s request for approval included the following exceptions: road design exception to allow a reduced centerline tangent of 48.25 feet (50 feet is the standard requirement); residential structure height exceptions on specified lots up to five feet above the standard allowed height (25 feet), resulting in structures up to 30 feet in height; temporary grading (and restoration) and permanent grading and construction of drainage and stormwater treatment basins within the 20- foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet for proposed Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 (residential development standards require a rear setback of 20 feet for residences and five feet for garages/carports). Additional information regarding the project is available in the Applicant’s Project Description (Attachment B), VTM plan set (Attachment C), and Staff’s Expanded Analysis (Attachment E). Jones Righetti Imel Packet Pg. 267 9 DISCUSSION Project Analysis The project analysis summarized below focuses on the project’s consistency with the OASP, requested exceptions, and Planning Commission recommendations regarding identified findings, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval. The Planning Commission staff report and an expanded Staff analysis are available as Attachments D and E to this agenda report; please refer to these documents for additional information and analysis. 1. OASP Chapter 2: Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation The proposed project includes three open space lots totaling 1.49 acres located along the unnamed creek and Crotalo Creek corridors (see Figure 2. Proposed Open Space Lots below). Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots, and are subject to the City’s Creek and Drainage Design Manual.1 The applicant’s project description includes the development of five-foot wide pedestrian pathways within the C/OS zone encompassing the creek, consistent with the OASP.2 Figure 2. Proposed Open Space Lots (shown in green) 1 Program 2.2.4b: All bridges, culverts, and modifications to the existing creek channels will comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual (DDM) and applicable City policies with consultation and approval from the Director of Public Works. Additional permits may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and [Wildlife]. Project proponent will provide proof of consultation and copies of necessary permits to the City Community Development Director. 2 Policy 2.2.5 notes that some trails will be located parallel to creeks, and may be placed in the outer perimeter of the creek setback. Packet Pg. 268 9 Creek Setback Exception The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development.3 Grading and development within the creek setback requires approval of a creek setback exception, and adoption of findings (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings).4 Proposed uses within the creek setback are limited to drainage and stormwater features and access improvements including a road crossing over the unnamed creek (see Attachment E, Expanded Staff Analysis for additional information). The Planning Commission and staff support the applicant’s creek setback exception request because proposed actions are limited to temporary grading and restoration, and necessary drainage/stormwater and internal access improvements, and would comply with OASP policies and mitigation measures outlined above (also refer to Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings). In addition, final grading and improvement plans would be reviewed and approved by Public Works staff and the Natural Resources Manager prior to development. Tree Removals The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non-native trees, and the pruning of two mature oak trees. The Planning Commission and staff support the necessary tree removals, as native oak, walnut, and sycamore trees would be retained onsite and non-native trees would be removed and replaced with native trees at a 2 to 1 ratio.5 2. OASP Chapter 3: Land Use and Development Standards Proposed VTM #3095 includes low density residential uses and open space as required by the OASP. Consistent with Policy 3.2.5 6, the R-1 lots range in size from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each. Height Exception City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R -1 zone, and structures up to 35 feet are allowed with adoption of specific findings (see Attachment E, Expanded Staff Analysis and Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings).7 The Planning Commission deliberated the applicant’s request for a 30-foot height exception based on the size and location of residential lots shown on VTM #3095, and unanimously recommended approval of a height exception allowing a maximum height of 27 feet limited to Lots 5-9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 (see Figure 3. Lots proposed to receive 27-foot height exception). In general, the Planning Commission determined that the height exception is not appropriate on the smaller (i.e. approximately 5,000-square foot) and narrower lots. The associated revised finding for Council consideration is presented in the Draft 3 Program 2.2.2a 4 As required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025.G.d Discretionary Exceptions 5 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-3(a) 6 Policy 3.2.5 identifies a range of R-1 lot sizes from 4,500 to 15,000 square feet 7 Required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.040 (Height) and 17.58.040 (Findings to Grant a Use Permit) Packet Pg. 269 9 Resolution (see Attachment A, Finding [m]). It is staff’s recommendation to approve the height exception on specific lots identified above, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Figure 3. Lots proposed to receive 27-foot height exception Affordable Housing The applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing requirements identified in OASP Policies 3.3.18 and 3.3.29 by providing two moderate-income units and one low-income level unit on Jones Ranch.10 Similar to the previously-approved Jones and Righetti Ranch subdivisions within the OASP, conditions would be included to require the preparation and approval of an “Affordable Housing Agreement” by the City Council, to document the timing, guarantees and related details of the affordable housing program, to be required as a part of presentation of the initial Final Map for recordation (see Condition #79). It should be noted that the applicant is subdividing several other tracts within the OASP and that, in order to partially satisfy its inclusionary housing requirements for these tracts, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a portion of property on a portion of the “Pratt Property” to People’s Self Help Housing in accordance with OASP Policy 3.3.4. Although this proposal is not directly related to VTM #3095, it is important for the City Council to know how these units fit within the applicant’s entire scheme for the provision of affordable housing. 8 Policy 3.3.1: “The City’s inclusionary housing requirements shall be met by building the affordable units within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Area.” 9 Policy 3.3.2 requires minimum 10% moderate income and 5% low income affordable dwelling units 10 Policy 3.3.3: “To promote reasonable efficiency a project developer may coordinate with another Orcutt Area property owner or developer to provide the required affordable dwelling units when the units proposed are less than 10.” Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Packet Pg. 270 9 3. OASP Chapter 4: Community Design OASP Community Design Policies express a desire for a compatible mix of architectural designs, and include design standards for R-1 districts. Roadway and lot configurations consistent with the OASP are designed to encourage pedestrian connections and accessibility within the Orcutt neighborhoods as an alternate to vehicle use. The proposed project meets these objectives for both internal circulation, and provide for Specific Plan regional linkages for the overall Plan area. Rear Yard Setback Exception The applicant requested rear yard (setback) exceptions specific to: Lot 6 (15.87 feet), Lot 8 (18.75 feet), Lot 9 (6.6 feet), and Lot 10 (17.77 feet) (see Attachment E, Expanded Staff Analysis for additional information). Granting rear yard setback exceptions for the specified lots require adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings).11 The reasons for the rear yard setback exceptions include resource constraints due to two creeks traversing the project site and to allow for adequate internal circulation and meet required street yard setbacks. The Planning Commission and staff support the applicant’s request based on the constraints summarized above; in addition, based on the location of these lots, the reduced rear setback would not reduce solar exposure or affect other residential lots.12 Architectural Review Architectural plans have not been provided; however, all residential development will comply with the OASP Design Guidelines at the time of future construction. Staff is recommending a process under Condition #78 that would allow Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and comment on a series of “model unit” buildings and landscaping designs. This process would provide an opportunity for public comment on the model units, and allow the Community Development Director to make final design consistency determinations on individual building permits based on this input from the ARC. The Planning Commission recommended that staff include a requirement for a standard fencing detail to be reviewed by the ARC, which has been incorporated into Condition #78 (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Condition #78). 11 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section 16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map 12 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020.E.2.c Variable Other Yards in Subdivisions. Packet Pg. 271 9 4. OASP Chapter 5: Circulation On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as “I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the applicant’s proposed internal road design exceptions, which are described in full in Attachment E, Expanded Staff Analysis. 5. OASP Chapters 6 and 7: Public Utilities and Services The preliminary on-site infrastructure plans proposed for VTM #3095 have been reviewed by engineering, public works, and utilities staff and are adequate for serving the proposed project. Policies directed at meeting fire codes, law enforcement, health, maintenance, transportation and recycling will be applied to any project approvals, consistent with City codes and regulations as outlined in the OASP.13 6. Planning Commission Review of Grading Plan The Planning Commission considered the grading plan submitted by the applicant, and expressed concerns regarding the stability, safety, and ability to maintain landscaping cover on proposed 2:1 slopes along the eastern and western property boundaries of the project site. The Planning Commission recommended that staff prepare a new condition for the Council’s consideration. The proposed condition is recommended for consideration by the Council (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Condition #83). CONCURRENCES The proposed project has been reviewed by the City Community Development (Planning and Building), Public Works Department (Engineering and Transportation), Utilities Department, Fire Department, City Arborist, and Natural Resources Manager. Staff comments provided during review of the proposed project are incorporated into the presented evaluation and conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the original 2010 OASP Final EIR (FEIR) and an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared and circulated in December 2016, which analyzes the more unique and detailed components of the proposed project (refer to Attachment F, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). CEQA allows building upon or “tiering” subsequent environmental review from an earlier EIR, and in this case the IS/MND has been presented. The applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures previously adopted upon certification of the 2010 FEIR, and all additional and modified mitigation measures that are proposed specific to this project. Both the FEIR and subsequent IS/MND shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. 13 See OASP Chapter 7 Public Services Packet Pg. 272 9 The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/MND and recommended modifications to two mitigation measures, AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency and CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring, as described in detail in Appendix E, Expanded Staff Analysis. As described in the supplemental analysis, it is staff’s recommendation that Council find the revised measures to be equal or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself the revised measures would not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.14 FISCAL IMPACT The Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) anticipates subdivision and development of these properties in a fashion similar to this development proposal. The OASP and recently approved update to the OASP Public Facilities Financing Plan (November 15, 2016) establish a detailed financing plan that is designed to accommodate public infrastructure and parks for the Orcutt Area. As proposed and conditioned, the Imel subdivision map will implement OASP goals and policies by constructing necessary infrastructure and parks consistent with the General Financing Policies and the OASP Public Facilities Financing Plan. The LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Facilities Financing Plan (October 2014) identified a total fiscal impact of $861,145 for the Orcutt Area as a whole, which includes expenditures for city services.15 ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095. Staff does not recommend this alternative, because the project complies with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and would help meet the City’s housing objectives. Findings of the City Council concerning such a recommendation would require development of findings to support the recommendation. 2. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 14 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1 Substitution of Mitigation Measures in a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Facilities Financing Plan, Table 4: Summary of Impacts by Area. Packet Pg. 273 9 Attachments: a - Resolution b - Applicant PD and Statements c - Project Plans d - Planning Commission Minutes and Report (January 25, 2017) e - Expanded Staff Analysis f - Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration g - Initial Study Correspondence Packet Pg. 274 9 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY-MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3095 AND GRANTING EXCEPTIONS FOR HEIGHT ON LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 (LIMITED TO 27 FEET), ROAD DESIGN, REAR YARD SETBACKS (LIMITED TO LOTS 6, 8, 9 AND 10), AND GRADING AND DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES WITHIN THE CREEK SETBACK (SBDV/ER-2586-2016) WHEREAS, on January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo recommended the City Council (1) approve a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 5.49-acre site located at 3777 Orcutt Road into 23 lots including requested height, road design, rear yard, and creek setback exceptions; and (2) adopt Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND); WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on February 21, 2017 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering SBDV-2586-2016, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 5.49-acre site into 23 lots; WHEREAS, the City Council considered an IS-MND analyzing the proposed vesting tentative tract map; 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 City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council hereby adopts the following CEQA findings in support of the project: a) The proposed project, as conditioned herein, is consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified and adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and this action incorporates those FEIR mitigation measures as detailed herein. b) A supplemental initial study has been prepared for the project, which addresses potential environmental impacts which were not identified or detailed in the FEIR for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The Community Development Directo r has Packet Pg. 275 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ recommended that the results of that additional analysis be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of additional mitigation measures to those imposed by the FEIR, all of which are incorporated below. c) Modified mitigation measures AQ-1(a) and CR-1(d) are equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. d) All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR and IS/MND, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the mitigation monitoring program: Aesthetics AES-3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas. Lighting shall be shielded as shown in the Specific Plan and directed downward. Lighting shall not be mounted more than 16 feet high. Streetlights, where they are included, shall be primarily for pedestrian safety, and shall not provide widespread illumination unless necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Street lighting should focus on intersections and should be placed between intersections only when it is necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Trail lighting shall be at a scale appropriate for pedestrians, utilizing bollards, although overhead lighting may be used where vandalism of bollard lights is a concern. Prior to development of individual lots, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans and shall demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect nearby residential areas. AES-3(a) Monitoring Program: Compliance with lighting standards shall be shown on all tract and residential construction drawings, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. Air Quality Operational Phase Mitigation AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall comply with Title 24 standards in effect at the time of building plans are submitted. The following energy- conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double-paned windows. Final building construction plans will include needed solar conduits required for each residential unit for installing a roof-mounted solar system, at the option of each owner. AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with Packet Pg. 276 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and tele-learning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home. AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. AQ-1(a, d, e) Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings, and confirmed by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. Construction Phase Mitigation AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, or for all projects, regardless of the size of ground disturbance, when that disturbance would be conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors.  Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction.  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications.  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed off- road diesel is acceptable).  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Installations must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.  Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.  Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of on-road heavy-duty equipment and trucks that meet the ARB's 1998 or newer certification standard for on-road heavy- duty diesel engines.  All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit. AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction:  Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. Packet Pg. 277 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______  Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible.  All dirt-stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.  Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.  Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin. AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off- site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. AIR-1 Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout Packet Pg. 278 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 R ______ SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp. AIR-2 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: 1) notification to the APCD, 2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on Asbestos can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php. AQ-3(a-d), AIR-1, and AIR-2 Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to comply with existing regulations and secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) before the onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. Biological Resources B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer. Where special-status plants are found, site development plans shall be modified to avoid such occurrences with a minimum buffer of 50 feet. The applicant seeking entitlement shall establish conservation easements for such preserved areas, prior to issuance of the first building permit for subsequent tracts. The Specific Plan shall be amended at that time to place these areas formally into open space, possibly as an overlay area. If total avoidance is economically or technologically infeasible then plants shall be salvaged and relocated under direction of an approved botanist, in accordance with Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f). If total avoidance can be achieved, Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. (It should be noted that avoidance is likely to be more cost effective in the long run compared to mitigation in the form of salvage and relocation). If total avoidance of special-status plant species can be achieved through Mitigation Measure B-2(b), Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. B-2(c) Incidental Take Permit. In the event that state listed species are discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall submit to the City signed copies of an incidental Packet Pg. 279 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 R ______ take permit and enacting agreements from the CDFG regarding those species as necessary under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code prior to the initiation of grading. If a plant species that is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act is discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, inclusive as necessary of signed copies of incidental take permit and associated enacting agreements, to the City prior to the initiation of grading. B-2(b, c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-2(d) Special-Status Species CDFG-Approved Mitigation Plan. If total avoidance of the species occurrences is economically or technologically infeasible, a mitigation program shall be developed by the City in consultation with CDFG as appropriate. A research study to determine the best mitigation approach for each particular species to be salvaged shall be conducted. The special-status plant species mitigation program may include the following:  The overall goal and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring plan;  Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.  Potential sites for mitigation would be any suitable site within proposed open space depending on the species that is appropriately buffered from development. For a list of suitable habitats for the mitigation of each species refer to the list in Mitigation Measure B-2(a).  Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long- term maintenance and protection of the special-status plant species to be included, including 4:1 in-kind replacement of removed native (i.e. oak and sycamore) trees, (i.e.: annual population census surveys and habitat assessments; establishment of monitoring reference sites; fencing of special-status plant species preserves and signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; a seasonally timed weed abatement program; and seasonally-timed seed and/or topsoil collection, propagation, and reintroduction of special-status plant species into specified receiver sites);  Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viable population(s) on the project site in perpetuity;  An education program to inform residents of the presence of special-status plant species and sensitive biological resources on-site, and to provide methods that residents can employ to reduce impacts to these species/resources in protected open space areas;  Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods used by monitoring personnel; and  Funding mechanism. Packet Pg. 280 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 7 R ______ B-2(e) Special-Status Plant Monitoring Frequency. Monitoring shall occur annually and shall last at least five years to ensure successful establishment of all re-introduced or salvaged plants and no-net-loss of the species or its habitat. In the case of annual plants it is difficult to determine if there has been a net loss or gain in a five year perio d. Therefore, an important component of the mitigation and monitoring plan shall be adaptive management. The adaptive management program shall address both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances relating to the preservation and mitigation programs. The plan shall include follow up surveys every five years in perpetuity or until a qualified biologist can demonstrate that the target special-status species has not experienced a net loss. It shall also include remedial measures to address negative impacts to the special-status plant species and their habitats (i.e.: removal of weeds, addition of seeding/planting efforts) if the species is suffering a net loss at the time of the follow up surveys. B-2(f) Special-Status Species Habitat Replacement. The primary goal of the mitigation and monitoring plan is to ensure a viable population and no-net-loss of special-status species habitat within the project site. To ensure the no-net-loss of a species, the applicant shall create two acres of occupied special-status species habitat for every one acre of habitat impacted by project development. If resource agencies require a higher replacement ratio than 2:1, their requirements would prevail. The creation of habitat can occur in conjunction with the mitigation/relocation of wildflower field habitat if the research study indicates that the wildflower field and specific special-status plant species can be relocated and cohabitate. B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey. If occurrences of native perennial bunchgrass habitat of 0.5 acre or greater containing at least 10% or greater coverage of native perennial bunchgrass are found that area shall be placed in open space and a deed restriction placed over the area to protect it in perpetuity. If the area cannot be avoided for economical or technological reasons, then native grasses including perennial bunchgrasses shall be incorporated into the landscaping plant palette and the erosion control plan to replace the lost habitat. The most effective areas to receive native grass seed are graded areas that will be revegetated adjacent to open space. The acreage ratio of lost native perennial bunchgrass habitat to habitat replaced shall be no less than 1:1. Native perennial bunchgrass material shall come from locally collected seed stock to avoid contamination of the local gene pool. Because perennial bunchgrasses grow slowly at first, a “nurse” crop consisting of Nuttall’s fescue (Vulpia microstachys), California brome (Bromus carinatus), and pinpoint clover (Trifolium gracilentum) shall be added to the mix to stabilize any graded areas while the bunchgrasses become established. No non-native invasive plant species shall be used in landscaping. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains a list of the most important invasive plants to avoid. This list shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping. Planting equipment (i.e.: hydroseeding tank and dispensing mechanism) shall be cleaned of remaining seed from previous applications prior to use on-site. The hydroseed applicator shall be responsible for ensuring tanks have been properly cleaned of any seed that is not a part of the specified mix. Packet Pg. 281 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8 R ______ Additional clarifying mitigation as recommended by applicant’s biologist (Rincon August 2014): Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of valley needlegrass grassland habitat shall be outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for this sensitive resource. This Plan will be approved by the City prior to its implementation and shall include the following:  Overall goals and measurable plan objectives,  Identification of specific areas for mitigation,  Specific habitat management and protection concepts that will be used to ensure the long term maintenance and continued protection of valley needlegrass grassland habitat,  Success criteria to be met,  An education program for residents,  Reporting requirements, and  Identification of funding mechanisms. The valley needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas shall be monitored annually for at least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this sensitive habitat has been achieved. To ensure no-net-loss of valley needlegrass grassland habitat, the applicant shall create one acre of mitigation habitat for every one acre of valley needlegrass grassland habitat impacted by implementation of the project. A copy of all permits, or other correspondence stating that no permit is necessary, shall be filed with the City prior to project implementation. The City shall ensure that all the required documentation is received prior to initiation of construction activities and shall oversee implementation of the Valley Needlegrass Grassland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Likewise, the City shall ensure that all the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures prescribed are fully implemented. B-2(d-g) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Trees (OASP) B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Removal of native trees, including sycamore and oak trees, shall require a minimum 4:1 replacement ratio, to be incorporated into the Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan and Five-Year Monitoring Plan. Packet Pg. 282 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 9 R ______ B-3(a) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Direct or prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Riparian Woodland and Wetland Habitat (OASP) B-4(a) Trail Setbacks. Trails shall be setback out of riparian habitat and out of the buffer area. The trail shall be a minimum distance of 20 feet from top of bank or from the edge of riparian canopy, whichever is farther. Trails shall be setback from wetland habitat at a minimum distance of 30 feet and shall not be within the buffer. Native plant species that will deter human disturbance shall be planted in the area between the trail and the wetland/riparian habitat including plants such as California rose (Rosa californica) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). No passive recreational use shall be allowed in the riparian or wetland habitats or drainage corridors. B-4(b) Development Setbacks. Development that abuts riparian and wetland mitigation areas shall also be setback at least 20 feet, and be buffered by an appropriately-sized fence and/or plants that deter human entry listed in BIO-4(a). B-4(c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and/or wetland habitat are proposed for removal pursuant to development under the Specific Plan, such development shall apply for all applicable permits and submit a Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance to wetlands and/or riparian habitat. The plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on - site using regionally collected native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat created to habitat impacted) in areas shown on FEIR Figure 4.4-2 as directed by a biologist. The resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional Basin is necessary as a mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be designed as directed by a biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and erosion control and using the final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out of the buffer area for riparian and wetland habitat. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components: 1) Description of the project/impact site (i.e.: location, responsible parties, jurisdictional areas to be filled/impacted by habitat type); 2) goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved); Packet Pg. 283 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 10 R ______ 3) description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation-site); 4) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan); 5) maintenance activities during the monitoring period (activities, responsible parties, schedule); 6) monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (performance standards, target functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports); 7) completion of compensatory mitigation (notification of completion, agency confirmation); and 8) contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism). In addition, erosion control and landscaping specifications included in the mitigation plan shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. B-4(a-c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. The Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Impacts to Wildlife (OASP) B-5(a) Bird Pre-Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to nesting special-status bird species and raptors including the groundnesting burrowing owl, all initial ground- disturbing activities and tree removal shall be limited to the time period between September 15 and February 1. If initial site disturbance, grading, and tree removal cannot be conducted during this time period, a pre-construction survey for active nests within the limits of grading shall be conducted b y a qualified biologist at the site no more than 30 days prior to the start of any construction activities (for ground-nesting burrowing owl survey [OASP FEIR]). If active nests are located, all construction work must be conducted outside a buffer zone of 250 feet to 500 feet from the nests as determined in consultation with the CDFG. No direct disturbance to nests shall occur until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to the start of construction. Packet Pg. 284 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 11 R ______ B-5(c) Monarch Pre-Construction Survey. If initial ground-breaking is to occur between the months of October and March a preconstruction survey for active monarch roost sites within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities. If active roost sites are located no ground - disturbing activities shall occur within 50 feet of the perimeter of the habitat. Construction shall not resume within the setback until a qualified biologist has determined that the monarch butterfly has vacated the site. B-5(a, c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. The Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required pre- construction survey reports. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths. Roadway widths adjacent to riparian and wetland habitats may be reduced to the minimum width possible, while maintaining Fire Department Requirements for emergency access, with slower speed limits introduced. Posted speed limits should be 25 mph. B-6(b) Culvert Design. Although closed culverts are to be the drainage conveyance method of last resort per the City Waterways Management Plan, where they are required, culverts connecting the Plan Area drainage corridors with upstream and downstream drainage corridors shall be evaluated during the suitability analysis pursuant to Mitigation Measure B-5(e) to determine their importance to wildlife who could use them to travel to and from the site. If culverts are found to be of importance to wildlife, the culverts shall be evaluated for their potential for improvement (i.e. retrofitting, maintenance, or specific improvements depending on the types of species using them). The development pursuant to the Specific Plan and the City shall develop a plan for the improvement of the culverts. Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be achieved with sufficient setbacks from riparian and wetland habitats. Refer to B-4 for mitigation regarding riparian and wetland habitat setbacks. B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals. B-6(a-c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants Packet Pg. 285 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 12 R ______ to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan: • African sumac (Rhus lancea) • Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) • Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) • California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius) • Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula) • Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus) • Edible fig (Ficus carica) • Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) • French broom (Genista monspessulana) • Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis) • Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) • Myoporum (Myoporum spp.) • Olive (Olea europaea) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata) • Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia) • Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus) • Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) • Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T. ramosissima) • Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) • Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan’s Suggested Plant List [Orcutt Area Specific Plan Appendix E] shall not be planted anywhere on-site because they are invasive non-native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation/enhancement area. B-6(d) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Cultural Resources CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, constructional earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the Packet Pg. 286 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 13 R ______ find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. Prior to redirecting or resuming construction, the applicant shall submit a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan, prepared by a qualified archaeologist, which shall be prepared and implemented in the event of resource discovery. The Monitoring Plan shall include at a minimum: a. List of personnel involved in the monitoring activities; b. Inclusion of involvement of the Native American community, as appropriate; c. Description of how the monitoring shall occur; d. Description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full-time, part time, spot checking); e. Description of what resources are expected to be encountered; f. Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., What is considered “significant” archaeological resources?); g. Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification procedures; and h. Description of monitoring reporting procedures. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc), work in the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material. If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. CR-3(a) Prohibition of Archaeological Site Tampering. Off-road vehicle use, unauthorized collecting of artifacts, and other activities that could destroy or damage archaeological or cultural sites shall be prohibited. Signs shall be posted on the property to discourage these types of activities and warn of trespassing violations and imposed fines. CR-1(d), CR-3(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation, in the event of unforeseen encounter of materials, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. Drainage and Water Quality D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of the first Grading Permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a detailed erosion control plan (ECP) to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction period. The detailed ECP shall be accompanied by a written narrative and be approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum, the ECP and written narrative should be prepared according to the guidelines outlined in the DDM and should include the following: Packet Pg. 287 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 14 R ______  A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure milestones in chronological format;  Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or unstable slopes;  Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets and hydroseeding should be utilized. Silt fences should be installed downslope of all graded slopes. Straw bales should be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain inlets;  Description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and streets;  Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;  Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets) in public streets as a means of sediment control; and  The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated sediment, and the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment. D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the CWA. Pursuant to the NPDES Storm Water Program, an application for coverage under the statewide General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit (General Permit) must be obtained for project development. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to obtain coverage prior to site construction. The applicant can obtain coverage under the General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The filing shall describe erosion control and storm water treatment measures to be implemented during and following construction and provide a schedule for monitoring performance. These BMPs will serve to control point and non-point source (NPS) pollutants in storm water and constitute the project’s SWPPP for construction activities. While the SWPPP will include several of the same components as the ECP, the SWPPP will also include BMPs for preventing the discharge of other NPS pollutants besides sediment (such as paint, concrete, etc.) to downstream waters.  Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.  Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the City forty-five (45) days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the project site in excess of one acre. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP shall be also submitted to the City along with grading/development plans for review and approval.  Notice of Completion of Construction. The applicant shall file a notice of completion of construction of the development, identifying that pollution sources Packet Pg. 288 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 15 R ______ were controlled during the construction of the project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site. D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization. Vegetative or biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering) approaches to bank stabilization are preferred over structural approaches. Bank stabilization design must be consistent with the SLO Creek Stream Management and Maintenance Program Section 6. Streambank stabilization usually involves one or a combination of the following activities:  Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks and create a more stable slope;  Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites;  Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade stabilization structures;  Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment deposition;  Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by-pass channel;  Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularl y at the toe of slopes. The bank stabilization design will:  Be stable over the long term;  Be the least environmentally damaging and the “softest” approach possible;  Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream instabilities;  Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat.  Specify that only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls be used, to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The OASP proposes riparian enhancement of creek corridors. Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual shall be followed for riparian areas that are modified, created and/or managed for flood damage reduction, stream enhancement, and bank repair. Linear park terrace vegetation, streambank repair and channel maintenance projects may require stream channel modifications that include shaping, widening, deepening, straightening, and armoring. Many channel management projects also require building access roads for maintenance vehicles and other equipment. These construction activities can cause a variety of impacts to existing sensitive riparian and aquatic habitat that, depending on the selected design alternative, range from slight disturbances to complete removal of desirable woody vegetation and faunal communities. In urban areas within the SLO creek watershed, riparian vegetation often provides the only remaining natural habitat available for wildlife populations. D-4(a) Compliance with City’s Drainage Design Manual. All drainage improvements must be constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the City’s Drainage Design Manual. Either subregional facilities shall be constructed with the first phase of development or interim (on-site) drainage control shall be constructed. Interim facilities can be Packet Pg. 289 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 16 R ______ abandoned once regional facilities are available. The applicant shall submit a detention system plan to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The detention basins shall be designed to comply with applicable City drainage design standards and at a minimum have the following features:  Each basin should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain completely within 48 hours. The amount of outflow can be regulated with a fixed outfall structure. Such a structure must include an outfall pipe of a size and length that will give positive control on the outfall head. The principal outlet regulates the design discharge from the watershed above at a water level in the basin that does not exceed a certain maximum elevation.  Regional, or larger on-site facilities can pose significant hazards to public safety in the event of failure. In addition to the outlet control structure, an emergency overflow spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided. This spillway must satisfy the following requirements: − The spillway must be designed to pass the 100-year design storm event if the outlet works fail or if a runoff event exceeds the design event. The spillway design will be based on peak runoff rates for developed site conditions, assuming that the basins fill to the crest of the spillway prior to the beginning of the design event. − The spillway must be located so overflow is conveyed safely to the downstream channel.  Each basin shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100 - year storm event with 2-foot freeboard between the design water surface elevation and the top of the embankment. At a minimum the basin must contain the 10-year flow without release to emergency spillway. If flows over the emergency spillway do occur, provisions must be made or be in place that will convey such flows safely.  The design volume of the basin must be sized to include the capacity for a five (5) year accumulation of sediment. Generally, the basin should be cleared out when it is half-full, as determined on a marked staff in the bottom of the basin, or a mark on a riser pipe. The amount of potential sedimentation in the basin shall be determined by a soils engineer or hydrologist, using the procedures such as those outlined in the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (May 1995) or as approved by the City Engineer or County Public Works Director.  The basin and its outfall must be sized so that approximately 85% of the total stormwater storage, excluding sediment storage in the basin, can be recovered within twenty-four hours of the peak inflow. A basin overflow system must provide controlled discharge (emergency spillway) for the 100-year design event without overtopping the basin embankment and maintain adequate freeboard. The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system or safe drainage way. The principal outlet must be able to drain the detention facility within 48 hours of the end of the 100-year storm by gravity flow through the principal outlet.  Any detention basin design must be accompanied by a soils report. This report should address allowable safe basin slopes with respect to liquefaction, rapid draw down, wave action and so forth. Additionally, the report should also address sedimentation transport from areas above the basin and allowable bearing pressures where structures are to be placed. The soils report must address the level of the water table and the effects of the basin excavation on the water table. Packet Pg. 290 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 17 R ______ D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification. Final detention basin system designs for project-specific EIRs within the Orcutt Plan Area shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. Per the Wastewater Management Plan, the project shall not cause more than a 5% increase of peak run off rates for the 2 -, 50-, and 100-year 24 hour storm event. Final basin designs shall provide stage-storage-outflow curves and outfall structure details for all detention basins. The San Luis Obispo SLO/Zone 9 HEC-HMS hydrology model may be used to model final detention basin system cumulative downstream impacts should specific projects propose substantial changes to conceptual design, at the discretion of the City Engineer. D-5(a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed swales (biofilters) into the project drainage system where feasible for runoff conveyance and filtering of pollutants. A preferred alternative to concrete drainage swales to transport the runoff to roadside ditches, these swales shall be lined with grass or appropriate vegetation to encourage the biofiltration of sediment, phosphorus, trace metals, and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge into the formal drainage network. General design guidelines relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales are: 1) a dense, uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants; 2) vegetation that is tolerant to the water, climatological, and soil conditions of the project site is preferred; 3) grassed swales that maximize water contact with the vegetation and soil surface have the potential to substantially improve removal rates, particularly of soluble pollutants; and 4) pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the flow path length is increased. General maintenance guidelines for biofilters are discussed in Mitigation Measure D-5(b). A Best Management Practice (BMP) filter device shall be installed to intercept water flowing off of proposed parking lot and roadway surfaces. Water quality BMPs shall be those identified in the California Stormwater Quality association’s BMP handbook. Whenever feasible, the preferred approach to treating surface runoff will be the use of drainage swales rather than mechanical devices. The chosen method for treating runoff shall be a proven and documented pollution prevention technology device that removes oil and sediment from stormwater runoff, and retains the contaminants for safe and easy removal. The chosen device shall possess design features to prevent resuspension of previously collected contaminants and materials, and contain a built-in diversion structure to divert intense runoff events and prevent scouring of the previously collected sediments. The filter devices shall be designed and sized to treat the run off from the first 25 mm (1 inch) of rainfall. The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City Director of Public Works. D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works for review and approval a long-term storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to protect storm water quality after the construction period. The SWPPP shall include the following additional BMPs to protect storm water quality: Packet Pg. 291 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 18 R ______  Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the majority of litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus entering local waterways. Regular sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing the amount of litter in storm drain inlets (to prevent clogging) and public waterways (for water quality). The project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this maintenance is completed prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.  Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality. The maintenance of biofilters on the project site will be the responsibility of a homeowner’s association for the proposed project. Biofilter maintenance would include: 1) Regular mowing to promote growth and increase density and pollutant uptake (vegetative height should be no more than 8 inches, cuttings must be promptly removed and properly disposed of); 2) Removal of sediments during summer months when they build up to 6 inches at any spot, cover biofilter vegetation, or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation; and 3) Reseeding of biofilters as necessary, whenever maintenance or natural processes create bare spots.  Proper maintenance of detention basins is necessary to ensure their effectiveness at preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality. Necessary detention basin maintenance includes: 1) regular inspection during the w et season for sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets; 2) regular (approximately every 2-3 years) removal of basin sediment; and 3) if an open detention basin is used, mowing and maintenance of basin vegetation (replant or reseed) as necessary to control erosion. A maintenance plan must be developed and provided along with the design documents. Long-term detention basin maintenance plans must clearly delineate and assign maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for local and regional detention basins. Maintenance reports shall be submitted annually to City’s Public Works Department.  For basins greater than 5,000 m3 (4 ac-ft) storage (i.e. the Upper Fork regional detention basin), vehicular access for maintenance of the basin and outlet works, removal of sediment, and removal of floating objects during all weather conditions must be provided. An access road must be provided to the basin floor of all detention facilities. This road must have a minimum width of 3.7 m (12 ft) and a maximum grade of 20%. Turnarounds at the control structure and the bottom of the basin must have a 12-m (40-ft) minimum outside turning radius.  The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all residences at the project site. At a minimum the information should cover: 1) general information on biofilters and detention basins for residents concerning their purpose and importance of keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter; 2) proper disposal of household and commercial chemicals; 3) proper use of landscaping chemicals; 4) clean-up and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter; and 5) prohibition of any washi ng and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.  The stormwater BMP devices shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The devices shall be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e. November 1st) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e. May 1st). All devices will be Packet Pg. 292 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 19 R ______ checked after major storm events. The results of the inspection and maintenance report shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7, the applicant shall be encouraged to use pervious paving material to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. In addition to the low impact development (LID) practices described in the above measures, the Specific Plan shall incorporate the following as requirements of future development within the area, to the extent appropriate for type and location of development:  Reduced and disconnected impervious surfaces  Preservation of native vegetation where feasible  Use of tree boxes to capture and infiltrate street runoff  Roof leader flows shall be directed to planter boxes and other vegetated areas  Soil amendments shall be utilized in landscaped areas to improve infiltration rates of clay soils.  Incorporate rain gardens into landscape design These LID practices shall be utilized wherever feasible and appropriate to ensure that the pre-development stormwater runoff volume and pre-development peak runoff discharge rate are maintained, and that the flow frequency and duration of post development conditions are identical (to the extent feasible) to those of pre-development conditions. LID practices are subject to the review and approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as part of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance. D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a-b), D-5(a-d) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and construction plans. Monitoring will include Natural Resources Department staff consultation and implementation at time of landscaping construction plan review and Engineering-Public Works staff at the time of tract construction. Compliance will be verified by the City Public Works Department in consultation with the Natural Resources Manager. Geology and Soils G-2(a) Geotechnical Study Parameters. As stated in Program 3.4.1.a. of the proposed Specific Plan, a geotechnical study shall be prepared by a State-registered engineering geologist for the project site prior to site development. This report shall include an analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying materials according to the most current liquefaction analysis procedures. This study shall also:  evaluate the potential for soil settlement beneath the project site;  evaluate the potential for expansive soils beneath the project site; and  assess the stability of all slopes in the areas where construction is to occur. This evaluation shall determine the potential for adverse soil stability and discuss appropriate mitigation techniques. Appropriate setbacks from unstable slopes and Packet Pg. 293 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 20 R ______ areas below potential rockfall zones shall be implemented. No development of residential structures is to occur in areas where rockfall hazards could damage buildings. The following suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include but need not be limited to:  specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;  removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;  drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soil;  in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or  other alterations to the ground characteristics. G-3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering. If the project site is identified to be in a high potential for settlement zone (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)) the building foundations, transportation infrastructure and subgrades shall be designed by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce settlement impacts could include but need not be limited to:  excavation and recompaction of on-site or imported soils;  treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to recompaction; or  foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential settlement such as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the Uniform Building Code(UBC). G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. If the project site is identified as having expansive soils (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)), the foundations and transportation infrastructure shall be designed by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include but need not be limited to:  excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils; and  foundation design to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion such as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC. G-2(a), G-3(a), G-4(a) Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include review and approval by City Engineering staff and building inspectors. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. Noise N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the following:  Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can Packet Pg. 294 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 21 R ______ be shielded with a barrier.  Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.  Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors and similar power tools.  Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment. N-1(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. Public Safety S-2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall develop Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that disclose to potential buyers or leasers that aircraft over-flights occur, and that such flights may result in safety hazard impacts should an aircraft accident occur. In addition, prior to recordation of final map, avigation easements shall be recorded over the entire project site for the benefit of the SLO County Regional Airport. S-2b Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Community Development, City Attorney and Engineering staff approvals of the Disclosure(s) prior to recordation of a final tract map. Public Services PS-2(a) Road Widths, Fire Hydrants. Road widths and internal circulation, as well as the placement of fire hydrants, shall be designed with the guidance of the Fire Department. A road system that allows unhindered Fire Department access and maneuvering during emergencies shall be provided. The San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall review all improvement plans for proposed development in the Orcutt Area to ensure compliance with City standards and the Uniform Fire Code. PS-2(b) Non-combustible exteriors. Buildings that are in areas of moderate fire hazard and which are close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard shall have non-combustible exteriors. PS-2(c) Defensible Space. Accessible space free of highly combustible vegetation and materials shall be provided in the area 30 feet around all structures located within the moderate wildland fire hazard areas. PS-3(a) Buildout Date Notification. The applicant shall notify the San Luis Coastal Unified School District of the expected buildout date of each phase of the project to allow the District time to plan in advance for new students. PS-3(b) Statutory School Fees. The applicant shall pay the statutory school fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to the appropriate school districts. Packet Pg. 295 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 22 R ______ PS-2(a-c) and PS-3(a-b) Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Fire Marshal and Community Development Department. Transportation and Circulation TR-1 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans showing the construction of a “pork chop” island at the intersection of “I” Street and “B” Street”, which would restrict this intersection to right-turn-in and right-turn-out movements. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. TR-1 Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Public Works Department. Utilities and Service Systems USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP To Meet Fire Flow and Storage Standards. Concurrent with applications for Final Map(s), the applicant shall submit a water supply plan to meet adequate fire flow standards for all lots within each Final Map. Implementation of such a water line extension plan shall be included as a part of public improvement plans for the subdivision, and approved by Utilities, Public Works and the City Engineer. This implementation plan may include a financing plan, including reimbursement provisions, approved by the City Council at the time of considering any Final Map. Required water main line extension(s) to the subdivision shall be completed and operational to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director, prior to issuance of any building permits for any of the residential and/or commercial uses. USS-1 Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed and implemented by the City Engineer’ s office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for Tract 3095. SECTION 2. Vesting Tract Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The City Council does hereby approve application SBDV/ER-2586-2016 (VTM #3095, “Imel Ranch”), a vesting tentative tract map to create up to 23 residential, drainage, and open space lots, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions being incorporated into the project: Findings: a) As conditioned, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City’s residential housing inventory, results in parcels that meet minimum density standards, and will be consistent with the density, lot sizes and project amenities established by the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). Packet Pg. 296 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 23 R ______ b) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C/OS-SP, and R-1 zoning districts. c) The design of the vesting tentative tract map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since further development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with VTM #3095 and the required architectural review process, which will allow for detailed review of development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards. d) As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision, and the project is consistent with the pattern of development prescribed in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. e) The proposed project will provide affordable housing consistent with the intent of California Government Code §65915, and in compliance with City policies and the Housing Element. f) The tentative map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation measures prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, the OASP Final EIR, and the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND). g) The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Road Design Exception and Rear Yard Setback Exception, Required Findings as Required by Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020: h) The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in the City Subdivision Regulations and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, specifically related to the design of “B Street” and “I Street”, and rear yard setbacks on Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10. i) The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not t he sole reason for granting the modification to the design of “B Street” and “I Street”, and rear yard setbacks on Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10. j) The modifications will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. k) Granting the modifications is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. Packet Pg. 297 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 24 R ______ Creek Setback Exception, Required Findings as Required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025.G.4.d Discretionary Exceptions: l) The placement of drainage and stormwater features, bridge crossing, five-foot wide pedestrian trail, and temporary grading and restoration within the creek setback satisfies each of the following required findings: i. The location and design of the feature receiving the creek setback exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement, as the features would comply with OASP policies Policy 2.2.6, which states that the on-site drainage detention areas be designed to support wetlands characteristics they may provide aesthetic, habitat and flood control benefits, and restoration of the creek corridor is required as part of the project; ii. The exception will not limit the city’s design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies because the features will be designed considering the potential for flooding; iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans, as the project is consistent with the OASP and incorporates all mitigation adopted with the certification of the OASP Final Environmental Impact Report; iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning, as site is constrained by internal circulation requirements and two creeks that traverse the site, and the OASP (Figure 6.3 Drainage Plan) calls for the project site (Imel Ranch) to accommodate a new individual detention basin and separately mitigating drainage, and the OASP assumed pedestrian trails may be located within identified creek setbacks, and no residential building pads are located within the creek setback; v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege –an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, as the features would serve the public benefit by providing drainage and stormwater management and public access; vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; vii. Based on the design of proposed drainage and stormwater features, site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property as described in the OASP. Use Permit Findings Allowing Height Exception as Required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.040 (Height) and 17.58.040 (Findings to Grant a Use Permit): m) The proposed height exception, applicable to Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at Packet Pg. 298 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 25 R ______ the site or within the vicinity, as the additional height above 25 feet is limited to two feet (for a total of 27 feet) and would not adversely affect views of Righetti Hill. Conditions: Dedications and Easements 1. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, public and private streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to or concurrent with the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. 2. The final map and improvement plans shall show the extent of all on-site and off-site offers of dedication. Subdivision improvement plans and or preliminary designs may be required for any deferred improvements so that dedication limits can be established. These improvements may include but are not limited to road construction and widening, grading and drainage improvements, utility easements, bridges, bike bridges, transit stops, bikeways, pedestrian paths, signalized intersections, traffic circles, and roundabouts. 3. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Orcutt Road except at approved driveway locations and intersections as shown on the tentative map or as otherwise approved by the city. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and 6’ public utility easement (P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. A 10’ street tree easement and 15’ P.U.E. shall be provided along the Orcutt Road frontage (tract boundary). 5. The subdivider shall dedicate any public Open Space lots in fee to the City in conjunction with or prior to map recordation. If applicable, the land shall be granted free and clear of all encumbrances to the satisfaction of the City. Unless otherwise amended by the City, Lot 21 shall be a dedicated to the public and lots 19, 20, 22, and 23 shall be private for maintenance by the HOA. 6. The subdivider shall include a separate offer of dedication for all sections of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) Street B located outside the phase boundary, but within the tract boundary in accordance with the tentative map street alignments and map conditions in conjunction with or prior to map recordation. The developer shall include the offers of dedication for the Orcutt Road widening improvements in conjunction with or prior to map recordation. The developer shall include any other out-of-phase offers of dedication related to the need for public utility extensions related to orderly development of the OASP where not otherwise located within a public street. 7. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property owners or the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) as applicable. Private improvements include but are not Packet Pg. 299 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 26 R ______ limited to private pedestrian/bike paths, private open space/creek corridors, drainage systems, detention basin(s), landscape, landscape irrigation, common areas, pocket parks, and linear park improvements. 8. The private open space and detention basin Lots 19 20, 22, and 23 along with the proposed improvements, including but not limited to trails, walls, fences, drainage improvements, landscaping, and landscape irrigation shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. Private Open Space easements shall be shown and noted on the final map. A creek maintenance easement and agreement shall be provided for specific private open corridors in a format approved by the City. The easement agreement shall include provisions to allow for city maintenance if necessary. 9. A wildland fuel management/reduction zone along with any required easements and/or zone limits shall be shown and noted on the final map and improvement plans for reference. The limits of the zone shall be in accordance with the adopted Fire Code and approved to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and City Natural Resources Manager. The HOA shall be responsible for wildland fuel management and weed abatement within the established fuel reduction zone(s) and private open space areas. 10. A notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo may need to be recorded in conjunction with the Final Map to clarify development restrictions, conditions of development, and references to any pertinent conditions of approval related to infrastructure phasing. 11. Off-site easements and/or dedications may be required to facilitate through street access and public water and sewer main extensions beyond the tract boundary and in accordance with the OASP. Looped water mains may be required in accordance with the tentative map, development phasing, and the City water model to provide adequate service and compliance with adopted codes and standards. 12. Off-site dedication/acquisition of property for this public right-of-way purpose is necessary to facilitate orderly development and the anticipated OASP improvements. The subdivider shall work with the City and the land owner(s) to acquire the necessary rights-of-way. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said rights-of-way, the City Council may consider lending the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney fees and court costs). 13. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the subdivider shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or, Packet Pg. 300 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 27 R ______ b. Demonstrate, in writing, that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and request that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462 .5 to do so, if necessary. subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the subdivider shall submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California; ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so; iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. Transportation 14. Fire Department access shall be provided for each construction phase to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Phased street construction shall consider and provide suitable Fire Department hydrant access, circulation routes, passing lanes, and turn-around areas in accordance with current codes and standards. Building permits for combustible construction may be withheld until adequate services and access are provided. 15. All public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps. Packet Pg. 301 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 28 R ______ 16. The improvement plans shall include all final line-of-sight analysis at certain intersections to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Fence heights and plantings in the areas of control shall be reviewed in conjunction with the analysis. A separate recorded agreement or Notice of Requirements for private property owner or HOA maintenance of sight lines may be required. 17. The public improvement plans shall include full frontage improvements on Orcutt Road from B Street to the edge of Tract 3095. The plans shall show all improvements including concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards and previous entitlements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Lane configurations and transitions for improvements along Orcutt Road and/or any phased approach for access prior to the full development of Orcutt Road, shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 18. The east side of Orcutt Road where widening is proposed or required may terminate in an AC berm to match the existing adjoining road sections per City Engineering Standards or the appropriate County rural road standards where approved by the City Engineer. The Orcutt Road plans shall include all phases of construction including road widening, stormdrain improvements, culvert extensions, grading/walls, and any water quality BMPs. Some off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes may be required to facilitate the Orcutt Road improvements and transitions between the OASP full build-out road section and adjoining road segments beyond the tract boundaries. 19. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to the edge of Tract frontage along with any transition lanes, shall be constructed as a condition of this map unless a deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Improvement Plans 20. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off-site improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, and Fire Department prior to map recordation. Off-site improvements may include but are not limited to roadways, sewer mains, water mains, and stormdrain improvements. 21. A separate demolition permit will be required from the Building Division for the removal of any existing structures and related infrastructure. Building removals are subject to the Building Demolition Regulations including the additional notification and timing requirements for any structure over 50-years old. 22. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site improvements, utilities, water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire services, etc. The plan shall include any pertinent off-site water well and private waste disposal systems that are located within regulated distances to the proposed drainage and utility improvements. The plan shall include the proposed disposition of the improvements and any proposed phasing of the removal and demolition. All structures and utilities affected by the proposed lot lines shall be removed and receive final inspection approvals prior to map recordation. Packet Pg. 302 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 29 R ______ 23. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the construction of the new public street shall be phased per City Engineering Standard #7110. The engineer of record shall detail this requirement for phased street construction in the public improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 24. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete construction phasing plan in accordance with the conditions of approval. A truck circulation plan and construction management and staging plan shall be included with the improvement plan submittal. General truck routes shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City. The engineer of record shall provide a summary of the extent of cut and fill with estimates on the yards of import and export material. The summary shall include rough grading, utility trench construction, road construction, AC paving, concrete delivery, and vertical construction loading estimates on the existing public roadways. Unless otherwise waived by the City Engineer, the developer shall either; 1) complete roadway deflection testing before and after construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall complete repairs to the pre-construction condition, or 2) shall pay a roadway maintenance fee in accordance with City Engineering Standards and guidelines, or 3) shall propose a pavement repair/replacement program to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 25. Retaining wall and/or retaining wall/fence combinations along property lines shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and shall conform with the zoning regulations for allowed combined heights or shall be approved through the ARC or separate Fence Height exception process. 26. The ARC plans and public improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed mail receptacles or mail box units (MBUs) to the satisfaction of the Post Master and the City Engineer. Provide a mailbox unit or multiple units to serve all dwelling units within this development as required by the Post Master. MBUs shall not be located within the public right-of-way or public sidewalk area unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. Contact the Post Master at 543-2605 to establish any recommendations regarding the number, size, location, and placement for an y MBUs. 27. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Tree species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. The subdivision improvement plans/landscape plans shall also include street tree plantings along the Orcutt Road frontages of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23. 28. The subdivision/public improvement plans shall clearly show and label all existing trees to remain and trees to be removed. The plan may include generic information on the limits of tree removals but shall clearly identify the diameter, species, and location of the trees to remain. 29. A separate tree preservation plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall be approved by the City Arborist, Planning Division, and Public Works Department prior to commencing with demolition, grading, or subdivision improvements. Tree preservation measures shall be Packet Pg. 303 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 30 R ______ shown and noted on all plans. Some tree preservation measures may need to be implemented and inspected prior to permit issuance and/or plan approvals. 30. The existing Sycamore tree located on Lot 21 shall be preserved unless otherwise determined to be impractical by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The road and utility improvement plans, alignments, methods, and materials shall be reasonably adjusted to support the tree preservation efforts. A separate tree preservation surety shall be provided based on standard tree valuation calculations to be approved by the City Arborist. Utilities 31. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving utility companies. All public and private sewer mains shall be shown on the public improvement plans and shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards unless a waiv er or alternate standard is otherwise approved by the City. The plans shall clearly delineate and distinguish the difference between public and private improvements. 32. City recycled water or another non-potable water source, shall be used for construction water (dust control, soil compaction, etc.). An annual Construction Water Permit is available from the City’s Utilities Department. Recycled water is readily available near the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road. 33. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm drains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals and meters shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans. 34. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer, the public sewer main extension from Street I through open space Lot 21 to the future park shall be limited to a single main. Final line and grade shall be approved by the City prior to submittal of the subdivision improvement plans and shall consider function, maintenance, stability, and tree preservations. 35. The improvement plans shall show the location of all domestic and landscape water meters. The plan shall include service lateral sizes and meter sizes. Sizing calculations may be required to justify service and meter sizing. Water impact fees related to the irrigation water met er(s) shall be paid prior to approval of the subdivision improvement plans for each pertinent map and/or construction phase. 36. Off-site utility improvements shall include the water main upgrade/replacement and extension from the High Pressure/Bishop pressure zone at the intersection of Tanglewood/Johnson Avenue to serve the subdivision. Pipe sizing is contingent upon the modeling for the proposed development phases and looping of the main. Improvement plans may be required to clarify the design for main extensions. Pressure regulating valves, control valves, or other appurtenances may be required by the Utilities Department as a part of the required water Packet Pg. 304 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 31 R ______ system improvements to be certain that the new area interacts properly with the existing water system. 37. A reimbursement request, if proposed for the off-site water main upgrade, shall include all pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the City Council. 38. A final sewer report and supporting documentation for the OASP public sewer main design may be required prior to approval of the public improvement plans. Said report shall consider prior entitlements. 39. The depth of the off-site and on-site sewer mains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. The depth analysis shall consider the balance between the possible extent of the gravity sewer basin needed to serve the other OASP properties and the long -term public maintenance requirements related to sewer depth. 40. The public improvement plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed overhead wire utilities. Any existing overhead wiring within the tract boundary and adjoining Orcutt Road frontage shall be undergrounded in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. Unless otherwise specifically approved, pole relocation in lieu of undergrounding is not supported. 41. Terminal end utility poles shall be located off-site unless otherwise approved by the City. Preliminary undergrounding plans for the entire subdivision shall be processed through PGE and any respective wire utility companies with approval by the City in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision improvement plans. 42. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaires along all public streets including Orcutt Road per City Engineering Standards. 43. Private street lighting shall be provided along the private streets per OASP lighting requirements, City Engineering Standard and/or as approved in conjunction with the final ARC approvals. 44. Lighting fixtures, including public streetlights shall not exceed 16’ in height in accordance with the OASP unless otherwise required for traffic safety. The developer shall submit a streetlight proposal for approval by the City Engineer for any public streetlights. Street lights associated with the Orcutt Road improvements shall comply with the Highway Design Manual and City Engineering Standards. 45. Recycled water mains shall be extended from Tank Farm Road in coordination with other development in the OASP for irrigation of common area landscaping, streetscape, and any irrigated park or open space areas. Applicant shall work with the Water Division of the City’s Utilities Department to determine the appropriate size of all proposed recycled water mains. Packet Pg. 305 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 32 R ______ 46. A reimbursement request, if proposed for the off-site potable and recycled water main improvements shall include all pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the City Council. 47. Irrigation systems using recycled water shall be designed and operated as described consistent with the City’s Procedures for Recycled Water Use, including the requirement that sites utilizing recycled water require backflow protection on all potable service connections. Three sets of irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Building Department for review during the City’s building permit review process. 48. Final alignment of all water and sewer mains to be approved by the Utilities Department. 49. 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)). 50. 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 Grading, Drainage & Stormwater 51. Any permit approvals required from the Arm y Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be secured and presented to the City prior to the approval of any subdivision grading and/or improvements related to the proposed phase of construction. The engineer of record shall review the permit approvals and any specific permit conditions for compliance with the plans, subdivision improvement designs, drainage system design/report, and soils report. The engineer of record shall forward the permits to the City with a notation that the permits have been reviewed and are in general conformance with the design of the improvements. 52. The public improvement plans submittal shall clarify how the creek corridors, and riparian habitat areas will be preserved to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. Include any specific details for the proposed creek crossings in accordance with any preservation strategies, mitigation measures, and higher governmental authority agency permits. Sensitive areas shall be staked, fenced, or otherwise delineated and protected prior to commencing with construction, grading, or grubbing. 53. Expansion index testing or other soils analysis may be required on a lot-by-lot basis for all graded pads and for in-situ soils on natural lots in accordance with the current Building Codes or where deemed necessary by the City Engineer or Building Official. 54. Final pad certifications shall include the certification of pad construction and elevations. The soils engineer shall certify all grading prior to acceptance of the public improvements and/or Packet Pg. 306 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 33 R ______ prior to building permit issuance. The certification shall indicate that the graded pads are suitable for their intended use. 55. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as recommended by the soils engineer. Brow ditches, drainage collection devices, and drainage piping may be required. The public improvement plans and final map shall reflect any additional improvements and private easements necessary for slope protection and maintenance. Unless otherwise approved for public maintenance by the City Engineer, brow ditches and drainage collection devices upslope of building sites shall be maintained by the HOA. 56. The subdivision improvement plans shall include a complete grading plan to show site accessibility in accordance with State and Federal regulations for all public and/or private roads, transit stops, trails, paths, walks, bikeways, parks, and bridges where applicable. The submittal shall provide additional analysis if site accessibility will not be provided and for any feature or element where accessibility is purportedly not required. The accessibility regulations or guidelines in effect at the time of subdivision improvement construction will be applied. 57. The subdivision improvement plans, grading plans, drainage plans, and drainage reports shall show and note compliance with City Codes, Standards and Ordinances, Floodplain Management Regulations, OASP stormwater provisions, Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, whichever pertinent sections are more restrictive. 58. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. The proposed grading shall consider the proposed construction phasing. Historic off-site and upslope watersheds tributary to the area of phased construction shall be considered. Run-on from adjoining developed or undeveloped parcels shall be considered. 59. The calculated 100-year flood limits shall be shown and noted on the improvement plans and an additional final map sheet for reference. The drainage report and final plans shall clarify the 100-year flood elevations, clearances, and freeboard at all new vehicle bridge, pedestrian bridge, and pipe bridge crossings of the creek corridors. 60. The engineer of record shall provide a digital copy of the final HEC-RAS modeling to the City in accordance with Section 4.0 of the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. 61. The developer shall prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for review and approval by the City in conjunction with the development of any stormwater BMPs that will be maintained by the HOA or by the respective private property owner. A Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to final inspection approvals and acceptance of subdivision improvements. 62. The subdivider/developer shall provide notification to private property owners regarding any individual maintenance responsibility of backyard stormwater BMPs in accordance with Packet Pg. 307 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 34 R ______ Section E.2 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Resolution R3-2013- 0032. The notification may be by Notice of Requirements or other method acceptable to the City. 63. The stormwater improvements other than City Standard public stormdrain infrastructure shall be maintained by the HOA. A separate encroachment/hold harmless agreement may be required in conjunction with certain improvements proposed for location within the public rights-of-way. 64. The final details for the proposed bioretention and private stormwater management facilities along with any improvements located within the public right-of-way shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City. The project soils engineer shall review and provide recommendations on the proposed site constructed and/or proprietary retention systems. Analysis of impacts to the public improvements, protection of utilities, and methods to minimize piping and protection of private properties shall be addressed in the final analysis. 65. The proposed detention basin and any pre-basin shall be designed in accordance with the OASP requirements and the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. The proposed surface runoff and drainage from the detention basin(s) shall include a non-erosive outlet to an approved point of disposal. The outlet(s) design and location should replicate the historic drainage where feasible. Any off-site detention basin, temporary basin, or other drainage improvements shall be approved by the City. Any required or proposed off-site grading or drainage improvements shall be completed within recorded easements or under an appropriate license or other private agreement. 66. The subdivider shall submit CC&Rs with the Final Map that establishes a Homeowner's Association (HOA). The HOA shall provide for the optional automatic annexation of all other tracts in the OASP as it relates to the shared regional detention basin. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how they will provide storm drainage mitigation through their own subdivision design and HOA. The HOA shall provide for maintenance of all private common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins, water quality treatment and conveyance improvements. The CC&Rs shall be approved by the City and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map. 67. The naming of the local creeks and drainages shall comply with the appropriate and pertinent creek naming standards and justifications. The inclusion of the naming on the final map and/or improvement plans shall be approved by the City prior to map and/or plan approval as applicable. 68. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels along with any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be in compliance with the OASP, city standards and policies, the Waterways Management Plan and shall be approved by the Natural Resources Manager, Public Works Department, Army Corp of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Fish & Wildlife. Packet Pg. 308 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 35 R ______ 69. Any existing areas of swale, creek and/or channel erosion shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Natural Resources Manager, and other permitting agencies. 70. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low Impact Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific recommendations related to public improvements, site development, utility, and building pad /foundation construction related to the proposed LID improvements. The project soils engineering report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and City Engineering Standards. 71. The final plans and drainage report shall show and note compliance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B for spring or perched groundwater management and for water quality treatment of run-off from impervious streets, drive aisles, parking areas, and trash enclosures. 72. A SWPPP is required in accordance with State and local regulations. A hard copy of the SWPPP shall be provided to the City in conjunction with the Public Improvement Plan submittal and subsequent building plan submittals. The WDID number shall be included by reference on all construction plans sets. An erosion control plan shall be included with the improvement plans and all building plan submittals for demolitions, grading, and new construction. 73. The project development and grading shall comply with all air quality standards and mitigation measures. The developer shall provide written notification from the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations including but not limited to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA). Planning Requirements 74. At the time of submittal of a request for a final map, the subdivider shall provide a written report detailing the methods and techniques employed for complying with all required environmental mitigation measures as adopted herein. 75. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 76. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. Packet Pg. 309 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 36 R ______ 77. 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. Proposed refuse storage area(s) and on -site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/ or easements shall be considered in the final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the HOA and shall be included in the OCR' s or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. The solid waste solutions shall be shown and noted on the submittal(s) for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approvals. 78. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential units, the Architectural Review Commission shall review the residential building program, including building and landscape improvements, and standard fencing detail, and provide comments and recommendations to the Community Development Director. Final architectural design approval authority during review of individual building permits shall be vested in the Community Development Director. 79. Prior to recordation of any phase of the final map, the applicant shall either enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City or verify an Affordable Housing Agreement has already been recorded; which details proposed transfer of affordable units to other parcels, timing of construction of affordable units, and contains guarantees for failure to complete any or all affordable housing units required. 80. The invasive species Tamarisk, commonly known as Salt Cedar, shall be removed from the easterly drainage tangent to Orcutt Road, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. 81. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 82. The subdivider shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings and/ or a phase of buildings. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the Construction Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone numbers. The Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and requirements: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated construction access routes. b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring, c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for materials, equipment, and vehicles. Packet Pg. 310 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 37 R ______ d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to surrounding neighbors. e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise reducing measures: i. Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. ii. All equipment shall have sound- control devices no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un- muffled exhaust pipes; and iii. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent possible. f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity. i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking. 83. The applicant shall explore opportunities to reduce the steepness of the graded slopes along the western property edge (adjacent to the future park) from 2:1 to 3:1 slopes, or less. Improvement and grading plans shall demonstrate how final graded slopes along both the eastern property edge (adjacent to Orcutt Road) and western property edge (adjacent to the future park) would be stabilized, landscaped, and maintained in perpetuity, which is the primary intent of this condition, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 84. Pursuant to Government Code § 66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 85. Conditions relating to phasing and timing of infrastructure are approved as contained herein, or as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors during review of public improvement plans and final maps. 86. Financing and " fair share" contribution plans may be submitted for City Council review with any final map application. The City Council will have sole discretion as to any reimbursement and /or fee credit programs implemented with said final maps. Packet Pg. 311 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 38 R ______ Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 312 9 Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 1 Project Description and Statements Imel Parcel Orcutt Area Specific Plan I. Project Description Ambient Communities is requesting the review and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the “Imel Ranch” property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The property and specific plan area were recently annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo.1 The OASP was approved on March 2, 2010.2 These actions allocated an estimated 17 single family residential homes on the Imel Ranch property.3 The Imel Ranch property is 5.45 acres4 of gently sloping land traversed by two creeks or seasonal drainage channels. The proposed plan is to build eighteen (18) market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range from 5,000 square feet to 9,700 square feet. Most lots are sized in the 5,000 – 7,000 square feet range and the average lot size is 6,280. The proposed lots meet the lot standard requirements of the specific plan.5 The general layout of the proposed map will provide a public street in a looped or horseshoe configuration with a cul-de-sac off the interior lot side of the west arm of the horseshoe. The public street will be designed where the east-west length will provide street parking, but the north-south arms will not. Signs will be posted where there is no parking allowed. Narrower street is one of the ways we 1 Orcutt Area annexed November 16, 2011 2 Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series) 3 See Table A-2 of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan 4 Lot Line Adjustment SLAL 15-0104 reduced the property from 6.49 acres listed in the OASP to 5.45 acres now 5 OASP Policy 3.2.5 and Table 3.1 Packet Pg. 313 9 Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 2 are able to respond to the new requirements for storm water and low impact development to reduce impervious surfaces. Parking provided meets the minimum requirements. The narrow street design without on-street parking is encouraged in the OASP.6 In addition, the Water Quality Control Board Post- Construction Requirements notes, “construct streets, sidewalks, or parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary, provided that public safety or mobility are not compromised.” The Imel Ranch property main natural feature is two creeks or drainage channels, Crotalo Creek and another drainage fork or creek that traverses the property. These areas will be maintained as open space and are protected as valued property features. Appropriate creek setbacks and open space treatment is provided in the site design.7 Some grading will occur in limited locations of creek setbacks (see below). The property has trees scattered in several locations. Most of the trees are identified as non-native (e.g. Eucalyptus, Pepper), some are actually a threat to healthy habitat. The project will require the removal of the two large stands of Eucalyptus trees in the center of the property as well as a small stand in the northwest corner of the property. Several other mostly smaller non-native trees scattered around the property will be removed. There is a large sycamore in the drainage channel on the west side of the property that impedes the necessary creek crossing for the roadway. A qualified arborist has determined the tree to be unhealthy and it will have to be removed. Appropriate mitigation will be provided for the removal of this tree. There are two oak trees at the southeast corner of the property that will be retained, but may require pruning. An arborist will provide guidance with respect to tree mitigation and treatment. The arborist report provides more detail on tree identity and removal and mitigation. Due to the constraints of the creek and drainage locations combined with the topography sloping east to west, a lot line adjustment is needed to push the northern half of the west property line 11 feet further west. This will encroach into the park and occupy about 2,400 square feet. In order to remedy this encroachment, the southern half of the west property line will shift 11 feet to the east and take about 2,400 feet from lots 10 and 11. The end result is no loss of park space. There is currently a lot line adjustment under City review that details this realignment of the west property line. In order to grade lots 1 – 4, and 10 and 11 to level pads, a fill slope will extend into the park. The fill slopes behind lots 1-4, 10, and 11 have been reviewed and approved by the City Parks department. The creek and drainage channel that traverse the property will place some housing, particularly lot 10 and lot 11, in a location where the sewer will possibly have to cross the creek. A sewer line will cross the park property with final routing to be determined in conjunction with the design of final park layout. An easement to cross the park will be recorded. Imel Ranch will create a community that successfully accomplishes the goals and objectives of the OASP. It will provide a new community that brings needed housing to the City while creating a community that 6 OASP Policy 5.6 7 See OASP Figure 2.1 and policy 2.2.1 and policy 2.2.2 and program 2.2.2C et al Packet Pg. 314 9 Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 3 is balanced with the natural setting. The natural beauty will be maintained and protected alongside the new home sites. In addition, Imel Ranch will provide the ability to align “B” Street with Tiburon Road and provide continuity with the neighboring Jones Ranch and Righetti Ranch neighborhoods. The community protects and emphasizes creeks and riparian areas. By focusing the design on balancing and meeting all of the goals and objectives of the OASP, the Imel Ranch project will provide a livable, walkable, desirable community with a unique sense of place for all to enjoy.8 II. Statement of Existing and Proposed Land Use The Imel property consists of single family residential zoning established by the approval of the OASP and annexation of the property into the City of San Luis Obispo. The zoning currently established includes the open space zone covering riparian areas including creek setbacks and R-1 low density zoning. The proposed Ambient Communities Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Imel Ranch will maintain the same zoning and land use as indicated in the OASP. III. Statement of Proposed Landscape Improvements INTRODUCTION The project is designed to meet the intent of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and City of San Luis Obispo standards. The project includes open space adjacent a creek as well as stormwater collection ponds and common landscape areas. The project contains eighteen single family lots. The character of the project is intended to mimic the natural ranch and adjacent creek setting, utilize native and drought-tolerant vegetation, and reduce impacts to the surrounding environment where possible. RESIDENTIAL & COMMON LOT AREAS The landscaping for Imel project area will primarily consist of drought-tolerant trees and shrubs, with riparian species used along the existing creek corridor and within bio-infiltration areas. Turf will be kept within the allowable standards set forth within the City and State of California’s latest Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. Where possible, turf will only be used on a select number of front yards of residences. The design principles for the Imel Property landscaping includes the following: Shrubs • Planting will be located with low groundcover and shrubs in the foreground and layered with higher plants behind. Blank walls will utilize taller vegetation to soften expanses, and low planting will be placed along entries, walkways and driveways. Shrubs will be located to maintain views out of windows. 8 See OASP Section 1.6 Packet Pg. 315 9 Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 4 • Sun and shade preferences will be considered for planting under trees and along building foundations. • Plants will be placed based on their ultimate width at maturity, and shrubs planted under tree canopies will not grow more that 0.75% of the canopy height. • Stormwater treatment areas are proposed amongst the private lots. These areas will treat storm water, and shrubs will consist of riparian species that can tolerate periodic flows and standing water. • Shrub areas adjacent to riparian corridors will transition into each other, and not have abrupt edges designating the zones. Trees • Trees with low root damage potential will be used when planted within 5’ of hardscape elements. • Trees will be placed so that canopies do not extend into buildings or other trees to alleviate the need for future pruning. • Trees should be utilized to provide shading of buildings and parking areas whenever feasible. CREEK OPEN SPACE A centrally located open space for the existing creek is proposed within the project, and it is approximately 0.45 acres in size. The open space will include a pedestrian trail for pedestrians to walk along the creek bank. Lighting will be limited to primary pedestrian entrances and parking areas as needed for security. • Pedestrian Paths: Pedestrian pathways will be provided, and they will be 5 feet wide and will likely be constructed of decomposed granite or concrete. IV. Exceptions from Design Standards The presence of Crotalo Creek and the fork of the creek and the associated creek setbacks and open space requirements create difficulty in the design and configuration of lots and the subdivision of the land. The creek meanders and the setbacks are therefore highly irregular and meandering. This presents many challenges and limitations for lot design and site planning. In addition, the site topography falling from Orcutt Road to the west creates grading and design challenges. The required alignment of “B” Street with Tiburon Way also created intersection alignment and stacking difficulty. Thus some exceptions are being requested with the proposed vesting tentative tract map. Granting these exceptions will be consistent with Section 16.23.020 of the subdivision regulations. Packet Pg. 316 9 Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 5 A. BUILDING HEIGHT 25 FEET IN R-1 ZONE: Building heights in the R-1 zone on the Imel Ranch tract map could exceed 25 feet from existing grade. City ordinance requires height to be measured from the “existing topography” of the site.9 The City Zoning Ordinance defines “existing topography” to be “the topography resulting from grading activity legally permitted in conjunction with subdivision improvements…” which is design grade in a subdivision.10 Additionally, the code allows discretion to the director to allow a house in the R-1 zone to exceed the 25-foot building height limit.11 The building heights in the R-1 could exceed 25 feet so this application will request an adjustment for Houses in the R-1 zone that exceed the 25-feet height limit. The houses will be less than 30 feet. This provides architecture and design flexibility to better meet the design objectives of the OASP. This height exception is not requested for lots 14 and 15 where the structure is limited to single story within the sensitive height setback along Orcutt Road consistent with OASP Program 2.4.1d. Any second story will be outside the scenic setback depicted in the OASP B. GRADING WITHIN CREEK SETBACK: The creek and drainage channel crossing the property present a challenge to locate useable lots. Creek areas and setbacks will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Due to topography and creek locations there will be some grading that occurs within the creek setback, but outside the defined creek areas. Once completed, the disturbed areas will be restored to the satisfaction of the City Natural Resources Manager. In addition, there will be portions of drainage basins and stormwater treatment basins that encroach into the creek setback. This approach has been preliminarily reviewed and accepted by the Natural Resources Manager. C. STORM WATER DETENTION In order to accomplish the peak flow management requirements in the OASP, detention for Imel is proposed using a combination of the following methods: • Onsite detention facilities sized for the 10 year storm to satisfy RWQCB post-construction storm water requirements. This will consist of either above ground shallow detention basins or below ground buried detention chambers12. • “Overdetention” within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel located within Tract 306313. 9 City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.040 10 City of san Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance Section 17.100(E) Definitions – “Existing Topography” 11 City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance Section 17.24.020(C) 12 See Included Letter to Hal Hannula dated June 20, 2016 “Imel Onsite Detention Strategy” 13 See Included Letter to Hal Hannula dated March 11, 2016 “Imel Offsite Detention Strategy and Feasibility” Packet Pg. 317 9 Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 6 D. STREET INTERSECTIONS AND TANGENTS: Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street, the centerline tangent is slightly less than the required 50 feet. Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, there was no way to get the necessary two access points and maintain the centerline tangents. The requirement of the alignment of “B” Street to Tiburon Way as a condition of the Jones Ranch tentative map exacerbates the challenge as it adds curves to “B” Street. Also, where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street, closest to Orcutt Road, is less than 250 feet. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design. However, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance could not be met. As a result, this particular intersection will be restricted to right turn in and right turn out only to mitigate the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. E. REAR YARD: Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10 will require a rear yard setback exception. In each case the reduction is minor and generally only needed for a corner of the home not the entire width of the lot or home. Lot 6 rear yard is constrained due to the realignment of Tiburon Road curving southward. As an offset lot 6 has a larger side yard. Lots 8 and 9 are constrained by the creek behind them and the dimension requirements of the cul de sac. “I” Street is designed to the minimum width to help alleviate the lot setback constraint but cannot get all the way while the driveway and garage setbacks are being met. Lot 10 is pushed back in order to accommodate the turn knuckle on I Street while maintaining front driveway and garage setbacks. V. Low Impact Development The project is subject to the RWQCB Post-construction Stormwater Management Requirements and, as such, will include the following LID components: • Limit disturbance with a 20-foot setback from top of creek banks and riparian vegetation • Minimize impervious surfaces by using the minimum required travel lane width where possible • Direct roof runoff into vegetated areas • Treat stormwater runoff with vegetated biofiltration areas, underground detention chamber filtration (for below ground detention), or Filterra planter boxes (for above ground detention). • Manage peak flows with stormwater detention basins Packet Pg. 318 9 Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 7 VI. Inclusionary Housing The Imel Ranch vesting tentative tract map proposes eighteen (18) housing units of which sixteen (16) will be market rate units. Thus, Imel Ranch will be required to provide three (3) units that meet the OASP affordable housing requirements14. Two units will be provided at moderate income level and one unit at the low income level. These units will be interspersed on the Jones Ranch property via transfer or sharing of units according to the implementation of policy 3.3.3 which allows the cooperation of properties to share the affordable housing responsibility. This will bring the total affordable housing unit sales by Jones Ranch to 20 (9 from Righetti, 3 from Imel and 8 from Jones). The Imel affordable units will be sold throughout the Jones Property with the 8 units Jones Ranch is responsible to provide as affordable and will be located in the R-2 units as two bedroom homes there. The affordable units will be built alongside market rate three bedroom units. The construction and treatment of the affordable units will be the same as the market rate units in the R-2 attached housing product. VII. Architecture Review City subdivision regulations indicate that a Vesting Tentative Tract Map within a specific plan is exempt from the requirement for architecture review15. The intention of this application is to comply with the OASP design guidelines. Consistency with the design guidelines and requesting a vesting tentative tract map with a specific plan exempts this application from architecture review. VIII. Consistent with Current Zoning This request for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is in general conformance with the existing zoning of the OASP and remains the same with the proposed map application. There is no zone change request with this application so the proposed zoning is the same as the existing R1 zoning for the subdivided property. IX. Status of Approvals from other Agencies Applications to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been submitted. We can provide those at your request if needed prior to the CEQA review process. 14 OASP Policy 3.3.2 15 Subdivision Regulations Section 16.12.020(B)(1); Page 32 of City of SLO Subdivision Regulations Packet Pg. 319 9 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3209 xx1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3219 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3229 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3239 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3249 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3259 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3269 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3279 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3289 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3299 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3309 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3319 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3329 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3339 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3349 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3359 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3369 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 3379 Minutes - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 25, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Daniel Knight, John Larson, Ronald Malak, and Chair Charles Stevenson Absent: Vice-Chair Fowler Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over preservation of the environment and proper vetting of proposed projects. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. 3580 Sueldo Street. USE 4117-2016: Request to establish a new Air Vehicle Research and Development Service land use within the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-S-SP zone; Volny Construction, Inc., applicant. Deputy Director Doug Davidson presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Applicant Dan Rutledge stated agreement with the conditions of approval presented by staff. Packet Pg. 338 9 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 2017 Page 2 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LARSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, to adopt the Draft Resolution that allows the approval of the Industrial Research and Development use within the C-S zone, subject to findings and conditions of approval. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: BISHEFF, DANDEKAR, KNIGHT, LARSON, MALAK, AND, CHAIR STEVENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: VICE-CHAIR FOWLER 2. 3777 Orcutt Road. SBDV-2586-2016: Request to establish a 23-lot Vesting Tentative Tract Map Subdivision (Tract 3095) including 18 residential lots for the development of 18 single-family homes, two lots to support onsite detention basins, and three open space lots, and consideration of an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project would require the removal of mature trees, and includes the following exceptions: road design exception to allow a reduced centerline tangent of 48.25 feet (50 feet is the standard requirement); residential structure height exceptions on non- sensitive lots up to five feet above the standard allowed height (25 feet), resulting in structures up to 30 feet in height; temporary grading (and restoration) and permanent grading and construction of drainage and stormwater treatment basins within the 20- foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet for proposed Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 (residential development standards require a rear setback of 20 feet for residences and five feet for garages/carports). The project is located within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; R-1-SP and C/OS-SP zones; Ambient Communities, applicant. Associate Planner Shawna Scott presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation; responded to Commission inquires. Applicant Travis Fuentes, Ambient Communities and Cannon representative Todd Smith presented project background information. Commissioner questions followed. Public Comments: David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, protested tree removal due to concerns over replacement trees not having sufficient time to mature with rapid climate changes. Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo, commented on the impacts the proposed tree removals would have on monarch butterfly habitats; urged commission to require a Tree Committee hearing. Packet Pg. 339 9 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 2017 Page 3 Lisa Combs, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the housing crisis and rising prices of homes; voiced support for the project. Julie Jones, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project neighboring her property. Sarah Flickinger, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to recommend a Tree Committee hearing for valuable input. --End of Public Comment— Commission discussion continued regarding the requested height exceptions and tree removal. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere commented on the requests for a Tree Committee hearing, stating the terms under which a project would require a hearing by the Tree Committee; stated a request for peer review in this instance would be a deviation from standard process. Upon request by Chair Stevenson, City Arborist Ron Combs offered information regarding the positive and negative aspects of the eucalyptus trees on site. Chair Stevenson reopened the public comment period. Applicant Travis Fuentes, clarified the intent of the proposed tree removal is to clear out the expanded portions of the original grove, eliminate the unhealthy trees damaged by the drought, and create compliance with fire requirements for defensible space. --End of Public Comment-- Natural Resources Manager Robert Hill stated his involvement in the review of this project; commented on the protection of the native sycamore trees on-site; provided the merits and impacts of the eucalyptus trees on-site. Following Commission discussion regarding mitigations and height exceptions, Chair Stevenson opened for public comment. Applicant Travis Fuentes expressed appreciation for Commission’s willingness to consider height flexibility; stated preference for one blanket height exception versus several different height exceptions. --End of Public Comment-- ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KNIGHT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, to approve a height exception of 27 feet with lots 1 – 4, lots 10 -11, and lots 14-15 not to exceed 25 feet. Motion passed 6-0-1 on the following roll call vote: Packet Pg. 340 9 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 2017 Page 4 AYES: BISHEFF, DANDEKAR, KNIGHT, LARSON, MALAK, AND, CHAIR STEVENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: VICE-CHAIR FOWLER ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KNIGHT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, CARRIED 6-0-1 to adopt the Draft Resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 and adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following modifications: 1. Revise mitigation measure CR-1(d) to include an archeological monitoring plan. 2. Include a condition per direction that where possible, reduce graded slopes, and if it is not possible, require a very specific approach for slope stabilization, to be determined by staff. 3. Revise mitigation measure AQ-1(a) by deleting the requirement for energy efficiency 10% beyond Title 24 standards to reflect current standards. 4. Include a requirement for architectural review of a standard fencing detail. AYES: BISHEFF, DANDEKAR, KNIGHT, LARSON, MALAK, AND, CHAIR STEVENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: VICE-CHAIR FOWLER Commissioner Knight left the dais for the remainder of the meeting due to personal matters. Commissioner Larson recused from Item 3 based on his employer’s involvement in the project. Commission recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. with 4 members present. 3. 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER 1502-2015: Continuation of the January 11, 2017 Planning Commission hearing to receive additional public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the San Luis Ranch Development Project during the 45-day public review period (Note: comment period extended 7 days, through January 30, 2017). This meeting is an opportunity for City and consultant staffs to gather information from the public regarding the analysis and findings of the Draft EIR. The project includes plans for development of the area identified as the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Development plans for the site include up to 580 residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial development, 100,000 square feet of office development, a 200-room hotel, and portions of the site to remain open space for agriculture and open-space. Project Packet Pg. 341 9 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 2017 Page 5 construction is planned in six phases; Land Use Element designated Specific Plan Area SP-2 (San Luis Ranch); San Luis Ranch, LLC, applicant. Project planner John Rickenbach briefly updated the public on the status of the project. Public Comment: David Gibbs, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project and offered opinion on the historical context of the property. Steven Marx, San Luis Obispo, representing Central Coast Grown, stated his involvement in discussions regarding pending grading plan improvements. Michael Manchek, Economic Vitality Organization, San Luis Obispo, requested more workforce housing and provided information regarding studies involving industry clusters as they relate to affordable housing and cost of living. Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo, stated concerns regarding lack of mitigations to protect natural habitats, noting the project is inconsistent with state planning law. Kevin Hauber, Mortgage House, San Luis Obispo, commented on the need for affordable energy-efficient homes, voicing support for the project. Katherine Schneid, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to support affordable housing; voiced support for the project. Theodora Jones, San Luis Obispo, commented on the proposed mitigations; voiced concerns with traffic impacts on and adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road; suggested the eucalyptus trees remain in place throughout the construction of the project Zoya Dixon, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with traffic impacts, insufficient pedestrian access; requested additional mitigation efforts. Leah Brooks, San Luis Obispo, representing Bike SLO County, voiced concerns with traffic impacts and insufficient connectivity for bicyclists. Myron Amerine, San Luis Obispo, commented on the eucalyptus trees positive contribution to the environment; requested more efficient connectivity. Hanz Boeschman, San Luis Obispo, voiced general support for the project; requested more workforce and affordable housing in the area. Mason Wells, San Luis Obispo, voiced general support for the project; stated concerns over traffic impacts and suggested further consideration be given to alternatives. Packet Pg. 342 9 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 2017 Page 6 Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, stated concerns over insufficient natural resources to sustain the proposed development; requested reconsideration of parking provisions; voiced concerns regarding traffic impacts, insufficient noise mitigations, tree removal, loss of agricultural land, disproportionate provisions of affordable housing, and inadequate pedestrian access; provided written comments for the record. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, inquired about affordability of proposed housing, preparation for climate changes; voiced concerns over insufficient parking. Sarah Flickinger, San Luis Obispo, representing Los Verdes Parks Neighborhoods, submitted written correspondence for the record; voiced concerns regarding an extended right-hand turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road to South Higuera Street conflicting with a settlement agreement; urged the Commission to consider pedestrian access and safe pathways for bicyclists, specifically for the students who frequently pass through the area; requested additional mitigations to alleviate traffic impacts. Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to removal of prime topsoil and suggested the City utilize an underground tunnel to preserve agricultural land; urged the Commission to consider the broad economic and environmental impacts. --End of Public Comment— Commission discussion followed, requesting alternatives relative to traffic mitigations, pedestrian access, greater analysis of impacts to surrounding school zones, clarification on language regarding impacts on water supply, and mitigations to protect the agricultural buffers. Commissioners will submit written comments and questions to staff. Chair Stevenson invited the public to submit written correspondence and questions regarding the draft EIR by January 30th. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Davidson provided information on a Downtown Concept Plan workshop and an agenda forecast for the month of February. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 343 9 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 and associated exceptions, tree removals, and improvements to create 18 residential lots, two detention basin lots, and three open space lots on the Imel Ranch property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which tiers off the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). PROJECT ADDRESS: 3777 Orcutt Road BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Phone: 781-7176 e-mail: sscott@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: SBDV/ER-2586-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) #3095 and adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment 1, Draft Resolution and Attachment 5, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). SITE DATA Applicant Travis Fuentes, Dante Anselmo Ambient Communities Representative Todd Smith, Cannon Associates Zoning R‐1‐SP, C/OS‐SP General Plan Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), Low Density Residential Site Area 5.49 acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration tiering off the OASP Final EIR (certified 2010). SUMMARY The applicant, Ambient Communities, is requesting approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) #3095 on property identified as Imel Ranch (the project site) in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), which would create 23 lots including: 18 residential lots, two lots to support onsite detention basins, and three open space lots. The project includes: mature tree removals; road design exception; residential structure height exceptions on identified lots; grading and construction within the 20-foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks on specified lots. Meeting Date: January 25, 2017 Item Number: 1 Packet Pg. 344 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s role is to make recommendations to the City Council on the applicant’s proposal, including identified exceptions and tree removals, and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The OASP and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The OASP designated the project site for residential development, including 16-17 single- family residential homes. The project site (as part of the overall Specific Plan area) was annexed into the City in 2012. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project tiers off the certified OASP FEIR and addresses any potential impacts not previously assessed in the FEIR. 2.1 Site Information/Setting The Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) includes 230.85 acres located in the southeastern portion of the City, bounded by Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks near Bullock Lane. Imel Ranch (the subject site) is located within and along the eastern edge of the OASP, immediately west of Orcutt Road, opposite from Tiburon Road. Recent subdivision approvals within the OASP include Jones Ranch VTM #3066 (approved May 19, 2015) to the immediate northwest and Righetti Ranch VTM #3063 (approved May 19, 2015) to the west and south. Imel Ranch includes 5.49 acres of gently sloping land traversed by two seasonal creeks (one named “Crotalo Creek”, the other is unnamed). Existing vacant non-historic residential and accessory structures would be removed from the site. Onsite vegetation includes non-native annual grassland, eucalyptus stands, sycamore, oak, and pepper trees, and riparian woodland. Lands surrounding the property are largely undeveloped within the City (with the few exceptions of sporadic homestead lots and homes). Figure 1. Project Site (Imel) and proximate Jones and Righetti subdivisions Jones Righetti Imel Packet Pg. 345 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 3 2.2 Project Description The proposed plan is to build 18 market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each (Lots 1 through 18). Two lots 0.25 and 0.13 acres each are proposed within the southern and western portions of the project site (Lots 19 and 20), which would support above or below ground detention basins. Two centrally-located open space parcels (Lots 21 and 22, approximately 0.51 and 0.15 acres each) for the existing (“unnamed”) creek and associated pedestrian trail are proposed within the project. A third approximately 0.83-acre open space lot (Lot 23) along the Crotalo Creek corridor is provided in the site design. Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots. A total of three affordable housing units are required, which are proposed to be transferred from the Imel Ranch project (VTM #3095) to Jones Ranch (Tract 3066). The applicant for Imel Ranch, Ambient Communities, is the same developer for Jones Ranch; therefore, sharing of these affordable units can be considered. The project includes the following exceptions: road design exception to allow a reduced centerline tangent of 48.25 feet (50 feet is the standard requirement); residential structure height exceptions on specified lots up to five feet above the standard allowed height (25 feet), resulting in structures up to 30 feet in height; temporary grading (and restoration) and permanent grading and construction of drainage and stormwater treatment basins within the 20-foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet for proposed Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 (residential development standards require a rear setback of 20 feet for residences and five feet for garages/carports). Additional key elements of the project include the following: 1) Site grading to accommodate the residential subdivision, resulting in the need to “export” excess cut material (proposed to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision, VTM #3063). In addition, residential pad grading along the western property boundary (Lots 1 through 4, 10, and 11) would require a fill slope that will extend into the adjacent “Neighborhood Park” lot. 2) The removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non-native trees. One large sycamore tree located near the “I” Road creek crossing that was initially proposed for removal to accommodate necessary internal circulation would be retained through engineered design (refer to Condition of Approval 30). 3) Other associated site improvements including “I” Street, on and offsite utility extensions, lighting, and landscaping. 4) Offsite road improvements including B Street and Orcutt Road, as identified in the OASP (in the event these improvements are not constructed in association with previously approved Jones Ranch and Righetti Tract Maps). 5) Onsite above ground shallow detention basins or below ground buried detention chambers, which would partially extend into the 20-foot creek setback. “Over-detention” is proposed within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel Ranch, located within Righetti Tract 3063. Additional information regarding the project is available in the Applicant’s Project Description (Attachment 2), VTM plan set (Attachment 3), and Staff’s Expanded Analysis (Attachment 4). Packet Pg. 346 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 4 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project analysis summarized below focuses on the project’s consistency with the OASP and requested exceptions. An Expanded Staff Analysis is available as Attachment 4 to this Agenda Report. 3.1 OASP Chapter 2: Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation OASP Chapter 2 policies focus on protection of Righetti Hill, creeks, wetland habitats, and visual resources, while introducing a variety of parks and recreational uses for the residents of the Orcutt area. Policies 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 designate specific areas for creeks, wetlands, mitigation areas and riparian open space as a part of the overall OASP, comprising approximately 19 acres. The proposed project includes three open space lots totaling 1.49 acres located along the unnamed creek and Crotalo Creek corridors (see Figure 2. Proposed Open Space Lots below). Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots, and are subject to the City’s Creek and Drainage Design Manual.1 The applicant’s project description includes the development of five-foot wide pedestrian pathways within the C/OS zone encompassing the creek, consistent with the OASP.2 Figure 2. Proposed Open Space Lots (shown in green) 1 Program 2.2.4b: All bridges, culverts, and modifications to the existing creek channels will comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual (DDM) and applicable City policies with consultation and approval from the Director of Public Works. Additional permits may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and [Wildlife]. Project proponent will provide proof of consultation and copies of necessary permits to the City Community Development Director. 2 Policy 2.2.5 notes that some trails will be located parallel to creeks, and may be placed in the outer perimeter of the creek setback. Packet Pg. 347 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 5 The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development.3 Grading and development within the creek setback requires approval of a creek setback exception, and adoption of findings (see Attachment 1, Findings).4 Proposed uses within the creek setback are limited to drainage and stormwater features, which would not include structures or paving, and would be designed as approved by Public Works. A road crossing over the unnamed creek is also required to provide adequate internal circulation. The applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of disturbance within the 20-foot setback. Permanent improvements within the creek setback include drainage basins (0.38 acre), which are required to be designed to support wetlands characteristics pursuant to Policy 2.2.6. The proposed creek crossing (0.08 acre of permanent disturbance within the creek setback) with an open bottom culvert structure is allowed via Policy 2.2.3. Approximately 0.12 acre within the creek setback would be restored for use as stormwater treatment basins and associated easements. The remaining 0.02 acre would be temporarily disturbed and restored. Consistent with Program 2.2.3a, riparian enhancement along the creek corridors is required, in addition to compliance with mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR.5 Staff supports the applicant’s creek setback exception request because proposed actions are limited to temporary grading and restoration, and necessary drainage/stormwater and internal access improvements, and would comply with OASP policies and mitigation measures outlined above (also refer to Attachment 1, Findings). In addition, final grading and improvement plans would be reviewed and approved by Public Works staff and the Natural Resources Manager prior to development. The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non- native trees, and the pruning of two mature oak trees. The tree removals are proposed as part of the tract improvements; therefore, this issue is within the Planning Commission’s purview. Staff supports the necessary tree removal, as native oak and sycamore trees would be retained onsite and non-native trees would be removed and replaced with native trees at a 2 to 1 ratio.6 While the environmental analysis assumed the removal of one large sycamore tree near the “I” Road creek crossing, the applicant has been working with the City Arborist and Public Works staff towards an engineered solution that maintains roadway standards and preserves the sycamore tree.7 If the tree cannot be retained through final engineering design, the loss shall be mitigated at a minimum 4:1 ratio, onsite (see Mitigation Measure B-2(d) and B-3(a)).8 Regarding recreation, the OASP does not establish any public park areas on the project site; therefore, this project will contribute to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) required by the OASP, in the form of fee payments to contribute their fair share to improvements constructed on other properties in the Orcutt Planning Area. OASP regional park facilities would be accessible to future residents via internal roadways and bicycle and pedestrian paths. 3 Program 2.2.2a 4 As required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025.G.d Discretionary Exceptions 5 See OASP Mitigation Measures B-4(a) Trail Setbacks; B-4(b) Development Setbacks; B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland Mitigation; D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan; D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization; and D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting 6 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-3(a) 7 See OASP Mitigation Measures Trees B-3(a) Construction Requirements; B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Width 8 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-2(d) Special-status Species CDFG [CDFW]-approved Mitigation Plan, as amended Packet Pg. 348 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 6 3.2 OASP Chapter 3: Land Use and Development Standards Proposed VTM #3095 includes low density residential uses and open space as required by the OASP. Density assigned to Imel Ranch under the OASP called for between 16-17 residential units; at 18 units, the project is substantially consistent with projected residential densities.9 The project would comply with the cumulative density anticipated in the OASP, which ranges from 892 to 979 residential units.10 For reference, previously approved tracts would provide 304 (Righetti) and 66 (Jones) residential units. Consistent with Policy 3.2.511, the R-1 lots range in size from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each. City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R-1 zone, and structures up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit and adoption of specific findings (see Attachment 1, Findings).12 The applicant is requesting allowance of structures up to 30 feet in height on all residential lots except Lots 14 and 15. The applicant is requesting the height exception request in order to provide for additional flexibility to better meet design standards identified in OASP Chapter 4, Community Design. Regarding visual resources, proposed Lots 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are located adjacent to Orcutt Road and are considered “sensitive” by the OASP; development of these lots require architectural review. Staff supports the applicant’s request because the project would not block views of Righetti Hill (see Attachment 3 Line of Sight Righetti Hill) and the project would not include two-story structures within 50 feet of the eastern property line, consistent with the OASP.13 The applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing requirements identified in OASP Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.214 by providing two moderate-income units and one low-income level unit on Jones Ranch.15 These three units would be located alongside R-2 market-rate three bedroom units. Similar to the previously-approved Jones and Righetti Ranch subdivisions within the OASP, conditions would be included to require the preparation and approval of an “Affordable Housing Agreement” by the City Council, to document the timing, guarantees and related details of the affordable housing program, to be required as a part of presentation of the initial Final Map for recordation (see Condition 79). It should be noted that the applicant is subdividing several other tracts within the OASP and that, in order to partially satisfy its inclusionary housing requirements for these tracts, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a portion of property on a portion of the “Pratt Property” to People’s Self Help Housing in accordance with OASP Policy 3.3.4. Although this proposal is not directly related to VTM #3095, it is important for the Commission to know how these units fit within the applicant’s entire scheme for the provision of affordable housing. 9 Policy 3.1d notes that new subdivisions shall be designed to achieve at least the low range of units 10 OASP Table A-2 Development Potential by Landowner 11 Policy 3.2.5 identifies a range of R-1 lot sizes from 4,500 to 15,000 square feet 12 Required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.040 (Height) and 17.58.040 (Findings to Grant a Use Permit) 13 Program 2.4.1d 14 Policy 3.3.2 requires minimum 10% moderate income and 5% low income affordable dwelling units 15 Policy 3.3.3: “To promote reasonable efficiency a project developer may coordinate with another Orcutt Area property owner or developer to provide the required affordable dwelling units when the units proposed are less than 10.” Packet Pg. 349 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 7 3.3 OASP Chapter 4: Community Design OASP Community Design Policies express a desire for a compatible mix of architectural designs, and include design standards for R-1 districts. Roadway and lot configurations consistent with the OASP are designed to encourage pedestrian connections and accessibility within the Orcutt neighborhoods as an alternate to vehicle use. The proposed project meets these objectives for both internal circulation, and provide for Specific-Plan-regional linkages for the overall Plan area. The applicant requests rear lot setback exceptions specific to: Lot 6 (15.87 feet), Lot 8 (18.75 feet), Lot 9 (6.6 feet), and Lot 10 (17.77 feet). Granting rear lot setback exceptions for the specified lots require adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment 1, Findings).16 The rear setback identified in OASP Table 3.1 Residential Development Standards is 20 feet for the house, and 0-5 feet for garages and carports. The reasons for the rear lot setback exceptions include resource constraints due to two creeks traversing the project site and to allow for adequate internal circulation and meet required street yard setbacks. In other words, in order for the developer to adequately build the previously-approved extension of Tiburon Road (“B Street”) and proposed cul-de-sac, meet minimum width standards for “I Street”, comply with OASP front setback standards, and maintain adequate creek setbacks, a rear yard setback exception is necessary. Moreover, these lots each back-up to either “B Street” (Lot 6), the unnamed creek (Lots 8 and 9), or future parkland (Lot 10), all of which functionally serve as additional setback from other structures. Staff supports the applicant’s request based on the constraints summarized above; in addition, based on the location of these lots, the reduced rear setback would not reduce solar exposure or affect other residential lots.17 Architectural plans have not been provided; however, all residential development will comply with the OASP Design Guidelines at the time of future construction. Staff recommends that due to the presence of “sensitive” lots adjacent to Orcutt Road, and the potential construction of residences up to 30 feet in height (if the requested exception is approved), these identified lots should be subject to the public architectural review process, allowing for heightened levels of public review and comment on proposed architectural plans. In response to the applicant’s request, staff is recommending a process under Condition #78 that would allow ARC review and comment on a series of “model unit” buildings and landscaping designs. This process would provide an opportunity for public comment on the model units, and allow the Community Development Director to make final determinations on building design based on this input from the ARC. 3.4 OASP Chapter 5: Circulation On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as “I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering 16 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section 16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map 17 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020.E.2.c Variable Other Yards in Subdivisions. Packet Pg. 350 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 8 Standards (January 1, 2016).18 In other words, the standards require 50 feet of straight roadway at each intersection approach. Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to City Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Granting this road design exception requires adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment 1, Findings).19 Based on review by Public Works, staff supports this exception request because the property is affected by topographic and natural conditions, the request is minor (difference of 1.75 feet), and would not result in a public health, safety, or welfare hazard (see Attachment 1, Findings). Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual, which provides federal standards for safe access. The City applies the standards identified in this Manual until such time that a local access management policy is adopted pursuant to Circulation Element Policy 7.2.7 Traffic Access Management. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design; however, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this particular intersection will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn restrictions would be accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island, which is supported by City Public Works staff. 3.5 OASP Chapters 6 and 7: Public Utilities and Services The preliminary on-site infrastructure plans proposed for VTM #3095 have been reviewed by engineering, public works, and utilities staff and are adequate for serving the proposed project. Policies directed at meeting fire codes, law enforcement, health, maintenance, transportation and recycling will be applied to any project approvals, consistent with City codes and regulations as outlined in the OASP.20 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the original 2010 OASP Final EIR (FEIR) and an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared and circulated in December 2016, which analyzes the more unique and detailed components of the proposed project (refer to Attachment 5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). CEQA allows building upon or “tiering” subsequent environmental review from an earlier EIR, and in this case the IS/MND has been presented. The applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures previously adopted upon certification of the 2010 FEIR, and all additional and modified mitigation 18 All streets shall intersect other streets at right angles, and shall have at least 50 feet of centerline tangent, as measured from the prolongation of the cross-street property line to the angle point or beginning of curve. 19 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section 16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map 20 See OASP Chapter 7 Public Services Packet Pg. 351 9 SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch) Page 9 measures that are proposed specific to this project. Both the FEIR and subsequent IS/MND shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Staff comments provided during review of the proposed project are incorporated into the presented evaluation and conditions of approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Recommend the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095. Staff does not recommend this alternative, because the project complies with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and would help meet the City’s housing objectives. Findings of the Planning Commission concerning such a recommendation would require development of findings to support the recommendation. 6.2 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Draft Resolution for Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 2. Applicant’s Project Description 3. Project Plans 4. Staff’s Expanded Analysis 5. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Note: attachments to the Initial Study are available online at <http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1889> or by contacting Shawna Scott, Associate Planner at 805-781-7176). 11 x 17 Plan Set Available to Planning Commissioners for Review. Packet Pg. 352 9 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY-MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3095 AND GRANT EXCEPTIONS FOR HEIGHT (EXCLUDING LOTS 14 AND 15), ROAD DESIGN, REAR YARD SETBACKS (LIMITED TO LOTS 6, 8, 9 AND 10), AND GRADING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES WITHIN THE CREEK SETBACK (SBDV/ER-2586-2016) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on January 25, 2017 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering SBDV-2586-2016, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 5.49-acre site into 23 lots; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) analyzing the proposed vesting tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following CEQA findings in support of the project: a) The proposed project, as conditioned herein, is consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified and adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and this action incorporates those FEIR mitigation measures as detailed herein. b) A supplemental initial study has been prepared for the project, which addresses potential environmental impacts which were not identified or detailed in the FEIR for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The Community Development Director has recommended that the results of that additional analysis be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of additional mitigation measures to those imposed by the FEIR, all of which are incorporated below. Packet Pg. 353 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 c) All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR and IS/MND, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the mitigation monitoring program: Aesthetics AES-3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas. Lighting shall be shielded as shown in the Specific Plan and directed downward. Lighting shall not be mounted more than 16 feet high. Streetlights, where they are included, shall be primarily for pedestrian safety, and shall not provide widespread illumination unless necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Street lighting should focus on intersections and should be placed between intersections only when it is necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Trail lighting shall be at a scale appropriate for pedestrians, utilizing bollards, although overhead lighting may be used where vandalism of bollard lights is a concern. Prior to development of individual lots, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans and shall demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect nearby residential areas. AES-3(a) Monitoring Program: Compliance with lighting standards shall be shown on all tract and residential construction drawings, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. Air Quality Operational Phase Mitigation AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy-conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double-paned windows. Final building construction plans will include needed solar conduits required for each residential unit for installing a roof-mounted solar system, at the option of each owner. AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and tele-learning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home. AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. Packet Pg. 354 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 AQ-1(a, d, e) Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings, and confirmed by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. Construction Phase Mitigation AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, or for all projects, regardless of the size of ground disturbance, when that disturbance would be conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors.  Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction.  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications.  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed off- road diesel is acceptable).  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Installations must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.  Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.  Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of on-road heavy-duty equipment and trucks that meet the ARB's 1998 or newer certification standard for on-road heavy- duty diesel engines.  All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit. AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction:  Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.  Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible.  All dirt-stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.  Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following Packet Pg. 355 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 completion of any soil disturbing activities.  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.  Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin. AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off- site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. AIR-1 Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp. AIR-2 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could Packet Pg. 356 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 be encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: 1) notification to the APCD, 2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on Asbestos can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php. AQ-3(a-d), AIR-1, and AIR-2 Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to comply with existing regulations and secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) before the onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. Biological Resources B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer. Where special-status plants are found, site development plans shall be modified to avoid such occurrences with a minimum buffer of 50 feet. The applicant seeking entitlement shall establish conservation easements for such preserved areas, prior to issuance of the first building permit for subsequent tracts. The Specific Plan shall be amended at that time to place these areas formally into open space, possibly as an overlay area. If total avoidance is economically or technologically infeasible then plants shall be salvaged and relocated under direction of an approved botanist, in accordance with Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f). If total avoidance can be achieved, Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. (It should be noted that avoidance is likely to be more cost effective in the long run compared to mitigation in the form of salvage and relocation). If total avoidance of special-status plant species can be achieved through Mitigation Measure B-2(b), Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. B-2(c) Incidental Take Permit. In the event that state listed species are discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall submit to the City signed copies of an incidental take permit and enacting agreements from the CDFG regarding those species as necessary under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code prior to the initiation of grading. If a plant species that is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act is discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, inclusive as necessary of signed copies of incidental take permit and associated enacting agreements, to the City prior to the initiation of grading. Packet Pg. 357 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 B-2(b, c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-2(d) Special-Status Species CDFG-Approved Mitigation Plan. If total avoidance of the species occurrences is economically or technologically infeasible, a mitigation program shall be developed by the City in consultation with CDFG as appropriate. A research study to determine the best mitigation approach for each particular species to be salvaged shall be conducted. The special-status plant species mitigation program may include the following:  The overall goal and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring plan;  Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.  Potential sites for mitigation would be any suitable site within proposed open space depending on the species that is appropriately buffered from development. For a list of suitable habitats for the mitigation of each species refer to the list in Mitigation Measure B-2(a).  Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long- term maintenance and protection of the special-status plant species to be included, including 4:1 in-kind replacement of removed native (i.e. oak and sycamore) trees, (i.e.: annual population census surveys and habitat assessments; establishment of monitoring reference sites; fencing of special-status plant species preserves and signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; a seasonally timed weed abatement program; and seasonally-timed seed and/or topsoil collection, propagation, and reintroduction of special-status plant species into specified receiver sites);  Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viable population(s) on the project site in perpetuity;  An education program to inform residents of the presence of special-status plant species and sensitive biological resources on-site, and to provide methods that residents can employ to reduce impacts to these species/resources in protected open space areas;  Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods used by monitoring personnel; and  Funding mechanism. B-2(e) Special-Status Plant Monitoring Frequency. Monitoring shall occur annually and shall last at least five years to ensure successful establishment of all re-introduced or salvaged plants and no-net-loss of the species or its habitat. In the case of annual plants it is difficult to determine if there has been a net loss or gain in a five year period. Therefore an important component of the mitigation and monitoring plan shall be adaptive management. The adaptive management program shall address both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances relating to the preservation and mitigation programs. The plan shall include follow up surveys every five years in perpetuity or until a Packet Pg. 358 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 7 qualified biologist can demonstrate that the target special-status species has not experienced a net loss. It shall also include remedial measures to address negative impacts to the special-status plant species and their habitats (i.e.: removal of weeds, addition of seeding/planting efforts) if the species is suffering a net loss at the time of the follow up surveys. B-2(f) Special-Status Species Habitat Replacement. The primary goal of the mitigation and monitoring plan is to ensure a viable population and no-net-loss of special-status species habitat within the project site. To ensure the no-net-loss of a species, the applicant shall create two acres of occupied special-status species habitat for every one acre of habitat impacted by project development. If resource agencies require a higher replacement ratio than 2:1, their requirements would prevail. The creation of habitat can occur in conjunction with the mitigation/relocation of wildflower field habitat if the research study indicates that the wildflower field and specific special-status plant species can be relocated and cohabitate. B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey. If occurrences of native perennial bunchgrass habitat of 0.5 acre or greater containing at least 10% or greater coverage of native perennial bunchgrass are found that area shall be placed in open space and a deed restriction placed over the area to protect it in perpetuity. If the area cannot be avoided for economical or technological reasons, then native grasses including perennial bunchgrasses shall be incorporated into the landscaping plant palette and the erosion control plan to replace the lost habitat. The most effective areas to receive native grass seed are graded areas that will be revegetated adjacent to open space. The acreage ratio of lost native perennial bunchgrass habitat to habitat replaced shall be no less than 1:1. Native perennial bunchgrass material shall come from locally collected seed stock to avoid contamination of the local gene pool. Because perennial bunchgrasses grow slowly at first, a “nurse” crop consisting of Nuttall’s fescue (Vulpia microstachys), California brome (Bromus carinatus), and pinpoint clover (Trifolium gracilentum) shall be added to the mix to stabilize any graded areas while the bunchgrasses become established. No non-native invasive plant species shall be used in landscaping. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains a list of the most important invasive plants to avoid. This list shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping. Planting equipment (i.e.: hydroseeding tank and dispensing mechanism) shall be cleaned of remaining seed from previous applications prior to use on-site. The hydroseed applicator shall be responsible for ensuring tanks have been properly cleaned of any seed that is not a part of the specified mix. Additional clarifying mitigation as recommended by applicant’s biologist (Rincon August 2014): Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of valley needlegrass grassland habitat shall be outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for this sensitive resource. This Plan will be approved by the City prior to its implementation and shall include the following:  Overall goals and measurable plan objectives,  Identification of specific areas for mitigation, Packet Pg. 359 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8  Specific habitat management and protection concepts that will be used to ensure the long term maintenance and continued protection of valley needlegrass grassland habitat,  Success criteria to be met,  An education program for residents,  Reporting requirements, and  Identification of funding mechanisms. The valley needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas shall be monitored annually for at least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this sensitive habitat has been achieved. To ensure no-net-loss of valley needlegrass grassland habitat, the applicant shall create one acre of mitigation habitat for every one acre of valley needlegrass grassland habitat impacted by implementation of the project. A copy of all permits, or other correspondence stating that no permit is necessary, shall be filed with the City prior to project implementation. The City shall ensure that all the required documentation is received prior to initiation of construction activities and shall oversee implementation of the Valley Needlegrass Grassland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Likewise, the City shall ensure that all the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures prescribed are fully implemented. B-2(d-g) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Trees (OASP) B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Removal of native trees, including sycamore and oak trees, shall require a minimum 4:1 replacement ratio, to be incorporated into the Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan and Five-Year Monitoring Plan. B-3(a) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Packet Pg. 360 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 9 Riparian Woodland and Wetland Habitat (OASP) B-4(a) Trail Setbacks. Trails shall be setback out of riparian habitat and out of the buffer area. The trail shall be a minimum distance of 20 feet from top of bank or from the edge of riparian canopy, whichever is farther. Trails shall be setback from wetland habitat at a minimum distance of 30 feet and shall not be within the buffer. Native plant species that will deter human disturbance shall be planted in the area between the trail and the wetland/riparian habitat including plants such as California rose (Rosa californica) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). No passive recreational use shall be allowed in the riparian or wetland habitats or drainage corridors. B-4(b) Development Setbacks. Development that abuts riparian and wetland mitigation areas shall also be setback at least 20 feet, and be buffered by an appropriately-sized fence and/or plants that deter human entry listed in BIO-4(a). B-4(c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and/or wetland habitat are proposed for removal pursuant to development under the Specific Plan, such development shall apply for all applicable permits and submit a Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance to wetlands and/or riparian habitat. The plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on- site using regionally collected native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat created to habitat impacted) in areas shown on FEIR Figure 4.4-2 as directed by a biologist. The resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional Basin is necessary as a mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be designed as directed by a biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and erosion control and using the final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out of the buffer area for riparian and wetland habitat. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components: 1) Description of the project/impact site (i.e.: location, responsible parties, jurisdictional areas to be filled/impacted by habitat type); 2) goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved); 3) description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation-site); 4) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan); 5) maintenance activities during the monitoring period (activities, responsible parties, schedule); 6) monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (performance standards, target functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional and Packet Pg. 361 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 10 nonjurisdictional acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports); 7) completion of compensatory mitigation (notification of completion, agency confirmation); and 8) contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism). In addition, erosion control and landscaping specifications included in the mitigation plan shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. B-4(a-c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. The Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Impacts to Wildlife (OASP) B-5(a) Bird Pre-Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to nesting special-status bird species and raptors including the groundnesting burrowing owl, all initial ground- disturbing activities and tree removal shall be limited to the time period between September 15 and February 1. If initial site disturbance, grading, and tree removal cannot be conducted during this time period, a pre-construction survey for active nests within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site no more than 30 days prior to the start of any construction activities (for ground-nesting burrowing owl survey [OASP FEIR]). If active nests are located, all construction work must be conducted outside a buffer zone of 250 feet to 500 feet from the nests as determined in consultation with the CDFG. No direct disturbance to nests shall occur until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to the start of construction. B-5(c) Monarch Pre-Construction Survey. If initial ground-breaking is to occur between the months of October and March a preconstruction survey for active monarch roost sites within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities. If active roost sites are located no ground- disturbing activities shall occur within 50 feet of the perimeter of the habitat. Construction shall not resume within the setback until a qualified biologist has determined that the monarch butterfly has vacated the site. Packet Pg. 362 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 11 B-5(a, c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. The Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required pre- construction survey reports. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths. Roadway widths adjacent to riparian and wetland habitats may be reduced to the minimum width possible, while maintaining Fire Department Requirements for emergency access, with slower speed limits introduced. Posted speed limits should be 25 mph. B-6(b) Culvert Design. Although closed culverts are to be the drainage conveyance method of last resort per the City Waterways Management Plan, where they are required, culverts connecting the Plan Area drainage corridors with upstream and downstream drainage corridors shall be evaluated during the suitability analysis pursuant to Mitigation Measure B-5(e) to determine their importance to wildlife who could use them to travel to and from the site. If culverts are found to be of importance to wildlife, the culverts shall be evaluated for their potential for improvement (i.e. retrofitting, maintenance, or specific improvements depending on the types of species using them). The development pursuant to the Specific Plan and the City shall develop a plan for the improvement of the culverts. Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be achieved with sufficient setbacks from riparian and wetland habitats. Refer to B-4 for mitigation regarding riparian and wetland habitat setbacks. B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals. B-6(a-c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan: • African sumac (Rhus lancea) • Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) • Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) • California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius) • Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula) Packet Pg. 363 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 12 • Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus) • Edible fig (Ficus carica) • Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) • French broom (Genista monspessulana) • Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis) • Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) • Myoporum (Myoporum spp.) • Olive (Olea europaea) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata) • Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia) • Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus) • Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) • Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T. ramosissima) • Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) • Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan’s Suggested Plant List [Orcutt Area Specific Plan Appendix E] shall not be planted anywhere on-site because they are invasive non-native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation/enhancement area. B-6(d) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Cultural Resources CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, constructional earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc), work in the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material. If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Packet Pg. 364 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 13 CR-3(a) Prohibition of Archaeological Site Tampering. Off-road vehicle use, unauthorized collecting of artifacts, and other activities that could destroy or damage archaeological or cultural sites shall be prohibited. Signs shall be posted on the property to discourage these types of activities and warn of trespassing violations and imposed fines. CR-1(d), CR-3(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation, in the event of unforeseen encounter of materials, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. Drainage and Water Quality D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of the first Grading Permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a detailed erosion control plan (ECP) to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction period. The detailed ECP shall be accompanied by a written narrative and be approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum, the ECP and written narrative should be prepared according to the guidelines outlined in the DDM and should include the following:  A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure milestones in chronological format;  Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or unstable slopes;  Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets and hydroseeding should be utilized. Silt fences should be installed downslope of all graded slopes. Straw bales should be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain inlets;  Description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and streets;  Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;  Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets) in public streets as a means of sediment control; and  The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated sediment, and the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment. D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the CWA. Pursuant to the NPDES Storm Water Program, an application for coverage under the statewide General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit (General Permit) must be obtained for project development. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to obtain coverage prior to site construction. The applicant can obtain coverage under the General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The filing shall describe erosion control and storm water treatment measures to be implemented during and following construction and provide a schedule for monitoring performance. These BMPs will serve to control point and non-point source (NPS) pollutants in storm water and constitute the project’s SWPPP for construction activities. While the SWPPP will include several of the same components as the ECP, the SWPPP will also include BMPs for preventing the discharge of other NPS pollutants besides sediment (such as paint, concrete, etc.) to downstream waters. Packet Pg. 365 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 14  Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.  Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the City forty-five (45) days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the project site in excess of one acre. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP shall be also submitted to the City along with grading/development plans for review and approval.  Notice of Completion of Construction. The applicant shall file a notice of completion of construction of the development, identifying that pollution sources were controlled during the construction of the project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site. D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization. Vegetative or biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering) approaches to bank stabilization are preferred over structural approaches. Bank stabilization design must be consistent with the SLO Creek Stream Management and Maintenance Program Section 6. Streambank stabilization usually involves one or a combination of the following activities:  Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks and create a more stable slope;  Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites;  Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade stabilization structures;  Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment deposition;  Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by-pass channel;  Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularly at the toe of slopes. The bank stabilization design will:  Be stable over the long term;  Be the least environmentally damaging and the “softest” approach possible;  Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream instabilities;  Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat.  Specify that only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls be used, to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. Packet Pg. 366 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 15 D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The OASP proposes riparian enhancement of creek corridors. Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual shall be followed for riparian areas that are modified, created and/or managed for flood damage reduction, stream enhancement, and bank repair. Linear park terrace vegetation, streambank repair and channel maintenance projects may require stream channel modifications that include shaping, widening, deepening, straightening, and armoring. Many channel management projects also require building access roads for maintenance vehicles and other equipment. These construction activities can cause a variety of impacts to existing sensitive riparian and aquatic habitat that, depending on the selected design alternative, range from slight disturbances to complete removal of desirable woody vegetation and faunal communities. In urban areas within the SLO creek watershed, riparian vegetation often provides the only remaining natural habitat available for wildlife populations. D-4(a) Compliance with City’s Drainage Design Manual. All drainage improvements must be constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the City’s Drainage Design Manual. Either subregional facilities shall be constructed with the first phase of development or interim (on-site) drainage control shall be constructed. Interim facilities can be abandoned once regional facilities are available. The applicant shall submit a detention system plan to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The detention basins shall be designed to comply with applicable City drainage design standards and at a minimum have the following features:  Each basin should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain completely within 48 hours. The amount of outflow can be regulated with a fixed outfall structure. Such a structure must include an outfall pipe of a size and length that will give positive control on the outfall head. The principal outlet regulates the design discharge from the watershed above at a water level in the basin that does not exceed a certain maximum elevation.  Regional, or larger on-site facilities can pose significant hazards to public safety in the event of failure. In addition to the outlet control structure, an emergency overflow spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided. This spillway must satisfy the following requirements: − The spillway must be designed to pass the 100-year design storm event if the outlet works fail or if a runoff event exceeds the design event. The spillway design will be based on peak runoff rates for developed site conditions, assuming that the basins fill to the crest of the spillway prior to the beginning of the design event. − The spillway must be located so overflow is conveyed safely to the downstream channel.  Each basin shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100- year storm event with 2-foot freeboard between the design water surface elevation and the top of the embankment. At a minimum the basin must contain the 10-year flow without release to emergency spillway. If flows over the emergency spillway do occur, provisions must be made or be in place that will convey such flows safely.  The design volume of the basin must be sized to include the capacity for a five (5) year accumulation of sediment. Generally, the basin should be cleared out when it is half-full, as determined on a marked staff in the bottom of the basin, or a mark Packet Pg. 367 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 16 on a riser pipe. The amount of potential sedimentation in the basin shall be determined by a soils engineer or hydrologist, using the procedures such as those outlined in the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (May 1995) or as approved by the City Engineer or County Public Works Director.  The basin and its outfall must be sized so that approximately 85% of the total stormwater storage, excluding sediment storage in the basin, can be recovered within twenty-four hours of the peak inflow. A basin overflow system must provide controlled discharge (emergency spillway) for the 100-year design event without overtopping the basin embankment and maintain adequate freeboard. The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system or safe drainage way. The principal outlet must be able to drain the detention facility within 48 hours of the end of the 100-year storm by gravity flow through the principal outlet.  Any detention basin design must be accompanied by a soils report. This report should address allowable safe basin slopes with respect to liquefaction, rapid draw down, wave action and so forth. Additionally, the report should also address sedimentation transport from areas above the basin and allowable bearing pressures where structures are to be placed. The soils report must address the level of the water table and the effects of the basin excavation on the water table. D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification. Final detention basin system designs for project-specific EIRs within the Orcutt Plan Area shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. Per the Wastewater Management Plan, the project shall not cause more than a 5% increase of peak run off rates for the 2-, 50-, and 100-year 24 hour storm event. Final basin designs shall provide stage-storage-outflow curves and outfall structure details for all detention basins. The San Luis Obispo SLO/Zone 9 HEC-HMS hydrology model may be used to model final detention basin system cumulative downstream impacts should specific projects propose substantial changes to conceptual design, at the discretion of the City Engineer. D-5(a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed swales (biofilters) into the project drainage system where feasible for runoff conveyance and filtering of pollutants. A preferred alternative to concrete drainage swales to transport the runoff to roadside ditches, these swales shall be lined with grass or appropriate vegetation to encourage the biofiltration of sediment, phosphorus, trace metals, and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge into the formal drainage network. General design guidelines relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales are: 1) a dense, uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants; 2) vegetation that is tolerant to the water, climatological, and soil conditions of the project site is preferred; 3) grassed swales that maximize water contact with the vegetation and soil surface have the potential to substantially improve removal rates, particularly of soluble pollutants; and 4) pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the flow path length is increased. General maintenance guidelines for biofilters are discussed in Mitigation Measure D-5(b). A Best Management Practice (BMP) filter device shall be installed to intercept water flowing off of proposed parking lot and roadway surfaces. Water quality BMPs shall be those identified in the California Packet Pg. 368 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 17 Stormwater Quality association’s BMP handbook. Whenever feasible, the preferred approach to treating surface runoff will be the use of drainage swales rather than mechanical devices. The chosen method for treating runoff shall be a proven and documented pollution prevention technology device that removes oil and sediment from stormwater runoff, and retains the contaminants for safe and easy removal. The chosen device shall possess design features to prevent resuspension of previously collected contaminants and materials, and contain a built-in diversion structure to divert intense runoff events and prevent scouring of the previously collected sediments. The filter devices shall be designed and sized to treat the run off from the first 25 mm (1 inch) of rainfall. The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City Director of Public Works. D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works for review and approval a long-term storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to protect storm water quality after the construction period. The SWPPP shall include the following additional BMPs to protect storm water quality:  Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the majority of litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus entering local waterways. Regular sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing the amount of litter in storm drain inlets (to prevent clogging) and public waterways (for water quality). The project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this maintenance is completed prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.  Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality. The maintenance of biofilters on the project site will be the responsibility of a homeowner’s association for the proposed project. Biofilter maintenance would include: 1) Regular mowing to promote growth and increase density and pollutant uptake (vegetative height should be no more than 8 inches, cuttings must be promptly removed and properly disposed of); 2) Removal of sediments during summer months when they build up to 6 inches at any spot, cover biofilter vegetation, or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation; and 3) Reseeding of biofilters as necessary, whenever maintenance or natural processes create bare spots.  Proper maintenance of detention basins is necessary to ensure their effectiveness at preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality. Necessary detention basin maintenance includes: 1) regular inspection during the wet season for sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets; 2) regular (approximately every 2-3 years) removal of basin sediment; and 3) if an open detention basin is used, mowing and maintenance of basin vegetation (replant or reseed) as necessary to control erosion. A maintenance plan must be developed and provided along with the design documents. Long-term detention basin maintenance plans must clearly delineate and assign maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for local and regional detention basins. Maintenance reports shall be submitted annually to City’s Public Works Department.  For basins greater than 5,000 m3 (4 ac-ft) storage (i.e. the Upper Fork regional detention basin), vehicular access for maintenance of the basin and outlet works, Packet Pg. 369 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 18 removal of sediment, and removal of floating objects during all weather conditions must be provided. An access road must be provided to the basin floor of all detention facilities. This road must have a minimum width of 3.7 m (12 ft) and a maximum grade of 20%. Turnarounds at the control structure and the bottom of the basin must have a 12-m (40-ft) minimum outside turning radius.  The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all residences at the project site. At a minimum the information should cover: 1) general information on biofilters and detention basins for residents concerning their purpose and importance of keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter; 2) proper disposal of household and commercial chemicals; 3) proper use of landscaping chemicals; 4) clean-up and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter; and 5) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.  The stormwater BMP devices shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The devices shall be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e. November 1st) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e. May 1st). All devices will be checked after major storm events. The results of the inspection and maintenance report shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7, the applicant shall be encouraged to use pervious paving material to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. In addition to the low impact development (LID) practices described in the above measures, the Specific Plan shall incorporate the following as requirements of future development within the area, to the extent appropriate for type and location of development:  Reduced and disconnected impervious surfaces  Preservation of native vegetation where feasible  Use of tree boxes to capture and infiltrate street runoff  Roof leader flows shall be directed to planter boxes and other vegetated areas  Soil amendments shall be utilized in landscaped areas to improve infiltration rates of clay soils.  Incorporate rain gardens into landscape design These LID practices shall be utilized wherever feasible and appropriate to ensure that the pre-development stormwater runoff volume and pre-development peak runoff discharge rate are maintained, and that the flow frequency and duration of post development conditions are identical (to the extent feasible) to those of pre-development conditions. LID practices are subject to the review and approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as part of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance. D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a-b), D-5(a-d) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and construction plans. Monitoring will include Natural Resources Department staff consultation and implementation at time of landscaping construction plan review and Packet Pg. 370 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 19 Engineering-Public Works staff at the time of tract construction. Compliance will be verified by the City Public Works Department in consultation with the Natural Resources Manager. Geology and Soils G-2(a) Geotechnical Study Parameters. As stated in Program 3.4.1.a. of the proposed Specific Plan, a geotechnical study shall be prepared by a State-registered engineering geologist for the project site prior to site development. This report shall include an analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying materials according to the most current liquefaction analysis procedures. This study shall also:  evaluate the potential for soil settlement beneath the project site;  evaluate the potential for expansive soils beneath the project site; and  assess the stability of all slopes in the areas where construction is to occur. This evaluation shall determine the potential for adverse soil stability and discuss appropriate mitigation techniques. Appropriate setbacks from unstable slopes and areas below potential rockfall zones shall be implemented. No development of residential structures is to occur in areas where rockfall hazards could damage buildings. The following suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include but need not be limited to:  specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;  removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;  drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soil;  in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or  other alterations to the ground characteristics. G-3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering. If the project site is identified to be in a high potential for settlement zone (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)) the building foundations, transportation infrastructure and subgrades shall be designed by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce settlement impacts could include but need not be limited to:  excavation and recompaction of on-site or imported soils;  treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to recompaction; or  foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential settlement such as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the Uniform Building Code(UBC). G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. If the project site is identified as having expansive soils (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)), the foundations and transportation infrastructure shall be designed by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include but need not be limited to:  excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils; and Packet Pg. 371 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 20  foundation design to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion such as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC. G-2(a), G-3(a), G-4(a) Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include review and approval by City Engineering staff and building inspectors. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. Noise N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the following:  Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can be shielded with a barrier.  Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.  Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors and similar power tools.  Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment. N-1(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. Public Safety S-2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall develop Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that disclose to potential buyers or leasers that aircraft over-flights occur, and that such flights may result in safety hazard impacts should an aircraft accident occur. In addition, prior to recordation of final map, avigation easements shall be recorded over the entire project site for the benefit of the SLO County Regional Airport. S-2b Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Community Development, City Attorney and Engineering staff approvals of the Disclosure(s) prior to recordation of a final tract map. Public Services PS-2(a) Road Widths, Fire Hydrants. Road widths and internal circulation, as well as the placement of fire hydrants, shall be designed with the guidance of the Fire Department. A road system that allows unhindered Fire Department access and maneuvering during emergencies shall be provided. The San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall review all improvement plans for proposed development in the Orcutt Area to ensure compliance with City standards and the Uniform Fire Code. Packet Pg. 372 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 21 PS-2(b) Non-combustible exteriors. Buildings that are in areas of moderate fire hazard and which are close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard shall have non-combustible exteriors. PS-2(c) Defensible Space. Accessible space free of highly combustible vegetation and materials shall be provided in the area 30 feet around all structures located within the moderate wildland fire hazard areas. PS-3(a) Buildout Date Notification. The applicant shall notify the San Luis Coastal Unified School District of the expected buildout date of each phase of the project to allow the District time to plan in advance for new students. PS-3(b) Statutory School Fees. The applicant shall pay the statutory school fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to the appropriate school districts. PS-2(a-c) and PS-3(a-b) Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Fire Marshal and Community Development Department. Transportation and Circulation TR-1 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans showing the construction of a “pork chop” island at the intersection of “I” Street and “B” Street”, which would restrict this intersection to right-turn-in and right-turn-out movements. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. TR-1 Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Public Works Department. Utilities and Service Systems USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP To Meet Fire Flow and Storage Standards. Concurrent with applications for Final Map(s), the applicant shall submit a water supply plan to meet adequate fire flow standards for all lots within each Final Map. Implementation of such a water line extension plan shall be included as a part of public improvement plans for the subdivision, and approved by Utilities, Public Works and the City Engineer. This implementation plan may include a financing plan, including reimbursement provisions, approved by the City Council at the time of considering any Final Map. Required water main line extension(s) to the subdivision shall be completed and operational to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director, prior to issuance of any building permits for any of the residential and/or commercial uses. USS-1 Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed and implemented by the City Engineer’ s office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for Tract 3095. Packet Pg. 373 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 22 SECTION 2. Vesting Tract Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council approve application SBDV/ER-2586-2016 (VTM #3095, “Imel Ranch”), a vesting tentative tract map to create up to 23 residential, drainage, and open space lots, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions being incorporated into the project. Findings: a) As conditioned, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City’s residential housing inventory, results in parcels that meet minimum density standards, and will be consistent with the density, lot sizes and project amenities established by the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). b) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C/OS-SP, and R-1 zoning districts. c) The design of the vesting tentative tract map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since further development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with VTM #3095 and the required architectural review process, which will allow for detailed review of development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards. d) As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision, and the project is consistent with the pattern of development prescribed in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. e) The proposed project will provide affordable housing consistent with the intent of California Government Code §65915, and in compliance with City policies and the Housing Element. f) The tentative map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation measures prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, the OASP Final EIR, and the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND). g) The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Road Design Exception and Rear Yard Setback Exception, Required Findings as Required by Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020: Packet Pg. 374 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 23 h) The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in the City Subdivision Regulations and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, specifically related to the design of “B Street” and “I Street”, and rear yard setbacks on Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10. i) The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification to the design of “B Street” and “I Street”, and rear yard setbacks on Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10. j) The modifications will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. k) Granting the modifications is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. Creek Setback Exception, Required Findings as Required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025.G.4.d Discretionary Exceptions: l) The placement of drainage and stormwater features, bridge crossing, five-foot wide pedestrian trail, and temporary grading and restoration within the creek setback satisfies each of the following required findings: i. The location and design of the feature receiving the creek setback exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement, as the features would comply with OASP policies Policy 2.2.6, which states that the on-site drainage detention areas be designed to support wetlands characteristics they may provide aesthetic, habitat and flood control benefits, and restoration of the creek corridor is required as part of the project; ii. The exception will not limit the city’s design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies because the features will be designed considering the potential for flooding; iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans, as the project is consistent with the OASP and incorporates all mitigation adopted with the certification of the OASP Final Environmental Impact Report; iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning, as site is constrained by internal circulation requirements and two creeks that traverse the site, and the OASP (Figure 6.3 Drainage Plan) calls for the project site (Imel Ranch) to accommodate a new individual detention basin and separately mitigating drainage, and the OASP assumed pedestrian trails may be located within identified creek setbacks, and no residential building pads are located within the creek setback; Packet Pg. 375 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 24 v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege –an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, as the features would serve the public benefit by providing drainage and stormwater management and public access; vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; vii. Based on the design of proposed drainage and stormwater features, site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property as described in the OASP. Use Permit Findings Allowing Height Exception as Required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.040 (Height) and 17.58.040 (Findings to Grant a Use Permit): m) The proposed height exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity, as the additional height above 25 feet is limited to five feet (for a total of 30 feet) and would not adversely affect views of Righetti Hill. Conditions: Dedications and Easements 1. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, public and private streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to or concurrent with the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. 2. The final map and improvement plans shall show the extent of all on-site and off-site offers of dedication. Subdivision improvement plans and or preliminary designs may be required for any deferred improvements so that dedication limits can be established. These improvements may include but are not limited to road construction and widening, grading and drainage improvements, utility easements, bridges, bike bridges, transit stops, bikeways, pedestrian paths, signalized intersections, traffic circles, and roundabouts. 3. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Orcutt Road except at approved driveway locations and intersections as shown on the tentative map or as otherwise approved by the city. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and 6’ public utility easement (P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. A 10’ street tree easement and 15’ P.U.E. shall be provided along the Orcutt Road frontage (tract boundary). Packet Pg. 376 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 25 5. The subdivider shall dedicate any public Open Space lots in fee to the City in conjunction with or prior to map recordation. If applicable, the land shall be granted free and clear of all encumbrances to the satisfaction of the City. Unless otherwise amended by the City, Lot 21 shall be a dedicated to the public and lots 19, 20, 22, and 23 shall be private for maintenance by the HOA. 6. The subdivider shall include a separate offer of dedication for all sections of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) Street B located outside the phase boundary, but within the tract boundary in accordance with the tentative map street alignments and map conditions in conjunction with or prior to map recordation. The developer shall include the offers of dedication for the Orcutt Road widening improvements in conjunction with or prior to map recordation. The developer shall include any other out-of-phase offers of dedication related to the need for public utility extensions related to orderly development of the OASP where not otherwise located within a public street. 7. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property owners or the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) as applicable. Private improvements include but are not limited to private pedestrian/bike paths, private open space/creek corridors, drainage systems, detention basin(s), landscape, landscape irrigation, common areas, pocket parks, and linear park improvements. 8. The private open space and detention basin Lots 19 20, 22, and 23 along with the proposed improvements, including but not limited to trails, walls, fences, drainage improvements, landscaping, and landscape irrigation shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. Private Open Space easements shall be shown and noted on the final map. A creek maintenance easement and agreement shall be provided for specific private open corridors in a format approved by the City. The easement agreement shall include provisions to allow for city maintenance if necessary. 9. A wildland fuel management/reduction zone along with any required easements and/or zone limits shall be shown and noted on the final map and improvement plans for reference. The limits of the zone shall be in accordance with the adopted Fire Code and approved to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and City Natural Resources Manager. The HOA shall be responsible for wildland fuel management and weed abatement within the established fuel reduction zone(s) and private open space areas. 10. A notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo may need to be recorded in conjunction with the Final Map to clarify development restrictions, conditions of development, and references to any pertinent conditions of approval related to infrastructure phasing. 11. Off-site easements and/or dedications may be required to facilitate through street access and public water and sewer main extensions beyond the tract boundary and in accordance with the OASP. Looped water mains may be required in accordance with the tentative map, development phasing, and the City water model to provide adequate service and compliance with adopted codes and standards. Packet Pg. 377 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 26 12. Off-site dedication/acquisition of property for this public right-of-way purpose is necessary to facilitate orderly development and the anticipated OASP improvements. The subdivider shall work with the City and the land owner(s) to acquire the necessary rights-of-way. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said rights-of-way, the City Council may consider lending the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney fees and court costs). 13. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the subdivider shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or, b. Demonstrate, in writing, that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and request that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462 .5 to do so, if necessary. subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the subdivider shall submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California; ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so; iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary Packet Pg. 378 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 27 property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. Transportation 14. Fire Department access shall be provided for each construction phase to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Phased street construction shall consider and provide suitable Fire Department hydrant access, circulation routes, passing lanes, and turn-around areas in accordance with current codes and standards. Building permits for combustible construction may be withheld until adequate services and access are provided. 15. All public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps. 16. The improvement plans shall include all final line-of-sight analysis at certain intersections to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Fence heights and plantings in the areas of control shall be reviewed in conjunction with the analysis. A separate recorded agreement or Notice of Requirements for private property owner or HOA maintenance of sight lines may be required. 17. The public improvement plans shall include full frontage improvements on Orcutt Road from B Street to the edge of Tract 3095. The plans shall show all improvements including concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards and previous entitlements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Lane configurations and transitions for improvements along Orcutt Road and/or any phased approach for access prior to the full development of Orcutt Road, shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 18. The east side of Orcutt Road where widening is proposed or required may terminate in an AC berm to match the existing adjoining road sections per City Engineering Standards or the appropriate County rural road standards where approved by the City Engineer. The Orcutt Road plans shall include all phases of construction including road widening, stormdrain improvements, culvert extensions, grading/walls, and any water quality BMPs. Some off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes may be required to facilitate the Orcutt Road improvements and transitions between the OASP full build-out road section and adjoining road segments beyond the tract boundaries. 19. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to the edge of Tract frontage along with any transition lanes, shall be constructed as a condition of this map unless a deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Improvement Plans 20. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off-site improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, and Fire Department prior to map recordation. Off-site improvements may include but are not limited to roadways, sewer mains, water mains, and stormdrain improvements. Packet Pg. 379 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 28 21. A separate demolition permit will be required from the Building Division for the removal of any existing structures and related infrastructure. Building removals are subject to the Building Demolition Regulations including the additional notification and timing requirements for any structure over 50-years old. 22. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site improvements, utilities, water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire services, etc. The plan shall include any pertinent off-site water well and private waste disposal systems that are located within regulated distances to the proposed drainage and utility improvements. The plan shall include the proposed disposition of the improvements and any proposed phasing of the removal and demolition. All structures and utilities affected by the proposed lot lines shall be removed and receive final inspection approvals prior to map recordation. 23. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the construction of the new public street shall be phased per City Engineering Standard #7110. The engineer of record shall detail this requirement for phased street construction in the public improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 24. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete construction phasing plan in accordance with the conditions of approval. A truck circulation plan and construction management and staging plan shall be included with the improvement plan submittal. General truck routes shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City. The engineer of record shall provide a summary of the extent of cut and fill with estimates on the yards of import and export material. The summary shall include rough grading, utility trench construction, road construction, AC paving, concrete delivery, and vertical construction loading estimates on the existing public roadways. Unless otherwise waived by the City Engineer, the developer shall either; 1) complete roadway deflection testing before and after construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall complete repairs to the pre- construction condition, or 2) shall pay a roadway maintenance fee in accordance with City Engineering Standards and guidelines, or 3) shall propose a pavement repair/replacement program to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 25. Retaining wall and/or retaining wall/fence combinations along property lines shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and shall conform with the zoning regulations for allowed combined heights or shall be approved through the ARC or separate Fence Height exception process. 26. The ARC plans and public improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed mail receptacles or mail box units (MBUs) to the satisfaction of the Post Master and the City Engineer. Provide a mailbox unit or multiple units to serve all dwelling units within this development as required by the Post Master. MBUs shall not be located within the public right-of-way or public sidewalk area unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. Contact the Post Master at 543-2605 to establish any recommendations regarding the number, size, location, and placement for any MBUs. Packet Pg. 380 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 29 27. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Tree species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. The subdivision improvement plans/landscape plans shall also include street tree plantings along the Orcutt Road frontages of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23. 28. The subdivision/public improvement plans shall clearly show and label all existing trees to remain and trees to be removed. The plan may include generic information on the limits of tree removals but shall clearly identify the diameter, species, and location of the trees to remain. 29. A separate tree preservation plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall be approved by the City Arborist, Planning Division, and Public Works Department prior to commencing with demolition, grading, or subdivision improvements. Tree preservation measures shall be shown and noted on all plans. Some tree preservation measures may need to be implemented and inspected prior to permit issuance and/or plan approvals. 30. The existing Sycamore tree located on Lot 21 shall be preserved unless otherwise determined to be impractical by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The road and utility improvement plans, alignments, methods, and materials shall be reasonably adjusted to support the tree preservation efforts. A separate tree preservation surety shall be provided based on standard tree valuation calculations to be approved by the City Arborist. Utilities 31. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving utility companies. All public and private sewer mains shall be shown on the public improvement plans and shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards unless a waiver or alternate standard is otherwise approved by the City. The plans shall clearly delineate and distinguish the difference between public and private improvements. 32. City recycled water or another non-potable water source, shall be used for construction water (dust control, soil compaction, etc.). An annual Construction Water Permit is available from the City’s Utilities Department. Recycled water is readily available near the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road. 33. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm drains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals and meters shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans. 34. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer, the public sewer main extension from Street I through open space Lot 21 to the future park shall be limited to Packet Pg. 381 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 30 a single main. Final line and grade shall be approved by the City prior to submittal of the subdivision improvement plans and shall consider function, maintenance, stability, and tree preservations. 35. The improvement plans shall show the location of all domestic and landscape water meters. The plan shall include service lateral sizes and meter sizes. Sizing calculations may be required to justify service and meter sizing. Water impact fees related to the irrigation water meter(s) shall be paid prior to approval of the subdivision improvement plans for each pertinent map and/or construction phase. 36. Off-site utility improvements shall include the water main upgrade/replacement and extension from the High Pressure/Bishop pressure zone at the intersection of Tanglewood/Johnson Avenue to serve the subdivision. Pipe sizing is contingent upon the modeling for the proposed development phases and looping of the main. Improvement plans may be required to clarify the design for main extensions. Pressure regulating valves, control valves, or other appurtenances may be required by the Utilities Department as a part of the required water system improvements to be certain that the new area interacts properly with the existing water system. 37. A reimbursement request, if proposed for the off-site water main upgrade, shall include all pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the City Council. 38. A final sewer report and supporting documentation for the OASP public sewer main design may be required prior to approval of the public improvement plans. Said report shall consider prior entitlements. 39. The depth of the off-site and on-site sewer mains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. The depth analysis shall consider the balance between the possible extent of the gravity sewer basin needed to serve the other OASP properties and the long-term public maintenance requirements related to sewer depth. 40. The public improvement plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed overhead wire utilities. Any existing overhead wiring within the tract boundary and adjoining Orcutt Road frontage shall be undergrounded in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. Unless otherwise specifically approved, pole relocation in lieu of undergrounding is not supported. 41. Terminal end utility poles shall be located off-site unless otherwise approved by the City. Preliminary undergrounding plans for the entire subdivision shall be processed through PGE and any respective wire utility companies with approval by the City in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision improvement plans. 42. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaires along all public streets including Orcutt Road per City Engineering Standards. Packet Pg. 382 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 31 43. Private street lighting shall be provided along the private streets per OASP lighting requirements, City Engineering Standard and/or as approved in conjunction with the final ARC approvals. 44. Lighting fixtures, including public streetlights shall not exceed 16’ in height in accordance with the OASP unless otherwise required for traffic safety. The developer shall submit a streetlight proposal for approval by the City Engineer for any public streetlights. Street lights associated with the Orcutt Road improvements shall comply with the Highway Design Manual and City Engineering Standards. 45. Recycled water mains shall be extended from Tank Farm Road in coordination with other development in the OASP for irrigation of common area landscaping, streetscape, and any irrigated park or open space areas. Applicant shall work with the Water Division of the City’s Utilities Department to determine the appropriate size of all proposed recycled water mains. 46. A reimbursement request, if proposed for the off-site potable and recycled water main improvements shall include all pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the City Council. 47. Irrigation systems using recycled water shall be designed and operated as described consistent with the City’s Procedures for Recycled Water Use, including the requirement that sites utilizing recycled water require backflow protection on all potable service connections. Three sets of irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Building Department for review during the City’s building permit review process. 48. Final alignment of all water and sewer mains to be approved by the Utilities Department. 49. 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)). 50. 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 Grading, Drainage & Stormwater 51. Any permit approvals required from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be secured and presented to the City prior to the approval of any subdivision grading and/or improvements related to the proposed phase of construction. The engineer of record shall review the permit approvals and any specific permit conditions for compliance with the plans, subdivision improvement designs, drainage system design/report, and soils report. The engineer of record shall forward the permits to the City with a notation that the permits have been Packet Pg. 383 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 32 reviewed and are in general conformance with the design of the improvements. 52. The public improvement plans submittal shall clarify how the creek corridors, and riparian habitat areas will be preserved to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. Include any specific details for the proposed creek crossings in accordance with any preservation strategies, mitigation measures, and higher governmental authority agency permits. Sensitive areas shall be staked, fenced, or otherwise delineated and protected prior to commencing with construction, grading, or grubbing. 53. Expansion index testing or other soils analysis may be required on a lot-by-lot basis for all graded pads and for in-situ soils on natural lots in accordance with the current Building Codes or where deemed necessary by the City Engineer or Building Official. 54. Final pad certifications shall include the certification of pad construction and elevations. The soils engineer shall certify all grading prior to acceptance of the public improvements and/or prior to building permit issuance. The certification shall indicate that the graded pads are suitable for their intended use. 55. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as recommended by the soils engineer. Brow ditches, drainage collection devices, and drainage piping may be required. The public improvement plans and final map shall reflect any additional improvements and private easements necessary for slope protection and maintenance. Unless otherwise approved for public maintenance by the City Engineer, brow ditches and drainage collection devices upslope of building sites shall be maintained by the HOA. 56. The subdivision improvement plans shall include a complete grading plan to show site accessibility in accordance with State and Federal regulations for all public and/or private roads, transit stops, trails, paths, walks, bikeways, parks, and bridges where applicable. The submittal shall provide additional analysis if site accessibility will not be provided and for any feature or element where accessibility is purportedly not required. The accessibility regulations or guidelines in effect at the time of subdivision improvement construction will be applied. 57. The subdivision improvement plans, grading plans, drainage plans, and drainage reports shall show and note compliance with City Codes, Standards and Ordinances, Floodplain Management Regulations, OASP stormwater provisions, Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, whichever pertinent sections are more restrictive. 58. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. The proposed grading shall consider the proposed construction phasing. Historic off-site and upslope watersheds tributary to the area of phased construction shall be considered. Run-on from adjoining developed or undeveloped parcels shall be considered. Packet Pg. 384 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 33 59. The calculated 100-year flood limits shall be shown and noted on the improvement plans and an additional final map sheet for reference. The drainage report and final plans shall clarify the 100-year flood elevations, clearances, and freeboard at all new vehicle bridge, pedestrian bridge, and pipe bridge crossings of the creek corridors. 60. The engineer of record shall provide a digital copy of the final HEC-RAS modeling to the City in accordance with Section 4.0 of the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. 61. The developer shall prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for review and approval by the City in conjunction with the development of any stormwater BMPs that will be maintained by the HOA or by the respective private property owner. A Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to final inspection approvals and acceptance of subdivision improvements. 62. The subdivider/developer shall provide notification to private property owners regarding any individual maintenance responsibility of backyard stormwater BMPs in accordance with Section E.2 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Resolution R3-2013- 0032. The notification may be by Notice of Requirements or other method acceptable to the City. 63. The stormwater improvements other than City Standard public stormdrain infrastructure shall be maintained by the HOA. A separate encroachment/hold harmless agreement may be required in conjunction with certain improvements proposed for location within the public rights-of-way. 64. The final details for the proposed bioretention and private stormwater management facilities along with any improvements located within the public right-of-way shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City. The project soils engineer shall review and provide recommendations on the proposed site constructed and/or proprietary retention systems. Analysis of impacts to the public improvements, protection of utilities, and methods to minimize piping and protection of private properties shall be addressed in the final analysis. 65. The proposed detention basin and any pre-basin shall be designed in accordance with the OASP requirements and the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. The proposed surface runoff and drainage from the detention basin(s) shall include a non-erosive outlet to an approved point of disposal. The outlet(s) design and location should replicate the historic drainage where feasible. Any off-site detention basin, temporary basin, or other drainage improvements shall be approved by the City. Any required or proposed off-site grading or drainage improvements shall be completed within recorded easements or under an appropriate license or other private agreement. 66. The subdivider shall submit CC&Rs with the Final Map that establishes a Homeowner's Association (HOA). The HOA shall provide for the optional automatic annexation of all other tracts in the OASP as it relates to the shared regional detention basin. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction Packet Pg. 385 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 34 how they will provide storm drainage mitigation through their own subdivision design and HOA. The HOA shall provide for maintenance of all private common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins, water quality treatment and conveyance improvements. The CC&Rs shall be approved by the City and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map. 67. The naming of the local creeks and drainages shall comply with the appropriate and pertinent creek naming standards and justifications. The inclusion of the naming on the final map and/or improvement plans shall be approved by the City prior to map and/or plan approval as applicable. 68. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels along with any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be in compliance with the OASP, city standards and policies, the Waterways Management Plan and shall be approved by the Natural Resources Manager, Public Works Department, Army Corp of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Fish & Wildlife. 69. Any existing areas of swale, creek and/or channel erosion shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Natural Resources Manager, and other permitting agencies. 70. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low Impact Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific recommendations related to public improvements, site development, utility, and building pad/foundation construction related to the proposed LID improvements. The project soils engineering report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and City Engineering Standards. 71. The final plans and drainage report shall show and note compliance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B for spring or perched groundwater management and for water quality treatment of run-off from impervious streets, drive aisles, parking areas, and trash enclosures. 72. A SWPPP is required in accordance with State and local regulations. A hard copy of the SWPPP shall be provided to the City in conjunction with the Public Improvement Plan submittal and subsequent building plan submittals. The WDID number shall be included by reference on all construction plans sets. An erosion control plan shall be included with the improvement plans and all building plan submittals for demolitions, grading, and new construction. 73. The project development and grading shall comply with all air quality standards and mitigation measures. The developer shall provide written notification from the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations including but not limited to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA). Packet Pg. 386 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 35 Planning Requirements 74. At the time of submittal of a request for a final map, the subdivider shall provide a written report detailing the methods and techniques employed for complying with all required environmental mitigation measures as adopted herein. 75. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 76. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. 77. 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. Proposed refuse storage area(s) and on -site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/ or easements shall be considered in the final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the HOA and shall be included in the OCR' s or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. The solid waste solutions shall be shown and noted on the submittal(s) for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approvals. 78. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential units, the Architectural Review Commission shall review the residential building program, including building and landscape improvements, and provide comments and recommendations to the Community Development Director. Final architectural design approval authority shall be vested in the Community Development Director. 79. Prior to recordation of any phase of the final map, the applicant shall either enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City or verify an Affordable Housing Agreement has already been recorded; which details proposed transfer of affordable units to other parcels, timing of construction of affordable units, and contains guarantees for failure to complete any or all affordable housing units required. 80. The invasive species Tamarisk, commonly known as Salt Cedar, shall be removed from the easterly drainage tangent to Orcutt Road, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. 81. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Packet Pg. 387 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 36 82. The subdivider shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings and/ or a phase of buildings. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the Construction Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone numbers. The Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and requirements: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated construction access routes. b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring, c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for materials, equipment, and vehicles. d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to surrounding neighbors. e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise reducing measures: i. Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. ii. All equipment shall have sound- control devices no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un- muffled exhaust pipes; and iii. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent possible. f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity. i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking. 83. Pursuant to Government Code § 66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 84. Conditions relating to phasing and timing of infrastructure are approved as contained herein, or as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors during review of Packet Pg. 388 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 37 public improvement plans and final maps. 85. Financing and " fair share" contribution plans may be submitted for City Council review with any final map application. The City Council will have sole discretion as to any reimbursement and /or fee credit programs implemented with said final maps. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission Packet Pg. 389 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 Imel Ranch consists of 5.49 acres of the overall 231-acre Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The applicant has submitted a “Project Description” narrative (Attachment B) and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) Sheets (Attachment C), which provide a detailed description of the proposed project. Detailed Project Information Project Location: Within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; west side of Orcutt Road, immediately southwest of Tiburon Way, approximately 0.26 mile southeast of Johnson Avenue. APN 004-706- 002. Project Sponsor and Representative: Ambient Communities Attn: Travis Fuentes 979 Osos Street, Suite E San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Todd Smith Cannon Associates 1050 Southwood Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 General Plan – Orcutt Area Specific Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1-SP (Low Density Residential, Specific Plan), C/OS-SP (Conservation/Open Space, Specific Plan) Setting and Land Use: The OASP is located in the southeastern portion of the City, bounded by Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks near Bullock Lane. The OASP planning area is 230.85 acres in size, generally divided into thirteen (13) differing ownerships (and 21 separate parcels) ranging in size from less than 1 acre to the largest holding being just over 143 acres. Imel Ranch (the subject site) is located within and along the eastern edge of the OASP, immediately west of Orcutt Road, opposite from Tiburon Road. Lands surrounding the property are largely undeveloped within the City (with the few exceptions of sporadic homestead lots and homes). Jones Ranch is located to Imel Ranch’s immediate north, Righetti Ranch to its west, the Garay property to the south, and as noted, unincorporated residential larger-lot lands are located to the east of Orcutt Road in San Luis Obispo County. The Imel Ranch property is 5.49 acres of gently sloping land traversed by two seasonal creeks (i.e. one named “Crotalo Creek”, the other is unnamed). Onsite vegetation includes non-native annual grassland, eucalyptus stands, sycamore trees, oak trees, pepper trees, and riparian woodland. Packet Pg. 390 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 2 of 13 Description of the Project: Ambient Communities is requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) for the “Imel Ranch” property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The OASP and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The OASP designated the property for residential development, and allocated an estimated 16-17 single-family residential homes on the Imel Ranch property. The 5.49-acre subject property (as part of the overall Specific Plan area) was annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo in 2012. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers off the certified OASP FEIR and addresses any potential impacts not already addressed in the OASP FEIR. The proposed plan is to build 18 market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each (Lots 1 through 18). Lighting is proposed to be limited to primary pedestrian entrances and parking areas as needed for security. The project would connect to public trails, stormwater management features, roadways and utilities to support internal uses, and also would also tie into the City’s regional networks of roadways, water, wastewater, and recycled water utilities. Two lots 0.25 and 0.13 acres each are proposed within the southern and western portions of the project site (Lots 19 and 20), which would support above or below ground detention basins. Two centrally located open space parcels for the existing (“unnamed”) creek are proposed within the project, approximately 0.51 and 0.15 acres each (Lots 21 and 22). A third approximately 0.83-acre open space lot (Lot 23) along the Crotalo Creek corridor is provided in the site design (see Figure 1 below). Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots. Figure 1. Proposed Open Space Lots (green) A total of three affordable housing units are required, which are proposed to be transferred from the Imel Ranch project (VTM #3095) to Jones Ranch (Tract 3066). The applicant for Imel Ranch, Ambient Communities, is the same developer for Jones Ranch; therefore, sharing of these affordable units can be considered. Packet Pg. 391 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 3 of 13 The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non- native trees. Two oak trees in the southeast corner of the property may require pruning. The project includes the removal of the existing residence and accessory structures onsite; based on the OASP FEIR and Cultural Resources Study (Rincon Consultants 2016) these structures are not considered historic resources based on established federal, state, and local criteria. Site Disturbance and Grading The project would result in the disturbance of approximately five acres, including 14,000 cubic yards of cut and 9,500 cubic yards of fill for tract improvements and residential pad grading; approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soils would be exported from the project site to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision. Approximately 0.57 acre of area proposed for disturbance would be restored onsite, including graded areas within the 20-foot setback. In addition, residential pad grading along the western property boundary (Lots 1 through 4, 10, and 11) would require a fill slope that will extend into the adjacent “Neighborhood Park” lot. In the event construction of the proposed Imel Ranch subdivision occurs prior to adjacent tracts in the OASP, additional offsite grading associated with B Street and Orcutt Road improvements would result in the disturbance of as many as 1.5 additional acres, and would include approximately 3,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill; 1,000 cubic yards of soil would be exported. Offsite utility improvements would include extension of the wastewater line serving the property through the Neighborhood Park to “B” Street. The Imel Ranch project will also utilize planned offsite potable and recycled water line improvements. The potable water line improvements are under construction by the Righetti Ranch project, including extending a 12-inch water main from approximately the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood to the intersection of Orcutt Road and Tiburon Road. The recycled water line that would serve the Imel Ranch property is proposed to be extended from Tank Farm Road along Righetti Ranch Road then northeast to serve both the Jones Ranch and Imel Ranch properties. Drainage and Stormwater Management In order to address storm water peak flow management requirements in the OASP, detention for Imel Ranch is proposed using a combination of the following methods:  Onsite detention facilities sized for the 10-year storm to satisfy Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) post-construction storm water requirements. This will consist of either above ground shallow detention basins or below ground buried detention chambers. The location of onsite detention and storm water facilities would partially extend into the 20-foot creek setback.  “Over-detention” within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel Ranch, located within Righetti Tract 3063. Requested Exceptions On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as “I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline Packet Pg. 392 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 4 of 13 tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering Standards (January 1, 2016). Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to City Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design; however, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this particular intersection will be restricted to right- turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn restrictions would be accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island (see Attachment C, Sheets C6 Grading Plan and C9 Sight Distance Analysis). City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R-1 zone, and structures up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit. The applicant requested allowance of structures up to 30 feet in height. The applicant’s proposal does not include a second story on structures within 50 feet of Orcutt Road, consistent with the OASP. The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development. The applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of disturbance within the 20-foot setback. Permanent improvements within the creek setback include drainage basins (0.38 acre) and internal access improvements including one creek crossing (0.08 acre). Approximately 0.12 acre within the creek setback would be restored for use as stormwater treatment basins and associated easements. The remaining 0.02 acre would be temporarily disturbed and restored. The project includes a Rear Yard Exception for Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 due to the presence of two meandering creeks and minimum roadway standards. Residential development standards require 20-foot (house) and up to 5-foot (garage/carport) rear setbacks. The proposed exception would result in rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet. Summary In summary, the proposed project will consist of the following significant features: 1) Eighteen (18) proposed single family residential lots/units, including site preparation, grading, construction, and operation. 2) Three (3) open space parcels totaling 1.49 acres, proposed for public dedication, which would remain undeveloped with the exception of a five-foot wide pedestrian trail and four stormwater treatment basins to be located partially within the 20-foot creek setback. 3) Site grading to accommodate the residential subdivision, resulting in the need to “export” excess cut material (proposed to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision, VTM #3063). 4) Other associated site improvements including “I” Street, on and offsite utility extensions, lighting, and landscaping. Packet Pg. 393 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 5 of 13 5) Offsite road improvements including B Street and Orcutt Road, as identified in the OASP (in the event these improvements are not constructed in association with previously approved Jones Ranch and Righetti Tract Maps). Orcutt Area Specific Plan Chapter 2: Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation OASP Policies concerning Conservation, Open Space and Recreation are focused on protection of Righetti Hill, creeks, wetland habitats, and visual resources, while introducing a variety of parks and recreational uses for the residents of the Orcutt area. The various land use and development standards contained in the OASP result in about a third of the planning area remaining in open space (80 acres). Policies 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 designate specific areas for creeks, wetlands, mitigation areas and riparian open space as a part of the overall OASP, comprising approximately 19 acres. The proposed project includes three open space lots totaling 1.49 acres located along the unnamed creek and Crotalo Creek corridors. Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots, and are subject to the City’s Creek and Drainage Design Manual.1 The applicant’s project description includes the development of five-foot wide pedestrian pathways within the C/OS zone encompassing the creek, consistent with the OASP.2 The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development.3 Grading and development within the creek setback requires approval of a creek setback exception, and adoption of findings (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings).4 Proposed uses within the creek setback are limited to drainage and stormwater features (which would not include structures or paving, and would be designed as approved by Public Works); access improvements including a road crossing over the unnamed creek is also required to provide adequate internal circulation. The applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of disturbance within the 20-foot setback. Permanent improvements within the creek setback include drainage basins (0.38 acre), which are required to be designed to support wetlands characteristics pursuant to Policy 2.2.6. The proposed creek crossing (0.08 acre of permanent disturbance within the creek setback) with an open bottom culvert structure is allowed via Policy 2.2.3. Approximately 0.12 acre within the creek setback would be restored for use as stormwater treatment basins and associated easements. The remaining 0.02 acre would be temporarily disturbed and restored. Consistent with Program 2.2.3a, riparian enhancement along the creek corridors is required, in addition to compliance with mitigation 1 Program 2.2.4b: All bridges, culverts, and modifications to the existing creek channels will comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual (DDM) and applicable City policies with consultation and approval from the Director of Public Works. Additional permits may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and [Wildlife]. Project proponent will provide proof of consultation and copies of necessary permits to the City Community Development Director. 2 Policy 2.2.5 notes that some trails will be located parallel to creeks, and may be placed in the outer perimeter of the creek setback. 3 Program 2.2.2a 4 As required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025.G.d Discretionary Exceptions Packet Pg. 394 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 6 of 13 measures identified in the OASP FEIR.5 Staff supports the applicant’s creek setback exception request because proposed actions are limited to temporary grading and restoration, and necessary drainage/stormwater and internal access improvements, and would comply with OASP policies and mitigation measures outlined above (also refer to Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings). In addition, final grading and improvement plans would be reviewed and approved by Public Works staff and the Natural Resources Manager prior to development. As discussed in detail in the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment (Rincon Consultants 2014), the project would impact special-status species and plant communities, and is subject to Policy 2.2.8 (avoid or minimize impacts to special-status species, mitigation may include in-kind replacement at a 2:1 ratio) and mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR and additional project-specific measures presented in the IS/MND.6 The introduced landscaping and other trees and vegetation must comply with Policy 2.2.7 and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure B-6(d) Landscaping Plan Review, which would ensure that invasive non-native plant and tree species are not introduced by the project. The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non- native trees. Two oak trees in the southeast corner of the property may require pruning. The tree removals are proposed as part of the tract improvements; therefore, this issue is within the City Council’s purview. Staff supports the necessary tree removal, as native oak and sycamore trees would be retained onsite and non-native trees would be removed and replaced with native trees at a 2 to 1 ratio.7 While the environmental analysis assumed the removal of one large sycamore tree near the “I” Road creek crossing, the applicant has been working with the City Arborist and Public Works staff towards an engineered solution that maintains roadway standards and preserves the sycamore tree.8 If the tree cannot be retained through final engineering design, the loss shall be mitigated at a minimum 4:1 ratio, onsite.9 Regarding recreation, the OASP does not establish any public park areas on the project site; therefore, this project will contribute to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) required by the OASP, in the form of fee payments to contribute their fair share to improvements constructed on other properties in the Orcutt Planning Area. OASP regional park facilities would be accessible to future residents via internal roadways and bicycle and pedestrian paths. Chapter 3: Land Use and Development Standards Proposed VTM #3095 includes low density residential uses and open space as required by the OASP. Density assigned to Imel Ranch under the OASP called for between 16-17 residential units; 5 See OASP Mitigation Measures B-4(a) Trail Setbacks; B-4(b) Development Setbacks; B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland Mitigation; D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan; D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization; and D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting 6 See OASP Mitigation Measures B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer; B-2(c) Incidental Take Permit; B-2(d) Special- Status Species CDFG-approved Mitigation Plan; B-2(e) Special-Status Plant Monitoring Frequency; B-2(f) Special- Status Species Habitat Replacement; B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey; B-5(a) Bird Pre-construction Survey; B-5(c) Monarch Pre-construction Survey 7 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-3(a) 8 See OASP Mitigation Measures Trees B-3(a) Construction Requirements; B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Width 9 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-2(d) Special-status Species CDFG-approved Mitigation Plan, as amended Packet Pg. 395 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 7 of 13 at 18 units, the project is substantially consistent with projected residential densities.10 The project would comply with the cumulative density anticipated in the OASP, which ranges from 892 to 979 residential units.11 For reference, previously approved tracts would provide 304 (Righetti) and 66 (Jones) residential units. Consistent with Policy 3.2.512, the R-1 lots range in size from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each. Consistent with Program 2.4.1a (under Policy 2.4.1: Minimize impacts to public views from scenic roadways), the project plans incorporate the required 20-foot setback from Orcutt Road (Attachment C, Constraints and Hazards Map). Lots 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are located adjacent to Orcutt Road, and are considered “sensitive” by the OASP; development of these lots require architectural review. City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R- 1 zone, and structures up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit. The applicant requested allowance of structures up to 30 feet in height on all residential lots except Lots 14 and 15. The project would not include two-story structures within 50 feet of the eastern property line, consistent with the OASP.13 The Planning Commission deliberated the applicant’s request for a height exception based on the size and location of residential lots shown on VTM #3095, and unanimously approved a recommendation to approve a 27-foot height exception limited to Lots 5-9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18. In general, the Planning Commission determined that the height exception is not appropriate on the smaller (i.e. approximately 5,000-square foot) and narrower lots. The applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing requirements identified in OASP Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.214 by providing two moderate income and one low income level units on Jones Ranch.15 These three units would be located alongside R-2 market-rate three bedroom units. While staff supports the transfer of units from Imel Ranch to Jones Ranch, it is important to note OASP and Housing Element policies that encourage affordable housing to be developed early on in projects, and if possible in step with the main market-rate housing units. For example, it is appropriate to time affordable housing with the sequence of market-rate housing, recognizing that initial grading, infrastructure, and other improvements need to be completed to begin the production of any housing. Therefore, similar to the previously-approved Jones and Righetti Ranch subdivisions within the OASP, conditions would be included to require the preparation and approval of an “Affordable Housing Agreement” by the City Council, to document the timing, guarantees and related details of the affordable housing program, to be required as a part of presentation of the initial Final Map for recordation (see Condition #79). In addition, it should be noted that the applicant is subdividing several other tracts within the OASP and that, in order to partially satisfy its inclusionary housing requirements for these tracts, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a portion of property on a portion of the “Pratt Property” to 10 Policy 3.1d notes that new subdivisions shall be designed to achieve at least the low range of units 11 OASP Table A-2 Development Potential by Landowner 12 Policy 3.2.5 identifies a range of R-1 lot sizes from 4,500 to 15,000 square feet 13 See OASP Program 2.4.1d 14 Policy 3.3.2 requires minimum 10% moderate income and 5% low income affordable dwelling units 15 Policy 3.3.3: “To promote reasonable efficiency a project developer may coordinate with another Orcutt Area property owner or developer to provide the required affordable dwelling units when the units proposed are less than 10.” Packet Pg. 396 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 8 of 13 People’s Self Help Housing in accordance with OASP Policy 3.3.4. Although this proposal is not directly related to VTM #3095, it is important for the City Council to know how these units fit within the applicant’s entire scheme for the provision of affordable housing. Chapter 4: Community Design OASP Community Design Policies express a desire for a compatible mix of architectural designs, and include design standards for R-1 districts. Roadway and lot configurations consistent with the OASP are designed to encourage pedestrian connections and accessibility within the Orcutt neighborhoods as an alternate to vehicle use. The proposed project meets these objectives for both internal circulation, and provide for Specific-Plan-regional linkages for the overall Plan area. The applicant requests rear lot setback exceptions specific to residential lots 6, 8, 9, and 10. Granting rear lot setback exceptions for the specified lots require adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings).16 The rear setback identified in OASP Table 3.1 Residential Development Standards is 20 feet for the house, and 0-5 feet for garages and carports. The identified exceptions, based on the shortest measurement from the proposed rear property line and identified building envelope would be as follows:  Lot 6 rear yard is constrained due to the realignment of Tiburon Road curving southward. As an offset lot 6 has a larger side yard (rear setback 15.87 feet).  Lots 8 and 9 are constrained by the creek and the dimension requirements of the cul-de- sac. “I” Street is designed to the minimum width to help alleviate the lot setback constraint but cannot get all the way while the driveway and garage setbacks are being met (rear setback 18.75 and 6.6 feet, respectively).  Lot 10 is pushed back in order to accommodate the turn knuckle on I Street while maintaining front driveway and garage setbacks (rear setback 17.77 feet). In other words, in order for the developer to adequately build the previously-approved extension of Tiburon Road (“B Street”) and proposed cul-de-sac, meet minimum width standards for “I Street”, comply with OASP front setback standards, and maintain adequate creek setbacks, a rear yard setback exception is necessary. Moreover, these lots each back-up to either “B Street” (Lot 6), the unnamed creek (Lots 8 and 9), or future parkland (Lot 10), all of which functionally serve as additional setback from other structures. Staff supports the applicant’s request based on the constraints summarized above; in addition, based on the location of these lots, the reduced rear setback would not reduce solar exposure or affect other residential lots.17 Architectural plans have not been provided; however, all residential development will comply with the OASP Design Guidelines at the time of future construction. The applicant has proposed that the provisions of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, and by extension the OASP, permit the Community Development Director to approve residential development pursuant to a “minor architectural review permit”. 16 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section 16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map 17 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020.E.2.c Variable Other Yards in Subdivisions Packet Pg. 397 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 9 of 13 Staff recommends that due to the presence of “sensitive” lots adjacent to Orcutt Road, and the potential construction of residences up to 27 feet in height (if the requested exception is approved), these identified lots should be subject to the public architectural review process, allowing for heightened levels of public review and comment on proposed architectural plans, including fencing (as recommended by the Planning Commission). Staff is recommending a process under Condition #78 that would allow Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and comment on a series of “model unit” buildings and landscaping designs. This process would provide an opportunity for public comment on the model units, and allow the Community Development Director to make final design consistency determinations on individual building permits based on this input from the ARC. Chapter 5: Circulation As noted on the plan set, improvements to Orcutt Road are required based on an existing condition of approval for the adjacent Righetti subdivision.18 In addition, the B Street to Tiburon Way alignment presented in the project’s plan set was approved during the Council’s consideration of the Righetti and Jones subdivisions, and it is the applicant’s intent to construct these improvements in association with these previously-approved VTMs. As noted by the applicant and captured on VTM #3095 Sheet C6 Grading Plan (see Attachment C), Orcutt Road and B Street public improvements are required pursuant to conditions of Tract #3063 (Righetti Ranch) and Tract #3066 (Jones Ranch), respectively, but will be superseded by Tract #3095 (Imel Ranch) if construction occurs prior to these adjacent tracts. Therefore, public improvements within the OASP in association with these three subdivisions would occur prior to construction of residences within Tract #3095 (Imel Ranch). On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as “I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering Standards (January 1, 2016)19. In other words, the standards require 50 feet of straight roadway at each intersection approach. Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to City Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Granting this road design exception requires adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings).20 Based on review by Public Works, staff supports this exception request because the property is affected by topographic and natural conditions, the request is minor (difference of 1.75 feet), and would not result in a public health, safety, or welfare hazard (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Findings). 18 As required by OASP Policy 5.1.a, Existing arterial roadways should be improved where necessary in order to provide safe, adequate circulation 19 All streets shall intersect other streets at right angles, and shall have at least 50 feet of centerline tangent, as measured from the prolongation of the cross-street property line to the angle point or beginning of curve. 20 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section 16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map Packet Pg. 398 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 10 of 13 Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual, which provides federal standards for safe access. The City applies the standards identified in this Manual until such time that a local access management policy is adopted pursuant to Circulation Element Policy 7.2.7 Traffic Access Management. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design; however, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this particular intersection will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn restrictions would be accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island, which is supported by City Public Works staff. Chapter 6: Public Utilities The preliminary on-site infrastructure plans proposed for VTM #3095 have been reviewed by engineering, public works, and utilities staff and are adequate for serving the proposed project. Related to delivery of domestic water to the project, new information developed after the FEIR was certified and after the OASP was adopted (in 2010) is now available from the City’s 2015 Water Master Plan and hydraulic model related to the provision of water service to the Orcutt Specific Plan Area. To serve the area with adequate fire flow (1,500 gallons per minute for residential areas), and average daily storage requirements, a 12-inch water main needs to be extended from the Terrace Hill pressure zone at the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood Drive in a south/southeast direction to the intersection of Orcutt Road and B Street. A 12-inch water main will also need to be extended west to Orcutt and A Street. Under City fire and safety standards, these improvements will be required prior to occupancy of any new residential uses. Adequate fire flow and storage, based on the extension into the project, is available for the development of the Orcutt Specific Plan area. Conditions and mitigation measures of the nearby Righetti (VTM #3063) and Jones (VTM #3066) were adopted to require these extensions in coordination with Utility Department requirements. These conditions are replicated in the proposed VTM #3095 requirements to address these off-site improvements in conjunction with the project (refer to Condition #36). In addition, a water supply plan is required for all OASP Final Maps.21 The developer will be required to construct on -site sewer facilities according to City and Uniform Plumbing Code standards. The project proposal includes internal collection lines; off-site utility construction is currently proposed as a part of the Righetti Ranch #3063 subdivision to the west, which would connect the Planning Area to existing main line facilities at Tank Farm Road. From Tank Farm Road, generated wastewater will follow existing conveyance facilities to the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. Chapter 7: Public Services The project site is located within a moderate fire hazard severity zone (see OASP FEIR and Land Use and Circulation Element Figure 4.8-1 City of SLO Planning Area Fire Hazard Severity 21 See OASP Mitigation Measure USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP to meet Fire Flow and Storage Standards Packet Pg. 399 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 11 of 13 Zones).22 Policies directed at meeting fire codes, law enforcement, health, maintenance, transportation and recycling will be applied to any project approvals, consistent with City codes and regulations as outlined in the OASP.23 Planning Commission Review of Grading Plan The Planning Commission considered the grading plan submitted by the applicant, and expressed concerns regarding the stability, safety, and ability to maintain landscaping cover on proposed 2:1 slopes along the eastern and western property boundaries of the project site. The Planning Commission recommended that staff prepare a new condition for the Council’s consideration. The proposed condition is as follows (see Attachment A, Draft Resolution, Condition # 83): Condition #83: The applicant shall explore opportunities to reduce the steepness of the graded slopes along the western property edge (adjacent to the future park) from 2:1 to 3:1 slopes, or less. Improvement and grading plans shall demonstrate how final graded slopes along both the eastern property edge (adjacent to Orcutt Road) and western property edge (adjacent to the future park) would be stabilized, landscaped, and maintained in perpetuity, which is the primary intent of this condition, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Environmental Review The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the original 2010 OASP Final EIR (FEIR) and an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared and circulated in December 2016, which analyzes the more unique and detailed components of the proposed project (refer to Attachment F, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). CEQA allows building upon or “tiering” subsequent environmental review from an earlier EIR, and in this case the IS/MND has been presented. The applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures previously adopted upon certification of the 2010 FEIR, and all additional and modified mitigation measures that are proposed specific to this project. Both the FEIR and subsequent IS/MND shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/MND and recommended modifications to two mitigation measures, as described below. Air Quality The OASP FEIR and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration disclose potential operational air quality impacts that would occur as a result of new housing throughout the OASP. One of the mitigation measures identified to mitigate potentially significant operational impacts to less than significant is AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. 22 Policy 7.2.1 requires non-combustible exteriors and defensible space and Policy 7.2.2 requires compliance with Fire Code and City fire protection standards 23 See OASP Chapter 7 Public Services Packet Pg. 400 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 12 of 13 The Planning Commission recommended elimination of mitigation measure AQ-1(a), which requires the developer to increase the building energy rating by 10% over Title 24 requirements (standards in place at the time were dated 2008). The Planning Commission’s reason for this recommendation is that since the OASP Final EIR was certified in 2010, energy efficiency standards under Title 24 have been updated, the most recent update occurring in 2016,24 which includes building energy efficiency performance and prescriptive construction standards for residential buildings. The Commission noted AQ-1(a) is out of date, and that based on the standards mandated by the current code, it is tough to achieve compliance with the requirement to increase the building energy rating by 10% over current Title 24 standards, and compliance can translate into higher building costs. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that staff delete or replace AQ-1(a) to reflect current requirements. As this mitigation measure was identified in the OASP Final EIR and Imel VTM #3095 Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff conducted additional review in order to provide a recommendation to the Council regarding modification of AQ-1(a). Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and staff review of current Title 24 (2016) standards, the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Handbook (2012), OASP FEIR, project IS/MND, the following revision to mitigation measure AQ-1(a) is recommended (deletions shown in strikeout and additions indicated by italics and underline): AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall comply with Title 24 standards in effect at the time of building plans are submitted be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy-conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double-paned windows. Final building construction plans will include needed solar conduits required for each residential unit for installing a roof-mounted solar system, at the option of each owner. It is staff’s recommendation that Council find the revised measure to be equal or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment25 because: compliance with Title 24 standards in effect at the time building plans are submitted is mandated by law; 2016 Title 24 standards provide greater energy efficiency than the 2008 Title 24 standards in effect at the time the OASP FEIR was certified; and the mitigation measure retains the energy-conservation techniques presented in the OASP FEIR. 24 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, and Associated Administrative Regulations in Part 1 25 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1 Substitution of Mitigation Measures in a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Packet Pg. 401 9 Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel VTM #3095 Page 13 of 13 Cultural Resources The Planning Commission recommended that mitigation measure CR-1(d) be supplemented with an additional requirement to prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, in order to provide additional direction on how archaeological monitoring would be conducted. Therefore, the following revision to mitigation measure CR-1(d) is proposed for the Council’s consideration: CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, constructional earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. Prior to redirecting or resuming construction, the applicant shall submit a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan, prepared by a qualified archaeologist, which shall be prepared and implemented in the event of resource discovery. The Monitoring Plan shall include at a minimum: a. List of personnel involved in the monitoring activities; b. Inclusion of involvement of the Native American community, as appropriate; c. Description of how the monitoring shall occur; d. Description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full-time, part time, spot checking); e. Description of what resources are expected to be encountered; f. Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., What is considered “significant” archaeological resources?); g. Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification procedures; and h. Description of monitoring reporting procedures. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc), work in the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material. If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. It is staff’s recommendation that Council find the revised measure to be equal or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment because the additional language clarifies how the mitigation measure would be implemented and would further mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. Packet Pg. 402 9 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 1. Project Title: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 3095 – Imel Ranch Subdivision Imel Ranch residential development plans including Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 (Application SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016), which would create 18 residential lots for the development of 18 single-family homes, two lots to support onsite detention basins, and three open space lots. The project would result in the disturbance of approximately five acres, and would require the removal of mature trees. The project includes the following exceptions: road design exception to allow a reduced centerline tangent of 48.25 feet (50 feet is the standard requirement); residential structure height exceptions on non-sensitive lots up to five feet above the standard allowed height (25 feet), resulting in structures up to 30 feet in height; temporary grading (and restoration) and permanent grading and construction of drainage and stormwater treatment basins within the 20-foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet for proposed Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 (residential development standards require a rear setback of 20 feet for residences and five feet for garages/carports). 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Phone: 805-781-7176; Email: sscott@slocity.org Prepared By: David Watson, AICP Watson Planning Consultants, Inc. www.watsonplanning.us 4. Project Location: Within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; west side of Orcutt Road, immediately southwest of Tiburon Way, approximately 0.26 mile southeast of Johnson Avenue. APN 004-706-002 Packet Pg. 403 9 2 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Ambient Communities Attn: Travis Fuentes 979 Osos Street, Suite E San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Representative Name and Address: Todd Smith Cannon Associates 1050 Southwood Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan – Orcutt Area Specific Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1-SP (Low Density Residential, Specific Plan) C/OS-SP (Conservation/Open Space, Specific Plan) 8. Description of the Project: Ambient Communities is requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) for the “Imel Ranch” property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The OASP and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The OASP designated the property for residential development, and allocated an estimated 16-17 single-family residential homes on the Imel Ranch property. The 5.49-acre subject property (as part of the overall Specific Plan area) was annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo in 2012. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers off the certified OASP FEIR and addresses any potential impacts not already addressed in the OASP FEIR. The proposed plan is to build 18 market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each (Lots 1 through 18). Lighting is proposed to be limited to primary pedestrian entrances and parking areas as needed for security. Two lots 0.25 and 0.13 acres each are proposed within the southern and western portions of the project site (Lots 19 and 20), which would support above or below ground detention basins. Two centrally located open space parcels for the existing (“unnamed”) creek are proposed within the project, approximately 0.51 and 0.15 acres each (Lots 21 and 22). A third approximately 0.83- acre open space lot (Lot 23) along the Crotalo Creek corridor is provided in the site design. Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots. The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non- native trees; this analysis also assumes the removal of one large sycamore tree near the “I” Road creek crossing. Two oak trees in the southeast corner of the property may require pruning. Packet Pg. 404 9 3 Site Disturbance and Grading The project would result in the disturbance of approximately five acres, including 14,000 cubic yards of cut and 9,500 cubic yards of fill for tract improvements and residential pad grading; approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soils would be exported from the project site to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision. Approximately 0.57 acre of area proposed for disturbance would be restored onsite, including graded areas within the 20-foot setback. In addition, residential pad grading along the western property boundary (Lots 1 through 4, 10, and 11) would require a fill slope that will extend into the adjacent “Neighborhood Park” lot. In the event construction of the proposed Imel Ranch subdivision occurs prior to adjacent tracts in the OASP, additional offsite grading associated with B Street and Orcutt Road improvements would result in the disturbance of as many as 1.5 additional acres, and would include approximately 3,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill; 1,000 cubic yards of soil would be exported. Offsite utility improvements would include extension of the wastewater line serving the property through the Neighborhood Park to “B” Street. The Imel Ranch project will also utilize planned offsite potable and recycled water line improvements. The potable water line improvements are under construction by the Righetti Ranch project, including extending a 12-inch water main from approximately the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood to the intersection of Orcutt Road and Tiburon Road. The recycled water line that would serve the Imel Ranch property is proposed to be extended from Tank Farm Road along Righetti Ranch Road then northeast to serve both the Jones Ranch and Imel Ranch properties. Drainage and Stormwater Management In order to address storm water peak flow management requirements in the OASP, detention for Imel Ranch is proposed using a combination of the following methods:  Onsite detention facilities sized for the 10-year storm to satisfy Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) post-construction storm water requirements. This will consist of either above ground shallow detention basins or below ground buried detention chambers. The location of onsite detention and storm water facilities would partially extend into the 20-foot creek setback.  “Over-detention” within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel Ranch, located within Righetti Tract 3063. Requested Exceptions On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as “I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering Standards (January 1, 2016). Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to City Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Packet Pg. 405 9 4 Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design; however, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this particular intersection will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn restrictions would be accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island. City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R-1 zone, and structures up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit. The applicant is requesting allowance of structures up to 30 feet in height. The applicant’s proposal does not include a second story on structures within 50 feet of Orcutt Road, consistent with the OASP. The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development. The applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of disturbance within the 20-foot setback. Permanent improvements within the creek setback include drainage basins (0.38 acre) and one creek crossing (0.08 acre). Approximately 0.12 acre within the creek setback would be restored for use as stormwater treatment basins and associated easements. The remaining 0.02 acre would be temporarily disturbed and restored. The project includes a Rear Yard Exception for Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 due to the presence of two meandering creeks and minimum roadway standards. Residential development standards require 20-foot (house) and up to 5-foot (garage/carport) rear setbacks. The proposed exception would result in rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet. Summary In summary, the proposed project will consist of the following significant features: 1) Eighteen (18) proposed single family residential lots/units, including site preparation, grading, construction, and operation. 2) Three (3) open space parcels totaling 1.49 acres, proposed for public dedication, which would remain undeveloped with the exception of a five-foot wide pedestrian trail and four stormwater treatment basins to be located partially within the 20-foot setback from the Unnamed Creek. 3) Site grading to accommodate the residential subdivision, resulting in the need to “export” excess cut material (proposed to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision, VTM #3063). 4) Other associated site improvements including “I” Street, on and offsite utility extensions, lighting, and landscaping. 5) Offsite road improvements including B Street and Orcutt Road, as identified in the OASP (in the event these improvements are not constructed in association with previously approved Jones Ranch and Righetti Tract Maps). Packet Pg. 406 9 5 9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The Orcutt Specific Plan Area (OASP) is located in the southeastern portion of the City, bounded by Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks near Bullock Lane. The OASP planning area is 230.85 acres in size, generally divided into thirteen (13) differing ownerships (and 21 separate parcels) ranging in size from less than 1 acre to the largest holding being just over 143 acres. Imel Ranch (the subject site) is located within and along the eastern edge of the OASP, immediately west of Orcutt Road, opposite from Tiburon Road. Lands surrounding the property are largely undeveloped within the City (with the few exceptions of sporadic homestead lots and homes). Jones Ranch is located to Imel Ranch’s immediate north, Righetti Ranch to its west, the Garay property to the south, and as noted, unincorporated residential larger-lot lands are located to the east of Orcutt Road in San Luis Obispo County. The Imel Ranch property is 5.49 acres of gently sloping land traversed by two seasonal creeks (one named “Crotalo Creek”, the other is unnamed). Onsite vegetation includes non-native annual grassland, eucalyptus stands, sycamore trees, oak trees, pepper trees, and riparian woodland. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval, Architectural Review, Tree Removal 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): California Department of Fish and Wildlife County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Regional Water Quality Control Board US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Packet Pg. 407 9 6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services X Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning X Transportation / Traffic Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). Packet Pg. 408 9 7 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, based on the analysis and mitigation requirements of the 2010 Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR, and the specific analysis incorporated herein, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A tiered ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. December 20, 2016 David Watson, AICP, Watson Planning Consultants, Inc. Date For: Michael Codron Tyler Corey, Principal Planner Community Development Director Packet Pg. 409 9 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Packet Pg. 410 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5, 18,19, 28,29 --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 5,12, 18,19, 27 --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 18,19, 27 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 10,12, 18,19 --X-- Evaluation As evaluated in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR (October 2014), the City is located eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and lies at the convergence of two main drainages: the Los Osos Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley which drains to the south-southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek. The topography of the city and its surroundings is generally defined by several low hills and ridges such as Righetti Hill, Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. These peaks are also known as Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits of the area and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The surrounding hills have created a hard urban edge where development has remained in the lower elevations. The project site vicinity exhibits quality views of nearby natural landmarks, including Islay Hill, Righetti Hill and the Coast Range to the northeast and is visually separated from the City core by the Orcutt Area and Broad Street-Highway 227. a) The primary scenic value from within and around the subject site is the view to the east of the Santa Lucia foothills and Righetti Hill to the south. As a road of “high or moderate scenic value,” development along this segment of Orcutt Road would require a design that preserves vistas and views to the maximum extent possible. The OASP FEIR acknowledges that views of the rural residential area to the east would still be maintained from the road, even with proposed development. However, the EIR included programs to fulfill the goal of minimizing impacts to surrounding views. The programs pertinent to this site include: 1. A minimum 20-foot wide landscaped setback along Orcutt Road. 2. A minimum 60-foot setback of residential development from the centerline of Orcutt Road. 3. A minimum 50-foot setback from the property line adjoining Orcutt Road that would restrict buildings to one story. Buildings with more than a single story shall be set back at least 50 feet from Orcutt Road to maintain views. 4. Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review of development plans on sensitive sites to ensure that the site design preserves views while allowing for reasonable development. 5. ARC approval of landscape plans for the street setbacks that screen development in foreground views, but also maintain backdrop views. Development plans show the dedication of additional street right-of-way along Orcutt Road, the added landscape buffer of 20 feet, and buildings that will comply with the height limitations and setbacks described above. As suggested in 1 above, Program 2.4.1a of the OASP requires a 20-foot landscaped setback/buffer zone along Orcutt Road. The OASP reference is to establishing a minimum 20-foot landscaped zone (or visual “buffer”) between Orcutt Road and the project, with two-story buildings to be set back an additional 30 feet for a total of at least 50 feet (OASP Program 2.4.1d). The ARC will review detailed landscaping plans with their final review of project plans after Vesting Tentative Map approval. Original requests for height limit exceptions on lots and associated building pads located within 50 feet of the eastern property boundary along Orcutt Road have been eliminated from the project. The applicants have submitted a “sight-line” analysis that describes unobstructed views of Righetti Hill in the vicinity of the proposed VTM #3095 (Source 29; Cannon 2016). With the proposed scale and height of planned development and its distance from the main scenic corridors, the project will not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Packet Pg. 411 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 b) The segment of Orcutt Road, which bounds the project site to the east, is considered a local scenic roadway. One of the main objectives of the OASP and companion EIR is to protect natural habitats, including creeks, hills, wetlands, and corridors between these habitats. The subject site currently contains a house, small accessory structures, fencing, and landscaping. The site is mostly sloping grassland, but does contain two degraded riparian corridors (Crotalo Creek and an unnamed creek channel) and stands of eucalyptus and other mature trees. City design policies and the OASP encourage sensitivity to site grading, while acknowledging the need for more landform modifications than might otherwise occur with smaller “infill” projects. In effect, this largely rural area will be developed with urban residential uses. This changes the character and visual backdrop in the immediate neighborhood. While not rising to the level of “potentially adverse environmental impacts”, the grading and associated retaining features will be conditioned to address visual and design considerations as part of final architectural design efforts. The new residential units and site improvements will also follow OASP criteria for building design and street improvements. In this manner the appearance of new development will meet the design criteria of the OASP, as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines, and be considered “self-mitigating” in its compliance with established design and appearance standards. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant for this project. c) The existing visual character of the site will change from semi-rural to an urbanized area as a result of the proposed project, pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the OASP. The project is required to be consistent with the distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the OASP to ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views. As proposed, the project does not result in development that is incompatible with the adopted OASP, surrounding neighborhood development, or planned and approved projects within the OASP, and in this regard is self-mitigating. Ultimately, the design of residential units along Orcutt Road will require the review and approval of the ARC to ensure consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines as well as the OASP, and must demonstrate compliance with City codes and standards addressing aesthetics and visual character. Regardless, the proposed development would contribute to the project-wide effect on the aesthetic character of the site vicinity through alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads. The OASP FEIR considered this a cumulative significant and unavoidable impact and considered and approved overriding considerations. d) The prior OASP FEIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the OASP will introduce new sources of light, glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the OASP FEIR determined that such light and glare impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels during site specific project review. This is accomplished through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the OASP and with other adopted City standards including the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. The new light source will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the established San Luis Obispo urbanized area because construction and lighting standards require new light to be shielded and directed downward to ensure glare and fugitive light does not leave the OASP site. Therefore, impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than significant with OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas, which would be implemented through compliance with the OASP Lighting Standards (Program 4.4.3a addressing light spacing and height, shielding and spillover restrictions). Building lighting for the project will also be reviewed and approved by the ARC in compliance with the aforementioned standards of the OASP and Chapter 17.23 of the City’s Zoning Regulations (Night Sky Preservation Ordinance). Conclusion: With the subdivision, building design, and lighting requirements discussed above and incorporated into the project proposal, the project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. OASP FEIR-required Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) ensures compliance with city regulations in minimizing lighting and glare impacts to less than significant. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 18, 19 --X-- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 12, 18, 19 --X-- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 1,12, 18, 19 --X-- Packet Pg. 412 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 Evaluation The city is located in the heart of San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast Region, both of which are important key agricultural centers within the State of California. The region’s agricultural industry is an important part of the local economy. It provides employment and income directly for those in agriculture, and it helps drive growth in the tourism industry, which in turn generates further economic activity and consumer spending. a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site has not been actively farmed and is not zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of such agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b) The project site is not located on active farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The project site is designated for residential uses in the General Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of active farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1,2, 9,11, 13,19, 20,22 --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2, 19,20 --X-- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1,2, 19,20 --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1,2 19,20 --X-- e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1,2, 19,20 --X-- Evaluation Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e., the Upper Salinas River Valley and the East County Plain), although the physical features that divide them provide only limited barriers to transport pollutants between regions. The County is designated nonattainment for the one‐hour California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The County is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Measurements of ambient air quality from the monitoring station at 3220 South Higuera Street are representative of local air quality conditions. a-e) The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP), which is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the SLO APCD and other local agencies, including the City, on how to attain and maintain the state standards for ozone and PM10. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the SLO APCD implement the CAP. The CAP presents a detailed description of the sources and pollutants which impact the jurisdiction, future air quality impacts to be expected under current growth trends, and an appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality. The proposed project is consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The OASP FEIR determined Packet Pg. 413 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 that the OASP is consistent with the population assumptions of the CAP, and identified Land Use and Transportation Control Measures that would be implemented through the OASP, including but not limited to a pedestrian and bicycle path and traffic flow improvements on Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road. The OASP FEIR identified a significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to the OASP’s inconsistency with the CAP (development outside of the 2010 City Limits and Urban Reserve Line [URL] and resulting rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled), and associated adopted findings included a statement of overriding considerations. At the time OASP was approved, the Imel Ranch property was located within the URL. The Imel Ranch subdivision is consistent with the approved OASP, and is currently located within the City Limits and URL; therefore, no new impacts would occur that were not addressed in the OASP FEIR. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state standards for PM10. CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. The April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook is provided by the SLO APCD for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development, and includes thresholds of significance and mitigation measures specific to criteria pollutants and impacts to sensitive receptors. Under CEQA, the SLO APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality. According to the 2010 OASP FEIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants. Construction- related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a short-term potentially significant impact on air quality that could exceed established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or programs. In addition, the project site is situated near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project will be required by OASP mitigation measures to submit final tract construction plans to SLO APCD for comment and/or approval prior to grading and construction of the project. The OASP FEIR also noted long-term (“operation”) air quality impacts that would result from on-going emissions generated by the project-related vehicular trips, as well as additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption. To reduce vehicular trips associated with the project, the design includes many sustainable features and is not auto-centric. The project includes a network of pedestrian pathways internally throughout that will connect to the property to the south as well as Orcutt Road. Construction Significance Criteria: Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, hauling, vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment, and exposure to naturally occurring asbestos and asbestos containing materials, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. The project is subject to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related equipment), which would mitigate potential construction-related impacts to less than significant. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The SLO APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4). Pursuant to SLO APCD requirements and ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105), the applicant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Based on Packet Pg. 414 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 compliance with identified mitigation (AIR-1) and existing regulations, this potential impact would be less than significant. The project will include extensive grading and demolition, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in older structures as well as underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). Based on compliance with identified mitigation (AIR-2) and these existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project would require approximately five acres of ground disturbance (and an additional potential 1.5 acres of ground disturbance for off-site road improvements), and is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT, AQ-3(b) Dust Control, AQ- 3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils, and AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor related to fugitive dust emissions during proposed construction activities are required. Construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts, including sensitive receptor exposure to diesel particulates and other air pollutants, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or SLO APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in the SLO APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4. Truck trips associated with the proposed excavated site material (i.e., soils) that will be cut from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to SLO APCD permitting requirements, subject to a specifically selected truck route. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions are considered mitigable under the OASP FEIR subject to SLO APCD review and/or approval of project plans, and compliance with Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) identified in OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT. Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts: Table 1-1 of the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of 18 single family residences would not exceed the threshold of significance for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Therefore, operational phase air quality impacts are considered less than significant. In addition, the project would incorporate required operational mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR; refer to AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency, AQ-1(d) Telecommuting, and AQ-1(e) Pathways. Based on the project’s consistency with the OASP and incorporation of OASP FEIR mitigation measures, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The project includes the development of a residential project, as anticipated by the OASP R-1 zoning, and does not include any land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. There are no uses in the area that generate objectionable odors that may significantly affect future residents, employees, or visitors. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: With implementation of OASP FEIR-required and supplemental construction and operational mitigation measures as referenced above, the project will have a less than significant impact on air quality. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,5, 15,17, 19,27, 33,35, 36,37 --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or 1,5, --X-- Packet Pg. 415 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 15,17, 19,27, 33,35, 36,37 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1,5, 15,17, 19,27, 33,35, 36,37 --X-- d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1,5, 15,17, 19,27, 33,35, 36,37 --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1,5, 15,17, 19,27, 33,35, 36,37 --X-- f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,5, 15,17, 19,27, 33,35, 36,37 --X-- Evaluation The urbanized area of the City of San Luis Obispo lies at the convergence of two main geologic features: Los Osos Valley, which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley, which drains to the south‐ southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Prefumo, and Brizzolara Creeks, and numerous tributary channels pass through the city, providing important riparian habitat and migration corridors connecting urbanized areas to less‐developed habitats in the larger area surrounding the City. Much of area outside the city limits consist of open rangeland grazed year round, along with agricultural lands dominated by annual crop rotations and vineyards. A variety of natural habitats and associated plant communities are present within the City, and support a diverse array of native plants and resident, migratory, and locally nomadic wildlife species, some of which are considered as rare, threatened, or endangered species. However, the largest concentrations of natural and native habitats are located in the larger and less developed areas outside the city limits. The EIR prepared for the OASP included programmatic biological resource impact analyses of special species of plants and animals, and different habitat values, including riparian corridors and wetlands. The OASP incorporated recommended EIR policies and programs. Appendix C of the OASP incorporates mitigation measures to be applied to project approvals consistent with the Specific Plan as applicable. The most significant sensitive natural resource features on the project site are the creek corridors and associated wetland and woodland areas. As required by OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures B-2(a) Seasonally-Timed Botanical Surveys, B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey, and B-5(b) Burrowing Owl Survey, the applicant provided a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) (Rincon 2014, Source 37), which includes seasonal botanical surveys, burrowing owl surveys, and delineation of jurisdictional waters. The results of the BRA are incorporated into the discussion and analysis below. a)-d) As described in the OASP FEIR, and confirmed by site visits and the BRA, habitats present within the project site include non-native annual grassland, eucalyptus, and riparian woodland. Based on the results of the BRA, Cambria morning- glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis) and purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) are present onsite and would be impacted by proposed grading and development. At the time the OASP FEIR was certified, Cambria morning-glory was a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B (rare, threatened, endangered in California and elsewhere); this species is currently included on the updated CNPS Rare Plant Rank 4.2 (Watch List; uncommon and fairly endangered in California). Packet Pg. 416 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 Plants with Rare Plant Rank 4 are not defined as “rare” statewide. Cambria morning-glory is identified as a Species of Local Concern in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element. Pursuant to the OASP FEIR, the project is subject to Mitigation Measures: B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer and B-2(d-g) Special-Status Species CDFG-Approved Mitigation Plan, Monitoring Frequency, Habitat Replacement and Bunchgrass Survey. Based on compliance with mitigation identified in the OASP FEIR, potential impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant. The OASP FEIR notes that grassland habitat and large trees onsite provide suitable habitat for a variety of special status avian species and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). On-site eucalyptus may provide autumnal/winter aggregation sites for monarchs; however, this species is not known to overwinter in the trees within the OASP. Based on the results of the BRA, the following special-status species have the potential to occur onsite:  Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), California Species of Special Concern (CSSC)  Sharp shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), CSSC  Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), CSSC  Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), CSSC  White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Federal Species of Concern (FSC)/State Fully Protected (FP)  California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), CSSC  Merlin (Falco columbarius), CSSC  Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Implementation of the project has the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to these species and their habitat (in addition to other common and migratory wildlife) as a result of construction activities and long-term use of the site. Prior to and during construction, the project is subject to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures B-5(a) Bird Pre-Construction Survey and B-5(c) Monarch Pre-Construction Survey. The project incorporates required creek buffer and open space requirements (no residence or garage would be located within the creek buffer), as required by the OASP, which will preserve riparian woodland habitat present onsite for continued use by wildlife. The project is also subject to the following OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures: B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths; B-6(b) Culvert Design; B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure; B-6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. Based on compliance with the OASP and mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR, potential impacts to special-status and native wildlife and their habitat would be less than significant. Crotalo Creek and an unnamed creek flow through the project site on a seasonal basis. Based on the BRA, the jurisdictional areas associated with these two creeks within the project site include approximately 0.17 acre (1,458 linear feet) of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Other Waters and Drainages and 1.04 acres (1,458 linear feet) of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed and riparian habitat is present within the project site. Sheet C2 of the VTM shows that the two creek corridors and adjoining riparian habitat will be located within proposed Open Space Lots 21, 22 and 23. The lot configurations were specifically developed to include the channel area, creek banks, and appropriate setbacks, based on the project engineer’s consultation with the City, including the Natural Resources Manager, and other regulatory agencies. Consistent with OASP policies and development guidance, the creek corridors will be protected as open space and enhanced with native plantings as appropriate. Proposed “I” Street would cross the unnamed creek in one location, which would result in temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional habitat, which may include grading, vegetation removal, and placement of structures within areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE and/or CDFW. Implementation of the project would include grading and construction within the identified 20-foot creek setback; all areas temporarily disturbed would be restored. Permanent development within the 20-foot setback, aside from the road crossing, would consist of drainage and stormwater basins. All grading and construction is subject to compliance with the following OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures, which will protect water quality and creek habitat in the short- and long- term: B-4(a) Trail Setbacks; B-4(b) Development Setbacks; B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland Mitigation; D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan; D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization; and D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. In addition to protection of jurisdictional areas, the proposed configuration of the open space lots will create a riparian corridor with an improved high habitat value for wildlife species. The residential component of the project would occupy just less than half of the project site (47%), with open space and detention basin lots covering about 34% or about 1.8 acres. The remainder of the site (approximately 1.03 acres, or 19% of the site acreage) would consist of roads. Therefore, it is not expected that the development would interfere substantially with the movement of any native wildlife species in the long-term. Packet Pg. 417 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 e) VTM Sheet C3 is the project demolition plan which includes the locations of existing trees and their proposed status with development. Limited native vegetation exists in the form of trees and native grasses over small portions of the site to be developed. An Arborist Letter Report (Rincon 2016; Source 33) is included for reference. The report includes a site survey and analysis of the health and safety of the trees located on the project site. Several varieties of ornamental trees are located in the vicinity of the existing house. There are no designated significant specimen or heritage trees on the property. The Rincon Report in part states: “…Rincon documented 54 trees and 7 groves on the Imel Property. In general, trees on the Imel Property are concentrated along Crotalo Creek and Tanglewood Creek (also referred to as Unnamed Creek), two ephemeral creeks that run east to west across the Imel Property. The trees are generally ornamentals associated with the existing residence, however, some native and nonnative trees are associated with the creeks and some trees are scattered throughout the remainder of the Imel Property.” The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees, a sycamore tree, and several other mostly smaller non- native trees. There are some larger oaks that will be retained as part of the project design. The large sycamore tree proposed for removal is identified as tree #548, and occurs at the western convergence of the unnamed creek in Lot 22 and the proposed westerly extension of “I” Street. Rincon indicates that this tree is a large sprawling tree with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 61 inches, with several major branches that flair out of main trunk. Rincon goes on to state that the trunk is in poor health, visible rot damage, poor health within the canopy and its foliage is much more sparse than other sycamore trees on the Imel property. However, sycamore trees can live for many years under such conditions, especially with proper care and maintenance. At this location the extension of “I” Street as designed would effectively destroy the sycamore. The City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager have suggested that the tree be retained, leading to the need for a redesign of the roadway and creek crossing in this area. It is clear that preserving this tree would be a preferred policy solution. Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy 7.5.1 states that significant trees, as defined during City Council review, that make a substantial contribution to the natural habitat of its localized environment shall be protected. This policy also acknowledges that in the event that removal of significant trees does occur, that such removal must be addressed through supplemental plantings and improvements in the localized area. In this instance, the City Arborist would review final project plans and evaluate the trimming and retention of this tree as a matter of City policy priority (including reasonable techniques such as roadway narrowing, repositioning, slope steepening and/or retaining - in concert with Engineering and Public Works staff analysis) versus other new compensatory tree planting alternatives as a part of extension of the “I” Street roadway in this immediate vicinity. If the tree cannot be retained, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure B-3(a) Construction Requirements would apply, which requires replacement of removed trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio, and B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland Mitigation, which requires compensatory mitigation at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the tree would be removed, resulting in a potentially significant impact that would require onsite in-kind mitigation (4:1 replacement ratio) (see OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures B-2(d), B-2(e) and B-3(a)). In addition, tree removal within the City is, along with other related guides and standards, specifically governed by the Municipal Code: 12.24.090 Tree removal. B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal permit, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as follows: a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the application; b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall approve or deny the application… Therefore, based on consistency with the OASP, compliance with the Municipal Code, and implementation of identified mitigation measures, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. f) The project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Packet Pg. 418 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 Conclusion: The 2010 OASP FEIR included various biological mitigation measures that would be applicable to this project. These are included at the conclusion of this report, and address special-status plant species (B-2(b) and B-2(d-g), tree measures coordinated through the City Arborist (B-3a), riparian and development setbacks (B-4(a-b), and riparian and wetland mitigation pursuant to any resource agency requirements that may be imposed independently of the city (B-4(c)), vegetation clearing and bird nesting and monarch pre-construction surveys (B-5(a,c)). While potential impacts to wildlife are not considered significant, OASP FEIR mitigations B-6(a-d) are also included to provide for addressing wildlife and landscape design measures as part of project planning and construction. With recommended project features as designed, and implementation of identified mitigation, the project will have a less than significant impact on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 12,19, 23,24, 25,31 --X-- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 12,19, 23,25, 31 --X-- c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 12,19, 23,31 --X-- d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 12,19, 23,25 --X-- e) Have a significant adverse effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource? 19,23, 25,31 --X-- Evaluation Pre-Historic Setting: As outlined in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years, and that Native American use of the central coast region may have begun during the late Pleistocene, as early as 9000 B.C., demonstrating that historical resources began their accumulation on the central coast during the prehistoric era. The City of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, including the Arroyo Grande area, and from the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast. Historic Resource Setting: The area of San Luis Obispo became colonialized by the Spanish Incursion initially in 1542, with the first official settlement on Chumash Territory occurring in 1772, when the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was established. By the 1870s (after the earliest arrivals of Chinese immigrants in 1869), a Chinatown district had been established in the downtown area near Palm and Morro Street. By 1875, 2,500 residents were documented in a 4-square mile area around what is now the City of San Luis Obispo. By 1901, the City was served by the Pacific Coast Railway and mainline Southern Pacific, and in 1903 the California Polytechnic State University was established. The last era of growth generally lasted from 1945 to the present. Many of the residential subdivisions in the Foothill and Laguna Lake area were developed between 1945 and 1970 and the city’s population increased by 53% during this time. Impact Analysis a-e) The 2010 OASP FEIR did not analyze the Imel property as part of the Specific Plan process. As a result, the EIR required that a Phase 1 surface survey (Mitigation Measure CR-1a) be performed prior to consideration of a development project, in order to adequately analyze possible environmental impacts. Site-Specific Cultural and Historic Resource Evaluation: In order to assess the subject property Rincon Consultants was commissioned by the applicant to prepare a site evaluation assessment and historic/cultural resources recommendations (March 4, 2016; Source 31). The Rincon analysis concludes that the property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained resource maps. No tribal cultural resources have been identified within this project site by local Native American tribes during consultation or in response to the City’s invitation to consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. Following a Phase 1 site investigation, the Rincon report indicates that Packet Pg. 419 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 archaeological resources are not expected to be identified in the project site. However, if any archaeological material and/or human remains are encountered during project construction activities, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-1(d) is provided to ensure proper handling of said material and discoveries. Rincon also analyzed the possible historic significance of the existing residential building (slated for demolition). It was concluded that this 1961 building did not meet city criteria for designating the building as historically important or significant; therefore, removal of this structure would not result in any impacts to historic resources. Regarding paleontological resources, the underlying geologic formations include Qa and Qoa, alluvial floodplain deposits. Based on the limited area of development and amount of cut and fill, the potential for discovery of a significant paleontological resource is low. In addition, any unanticipated discoveries would be addressed through compliance with OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures CR-1(d) and CR-3(a). Therefore, the potential impacts to paleontological resources is considered less than significant. Conclusion: Based on the results of the Phase I cultural resources survey and compliance with previously adopted OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures CR-1(d) and CR-3(a), the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural and tribal cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 1, 4, 9,14, 19,32 --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,4, 14,19 --X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1,4 14, 19 --X-- IV. Landslides? 1,4, 14,19 --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,4, 19,27, 32 --X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1, 4, 9,14, 19,32 --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 [Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010], creating substantial risks to life or property? 1, 4, 9,14, 19,32 --X-- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1, 4, 9,14, 19,32 --X-- Evaluation As discussed in the 2010 OASP FEIR, San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast Range Geomorphic Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and extends from Oregon to northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex, and is comprised of sub‐parallel northwest‐southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and a mixture of serpentinite and greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene aged Monterey Formation Packet Pg. 420 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 are also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary aged volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes) which extend from the City of San Luis Obispo northwesterly to Morro Bay. Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all comprised of these volcanic plugs. Faulting and Seismic Activity: The predominant northwest‐southeast trending structures of the Coast Range Province are related to the San Andreas Fault Transform Boundary. Other faults in the San Luis Obispo area that are considered active or potentially active include the San Juan Fault, the East and West Huasna Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Oceano Fault, the Oceanic Fault, Cambria Fault, the Edna Fault, the Hosgri Fault, and the Los Osos Fault. The East and West Huasna Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Cambria Fault, and the Edna Fault have not yet been officially classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone) is an area within 500 feet from a known active fault trace that has been designated by the State Geologist. Per the Alquist‐Priolo legislation, no structure for human occupancy is permitted on the trace of an active fault. The portion of the fault zone closest to the city is located near the southern flank of the Los Osos Valley, northwest of Laguna Lake, but lies just outside of the city limits. Seismically Induced Ground Acceleration: Seismically induced ground acceleration is the shaking motion that is produced by an earthquake. Probabilistic modeling is done to predict future ground accelerations, taking into consideration design basis earthquake ground motion, applicable to residential or commercial, or upper‐bound earthquake ground motion, applied to public use facilities like schools or hospitals. Landslides: Landslides occur when the underlying support can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a slope failure. Ground shaking and landslide hazards are mapped by the City and are shown in the General Plan. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. However, the city contains extensive hillsides. Several are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope instability. The actual risk of slope instability is identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified professionals. The California Building Code (CBC) requires site‐specific investigations and design proposals by qualified professionals in areas that are susceptible to slope instability and landslides. Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore water pressure. As a result, structures built on this material can sink into the alluvium, buried structures may rise to the surface or materials on sloped surfaces may run downhill. Other effects of liquefaction include lateral spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with the depth of groundwater below the site and the types of sediments underlying an area. The soils in the San Luis Obispo area that are most susceptible to ground shaking, and which contain shallow ground water, are the ones most likely to have a potential for settlement and for liquefaction. The actual risk of settlement or liquefaction is identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified professionals. Previous investigations have found that the risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site preparation and proper foundation design, and that the actual risk of liquefaction is low. Differential Settlement: Differential settlement is the downward movement of the land surface resulting from the compression of void space in underlying soils. This compression can occur naturally with the accumulation of sediments over porous alluvial soils within river valleys. Settlement can also result from human activities including improperly placed artificial fill, and structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates. This phenomenon can alter local drainage patterns and result in structural damage. Portions of the City have been identified as possibly being underlain by soft organic soils, resulting in a high potential for settlement (General Plan Safety Element). Subsidence: Ground subsidence occurs where underlying geologic materials (typically loosely consolidated surficial silt, sand, and gravel) undergo a change from looser to tighter compaction. As a result, the ground surface subsides (lowers). Where compaction increases (either naturally, or due to construction), the geologic materials become more dense. As a result, the ground surface overlying the compacting subsurface materials subsides as the underlying geologic materials settle. Ground subsidence can occur under several different conditions, including:  Ground‐water withdrawal (water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to settle) Packet Pg. 421 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20  Tectonic subsidence (ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding); and  Earthquake‐induced shaking causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground‐surface subsidence. Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are soils that are generally clayey, swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Wetting can occur in a number of ways (i.e., absorption from the air, rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, lawn watering, broken water or sewer lines, etc.). Soil expansion can cause subtle damage that can reduce structural integrity. Portions of the city are known to exhibit the soil types (refer to General Plan Safety Element) identified as having a moderate to high potential for expansion. 2010 OASP FEIR: Regional studies indicated that there are no active or potentially active faults within the Specific Plan area. However, ground shaking associated with nearby faults could damage or destroy property, structures and transportation infrastructures. In addition, site soils are reported to have a high liquefaction potential, a moderate to high expansion potential and a potential for subsidence. The FEIR concluded these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels through the application of standard CBC and geotechnical/soils investigation recommendations (OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures G-2(a), G-3(a), and G-4(a)), which are included in the applicant’s proposed VTM. a)-d) Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the CBC. To minimize this potential impact, the CBC and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Incorporation of required CBC, City Codes, and development in accordance with the General Plan Safety Element will reduce impacts related to seismic hazards to less than significant levels. The most significant source of potential erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. However, compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will ensure that the creation of additional impervious areas will not increase the amount of runoff within the watershed, and will not affect percolation to the groundwater basin or adversely alter drainage patterns. In addition, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures addressing potential impacts to drainage and surface waters would be required, including the following: D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan; D-1(d) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization; D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting; D-4(a) Compliance with the City’s Drainage Design Manual; D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification; D-5(a) Biofilters; D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines; D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material; and D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. Based on compliance with existing regulations and previously adopted mitigation measures, potential impacts related to drainage and stormwater would be less than significant. As discussed in the OASP FEIR, potential impacts may occur as a result of development in areas having a high potential for settlement, and moderate to high potential for expansion or contraction of soils; these impacts would be mitigated to less than significant by standard engineering practices in compliance with existing regulations and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures G-3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering and G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. Conclusion:. The 2010 OASP FEIR included various mitigation measures that would be applicable to this project. These are included at the conclusion of this report, and would mitigate potential drainage and erosion impacts (see D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a, b), D-5(a-d). In addition to compliance with the CBC and local building code requirements, the applicant would comply with OASP FEIR mitigation measures to address underlying geologic and soil conditions (see G-2(a), G-3(a), and G- 4(a)). With recommended project features as designed, compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of identified mitigation, the project will have a less than significant geology and soils impacts. Packet Pg. 422 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,13, 20,21, 26 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 1,13, 20,21, 26 --X-- Evaluation Prominent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic (human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion in both stationary and mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation, high global warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other activities. The major sources of GHG emissions in the City are transportation‐related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by energy consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community‐wide activities in the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG emissions that result in the cumulative effect of global warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur despite local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in average global temperatures will result in a number of locally‐important adverse effects, including sea‐level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms. Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, California Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97 with respect to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate change effects in the City. The SLO APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook includes guidance on GHG emission thresholds and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012, Source 20). The City also adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction targets, and includes specific measures and implementing actions to both reduce community‐wide GHG emissions (refer to Source 13). The CAP also includes measures and actions to help the city build resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change. a-b) Air quality impacts resulting from the buildout of the City’s General Plan have been analyzed in detail under the LUCE Update EIR. Specifically, in 2009 the City conducted a GHG emissions inventory of annual emissions for the baseline year 2005. The City’s CAP also included forecasted business‐as‐usual (BAU) emissions for 2010, 2020 and 2035. The CAP BAU forecast supersedes forecasted emissions included in the original 2009 inventory. According to the emissions forecast, communitywide BAU emissions would increase by approximately 9 percent in 2020 compared to 2005 levels, and would further increase by approximately 21 percent in 2035 compared to 2005 levels. However, projected growth assumed under the LUE and OASP is equal to or slightly less than the growth projections used to estimate worst case future GHG emissions in the CAP. Therefore, expected long‐term operational GHG emissions generated by new development is consistent with the land use and zoning evaluated under the LUCE Update and would be consistent with forecasted BAU communitywide emissions in the CAP. The CAP includes a communitywide GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. In order to address the forecasted increase in long-term operational emission impacts, the CAP includes specific GHG reduction measures that are designed to achieve this target, in combination with state and federal legislative reductions. As shown in the LUCE Update EIR, with implementation of the GHG reduction measures, communitywide emissions would be reduced to 16 Packet Pg. 423 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, exceeding the 15 percent target. Please refer to LUCE EIR Table 4.7-3 (titled “Consistency of Proposed LUCE Update Policies and Programs with Climate Action Plan Measures and Actions”) for a detailed review of LUE policies and their consistency with applicable CAP measures. The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions. Construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new development. Long-term CO2 and GHG emissions are primarily from building heating systems, electricity usage, and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands. Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction and operation of 18 single-family residences would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Annual Bright Line threshold (1,150 MT CO2e/year from operational and amortized construction impacts). The OASP FEIR includes mitigation that would further reduce the generate of GHG during construction and operation of the project, including: Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a), which requires implementation of energy efficiency measures; Mitigation Measures AQ-1(b)(d-f) and AQ-4(a) which would reduce vehicle miles traveled during operation; and AQ-3(a), which addresses vehicle and equipment exhaust during construction. In addition, State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enforced with new construction. Therefore, the proposed project development would be consistent with the communitywide GHG emissions reductions assumed in the CAP and the incremental contribution of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. Conclusion: Based on review of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and incorporation of required OASP FEIR mitigation measures and Title 24 regulations, impacts are considered less than significant. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed 4,18, 19,27, 28 --X-- Packet Pg. 424 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 23 with wildlands? Evaluation a-b) The OASP FEIR determined no hazardous materials, substances or waste exist on the subject site. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and occupancy of the Project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as such uses would have to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. c) The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus there is no impact. d) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus, there is no impact. e-f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In its adoption of the OASP, the City Council found the OASP to be consistent with the ALUP, and ultimately received the endorsement of the Airport Land Use Commission. The OASP includes performance standards for avigation easements for tracts (Program 3.5.2g) and real estate disclosures to potential owners and renters (OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures S-2(b)). VTM#3095 conditions of approval are recommended to be included to address these requirements. Therefore, because the subject project and proposed uses and densities are compliant with the OASP, and the project will be conditioned per the OASP performance standards; there is not a significant impact. g) The OASP project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who has recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The project as designed will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus there is no impact. h) The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact. Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant (in the case of the airport disclosures required pursuant to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure S-2(b) referenced above) or there is no impact from the project as proposed. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,7, 15,18, 19,34 --X-- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1,7, 15,18, 19,34 --X-- c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? 1,7, 15,18, 19,34 --X-- d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream 1,7, 15,18, --X-- Packet Pg. 425 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 24 or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 19,34 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1,7, 15,18, 19,34 --X-- f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,7, 15,18, 19,34 --X-- g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,7, 15,18, 19,27, 34 --X-- h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1,15, 18,19 27,34 --X-- i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1,15, 18,19, 27,34 --X-- j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4,18, 19,27 --X-- Evaluation The City of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low‐lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the city, with the others being Stenner Creek, Prefumo Creek, and Old Garden Creek. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, and these can also present flood hazards. The OASP is located within the watershed of the East Branch of San Luis Creek and encompasses about 12.6 square miles. Because of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks are relatively small, but the steep slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast moving flood events. As discussed in the 2010 OASP FEIR, the project site will, as it develops, increase sediment transport downstream and increase the potential for inundation based on increasing impervious surfaces. The FEIR established requirements to meet city standards and regulations, as well as RWQCB specifications, for implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the use of detention and retention basins, as appropriate means to mitigate any adverse impacts from development in the OASP. a, f) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures D-4(a) Compliance with City’s Drainage Design Manual and D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification, the Interim Low Impact Development Standards, and City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of original entitlements. Storm drainage systems will provide water quantity and water quality controls. The system design will limit the post development runoff to that of the pre-development condition for the 2, 10, 25, 50, & 100-year storm events. The project will treat runoff in accordance with the Interim Low Impact Development Standards and City Engineering Standard 1010.B. City Engineering Standard for Source Control of Drainage and Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010.B clarifies that “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development/Redevelopment.” In addition, the project is subject to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan, D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which will protect water quality during grading and construction of the project. The proposed project will include the construction of on-site detention facilities to collect and manage runoff, as well as promote on-site infiltration through design of associated hardscape and landscape. The site is also designed under the OASP to discharge ultimate runoff into the larger (regional-serving) “west basin” located on the Righetti Ranch property, which then proceeds into the Arbors basin and beyond. Packet Pg. 426 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 25 Based on the VTM storm drainage design, and its integration into the larger regional basin located downstream of the Imel property as discussed above and in the relevant Source Documents, water quality impacts would be considered less than significant. b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Thus, there is no impact. c-e) Implementation of the project would create additional impervious surfaces, which has the potential to generate run-off resulting in erosion and sedimentation. Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Drainage Design Manual (OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure D-4(a-b)) and Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The project is also subject to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures D-5(a) Biofilters and D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines, D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material, and D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. The Waterways Management Plan and LID stormwater treatment requires that site development be designed so that post- development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. The proposed project retains the amount of stormwater to reduce discharge to pre development rates, and provides treatment and infiltration for the volume of water required by the RWQCB. OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure D-2(a), to be applied to all development projects, fosters a vegetative and biotechnical approach to creek bank stabilization within the OASP. Based on the proposed drainage and stormwater management system and compliance with OASP policies, FEIR mitigation measures, and City and RWQCB regulations, implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts related to erosion, sedimentation, pollution of ground and surface waters, or flooding. g-i) The proposed project as proposed would not include development located in flood waters during a 100-year storm event per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map (reference constraints sheet of VTM; Source 27). The project will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Therefore, no impact would occur. j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow. Therefore, no impact would occur. Conclusion: The 2010 OASP FEIR included various hydrology and water quality mitigation measures that would be applicable to this project. These are included at the conclusion of this report, and address stormwater and water quality (OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a, b), D-5(a-d)). Based on the proposed preliminary drainage plan, including construction and operation of drainage basins approved by the City Public Works Department, and compliance with RWQCB SWPPP regulations and mitigation measures identified above, potential impacts would be less than significant. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,6, 18, 29 --X-- b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,6, 18, 19 --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,6, 18, 19 --X-- Evaluation a) The project density established under the OASP anticipated a range of 16-17 single-family residences. This assumption was predicated on future, detailed project assessments and acknowledged that these ranges were subject to refinement during Packet Pg. 427 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26 application processing. The potential density for the site based on the OASP’s range of 3-6 units/acre under Table A-2, multiplied by 3.0 net acres on the Imel site, yields up to 18 single-family residences. The proposed density is consistent with the OASP standards noted. The proposed development project is consistent with the development anticipated for the project site under the 2010 OASP, and the General Plan and zoning designations for the site, and is designed to fit among OASP developing projects. Imel development will not physically divide an established community. b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with the 2010 OASP, as well as all city regulations and development standards, and incorporates all adopted OASP FEIR mitigation measures. c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Conclusion: Based on the project’s consistency with the OASP, no impacts to land use planning are anticipated with this project. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 5 --X-- b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 5 --X-- Evaluation a-b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No impacts are anticipated. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2,3,9, 18,19 --X-- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 2,3,9, 18,19 --X-- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2,3,9, 18,19 --X-- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2,3,9, 18,19 --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 2,3,9, 18,19 --X-- 2,3,9, 18,19 --X-- Packet Pg. 428 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 27 Evaluation a) According to the 2010 OASP FEIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60 decibels (dB). This is particularly true for lots adjacent to Orcutt Road, which functions as a major north-south arterial, connects Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm Road, and carries large volumes of traffic. Based on noise modeling results included in the LUCE FEIR, residential development on proposed Lots 14 through 18 would be subjected to transportation-related noise ranging between 65 to 70 dB. Consequently, to reduce the effects of such traffic related noise to sensitive residential receptors, the OASP established goals, policies and programs to reduce noise exposure of new sensitive receptors within the Orcutt Area to meet City Standards. Specifically, the project complies with OASP noise programs as follows: 1) Outdoor activity areas are located internally to the project and are set back from the centerline of Orcutt Road by more than 80 feet. 2) Residential portions of dwellings are set back more than 60 feet from the centerline of Orcutt Road. 3) New construction will comply with requirements for 45 dB interior sound levels through standard construction techniques, consistent with Building Code requirements. Implementation of the noise program must occur prior to home occupancy for development pursuant to the Specific Plan. Regardless, cumulative noise impacts were determined significant and unavoidable impact in the OASP FEIR and corresponding overriding considerations were considered and approved. The IMEL subdivision is consistent with the approved OASP; therefore, no new noise impacts would occur that were not addressed in the OASP FEIR. b) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive ground-borne noise levels or vibrations. Thus, there is no impact. c) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of mitigation requirements set forth in a) above, noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. In addition, based on noise modeling presented in the OASP FEIR (refer to Table 4.8-4 Projected Noise Levels along Area Roadways), the project would not result in a significant increase in transportation-related noise along Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, or Johnson Avenue. Thus, impacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less than significant. d) Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) in ambient noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development, it can only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The project by reference acknowledges that it will comply with FEIR Mitigation Measure N-1(a) which references the City’s Noise Ordinance in terms of construction hours and techniques to reduce temporary impacts from noise levels. Thus, the impact is less than significant. e, f) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). According to the ALUP and prior OASP FEIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA- CNEL contour line. Some residents may be exposed to noise generated by airport operations but the noise levels are not expected to exceed thresholds established by the ALUP and the City General Plan; therefore, consistent with the OASP FEIR, this impact is considered less than significant. Conclusion: Based on the location of the project and compliance with OASP policies and FEIR Mitigation Measure N-1(a), potential noise impacts would be less than significant. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,2,6, 18, 19 --X-- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2,6, 18, 19 --X-- Packet Pg. 429 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 28 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2,6, 18, 19 --X-- Evaluation: a) The proposed project consists of a residential development of up to eighteen (18) single-family residences. The project site is designated for residential development under the General Plan, OASP and Zoning Ordinance. According to the 2010 OASP, the proposed project includes development consistent with the anticipated use of the site under the Specific Plan and Land Use Element. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the OASP, General Plan and envisioned under the current site zoning designation. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. b) The proposed project includes the demolition of one unoccupied residence and an accessory structure to accommodate 18 new residential lots, which would not be considered a substantial loss of housing, and does not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. c) The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. Conclusion: Based on the project’s consistency with the OASP and General Plan, no significant impacts would occur. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1, 4, 6,19 --X-- b) Police protection? 1, 4, 6,19 --X-- c) Schools? 1, 4, 6,19 --X-- d) Parks? 1, 4, 6,19 --X-- e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4, 6,19 --X-- f) Other public facilities? 1, 4, 6,19 --X-- Evaluation Fire Protection: The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of San Luis Obispo. The Fire Department is organized into five divisions: Emergency Operations, Fire Prevention and Life Safety, Training and Equipment, Administrative, and Support Services. In addition to providing fire and emergency services to the city, SLOFD maintains an Emergency Services Contract with Cal Poly. Under the current contract, SLOFD provides fire and emergency services to the university in return for a set annual fee. Police Protection: The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection services within the city limits. SLOPD is responsible for responding to calls for service, investigating crimes and arresting offenders, enforcing traffic and other laws, and promoting community safety through crime prevention and school‐safety patrols. The Police Department consists of two bureaus, Administration and Operations, each of which has four divisions. The Police Department operates out of one main facility located at 1042 Walnut Street and a small additional office at 1016 Walnut Street. Public Schools: The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) serves an area between the coast and the Los Padres National Forest, and from Morro Bay to the north and Arroyo Grande to the south. In total, the District operates ten elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one continuation high school, and an adult education facility. In Packet Pg. 430 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 29 addition to the K‐12 educational program, the SLCUSD offers a variety of additional educational programs, including: cooperative preschool, preschool early education, and parent participation. Within the San Luis Obispo LUCE Planning Subarea, the District operates six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation high school. a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already served by the City for fire protection. The proposed development is consistent with the anticipated land use and zoning for the site and is consistent with the neighboring uses. The project is required to comply with the Uniform Fire Code and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures PS-2(a-c), which require Fire Department-approved road widths, fire hydrants, non-combustive exteriors, and defensible space. The OASP FEIR determined that implementation and build-out of the OASP will not result in any significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to offset service needs through the City’s Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in the OASP; therefore, the conclusion was that no further mitigation was necessary. Based on the project’s compliance with the OASP, potential impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. Development of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. c) Consistent with Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the applicant will be required to pay developer fees to the SLCUSD. These fees would be directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Note: The OASP provides for the possibility of a school site being located in the Planning Area, but to date SLCUSD has not indicated the need for, or a desire to locate, a school in the Orcutt Planning Area. It is incumbent on SLCUSD to identify the need for a new site and initiate discussions with property owners, and failing that avenue, instead opting to collect school impact fees. As noted above, authority to collect fees at the time of building is deemed by State law to provide adequate mitigation for school facility requirements. Thus, based on compliance with OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures PS-3(a) Buildout Date Notification and PS-3(b) Statutory School Fees, potential impacts are less than significant. d) Because the proposed project would participate in development of the public park facilities within the OASP Planning Area, localized parks will not be impacted by the project. Further, deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from the proposed project on a city-wide basis is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on parks. e-f) Please refer to Section 16, Transportation/Traffic, below for a detailed assessment of required transportation improvements required. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities with the incorporation of the required transportation improvements discussed under the OASP. Conclusion: The OASP FEIR determined that implementation and build out of the OASP will not result in any significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to offset service needs through the City’s Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in the OASP, and would comply with OASP FEIR Public Services Mitigation Measures PS-2(a-c), PS-3(a, b); therefore, the conclusion was that no further mitigation was necessary. Impacts are considered less than significant. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1,18, 19, 27 --X-- Packet Pg. 431 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 30 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,18, 19,27 --X-- Evaluation: As discussed in the City LUCE Update EIR and the 2010 OASP FEIR, there are 26 parks in the city, consisting of eight community parks, 10 neighborhood parks, and eight mini parks. There are also six joint use facilities, and several recreation centers and special facilities (e.g., Damon Garcia Sports Fields and the SLO Swim Center). There is currently approximately 151.65 acres of parkland in the City, of which 33.53 acres are neighborhood parks. In addition to developed parks, the City owns or manages over 6,970 acres of open space within and adjacent to San Luis Obispo, some of which provide trails that accommodate hiking and mountain biking. a-b) The project will be participating in an extensive neighborhood park development plan under the OASP, and is not expected to add to the demand for city-wide parks or other recreational facilities. The project includes outdoor amenities and common areas, including limited creek corridor open space and access trails within the site (please refer to the project site plans for a detailed depiction of outdoor amenity spaces). No significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Impacts are considered less than significant. Conclusion: Based on the project’s compliance with the OASP, potential impacts would be less than significant. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 2,4, 9,18, 19,21 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 2,4, 18,19, 21 --X-- c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 2,4, 18,19, 21 --X-- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 2,4, 18,19, 21 --X-- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4,18, 19,27 --X-- f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2,4, 18,19, 21 --X-- Evaluation The City is accessed primarily by roadways including US 101, State Route (SR) 1 and SR 227. Routes of regional significance providing access include Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Road, Broad Street, O’Connor Way, Prefumo Canyon Road, South Higuera Street and Orcutt Road. The local roadway system is characterized by a regular street grid in the downtown area and neighborhood street patterns in other parts of the City. In accordance with the City General Plan Circulation Element Section 6.1,2 Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria, acceptable vehicle traffic operating conditions are LOS E in the Downtown and LOS D outside of the Downtown. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort and convenience. LOS are Packet Pg. 432 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 designated A through F from best to worst, which cover the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. LOS A represents essentially free‐flow conditions, and LOS F indicates substantial congestion and delay. The City of San Luis Obispo considers roadways operating at LOS D or better to be acceptable, excepting segments downtown where LOS is allowed to drop to E. The only segment noted to be deficient under existing conditions is Broad Street south of Buckley Road, which is under State of California and County jurisdiction. Five study intersections operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS), E or F, during the AM, Noon, or PM peak hours. a-b) The subject project, as well as all other development that occurs in the future pursuant to the OASP and the City General Plan, will increase traffic in the area warranting improvements to several affected intersections. OASP build-out is estimated to generate 8,342 net new daily trips and 887 net new PM peak-hour trips (518 inbound and 369 outbound). Based on the traffic study prepared for the OASP FEIR, development of the Orcutt Area is expected to add 772 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to Orcutt Road between Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm Road at build-out. Applying the trip generation factor used in the OASP FEIR, the 18 proposed single-family residences would generate approximately 164 daily trips (9.085 daily trips per residence). The Circulation Plan of the OASP (as well as the Circulation Element of the City General Plan) identifies the essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and surrounding growth areas of the City. The OASP FEIR determined that the roadway plans of these planning documents are for the most part self-mitigating in that 1.) Roadway alignments, road extensions, and new intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic projected at build-out and, 2.) Development projects in the OASP areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees, OASP development impact fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements, and a combination of one or more of these measures. OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures T-1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements, T-2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Signalization, T-3 Street E-2 & Hanson Lane Alignment, T-4 Street B & Tiburon Way Alignment, T- 5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage Improvements, and T-6 Traffic Calming & Safety Measures, will be implemented prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1 of previously approved Tract 3063. Based on compliance with the OASP and OASP FEIR, potential impacts would be less than significant. c) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Airport but will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. Please refer to Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for a discussion on project consistency with the adopted Airport Land Use Plan. d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways. Proposed on-site circulation includes “I” Street, which connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering Standards (January 1, 2016). Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to city Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which is less than 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual design standards. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design. However, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this particular intersection will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Permanent left-turn restrictions would be accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island, as recommended by the City Public Works Department based on their review of the project. Therefore, based on review and approval by the City Public Works Department and implementation of identified mitigation measure TR-1, granting these exceptions would not result in a significant impact. The project driveways would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve the project. Because the project is a similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses. e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. Based compliance with the OASP and approval by the City Fire Marshal, no impact would occur. Packet Pg. 433 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 32 f) The project site is served by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), and the OASP identifies transit facilities within walking distance on Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road. As noted in the OASP FEIR, the pedestrian and bicycle circulation network identified in the OASP is generally consistent with the City’s Circulation Element and Bicycle Transportation Plan and is designed to adequately serve new demand generated by build-out of the OASP. The project is consistent with the OASP, which provides opportunities for alternative transportation; therefore, no impact would occur. Conclusion: In summary, the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These streets with the given improvements specified in the OASP and OASP FEIR will serve to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. Transportation/circulation impacts are considered less than significant with OASP standards incorporated in the tract design. Thus, the impact from this project with incorporation of the OASP circulation standards, implementation of mitigation identified by the Public Work Department (TR-1), the imposition of traffic improvement fees for city-wide improvements, and compliance with OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure S-2(b) will render transportation and circulation impacts less than significant. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,16, 19,30, 38 --X-- b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,16, 18,19, 30,38 --X-- c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,16, 18,19, 30,34 --X-- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? 1,16, 18,19, 38 --X-- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,18, 19,30 --X-- f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1,8, 18,19 --X-- g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,8, 18,19 --X-- Evaluation The OASP FEIR determined that implementation and build-out of the OASP will not result in any significant impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded that such impacts related to build-out of the OASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed necessary. Build-out under the OASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The project proposes to provide all water (both potable and recycled), sewer, and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the OASP facility master plan and the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as delineated by the OASP, will exceed RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements, with the potential exceptions described below. Related to delivery of domestic water to the project, new information developed after the FEIR was certified and after the OASP was adopted (in 2010) is now available from the City’s 2015 Water Master Plan and hydraulic model related to the provision of water service to the Orcutt Specific Plan Area. To serve the area with adequate fire flow (1,500 gpm for residential areas), and average daily storage requirements, a 12-inch water main needs to be extended from the Terrace Hill pressure zone at the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood Drive in a south/southeast direction to the intersection of Orcutt Road and B Street. A 12-inch water main will also need to be extended west to Orcutt and A Street. Under City fire and safety standards, these improvements will be required prior to occupancy of any new residential uses. Adequate fire flow and Packet Pg. 434 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 33 storage, based on the extension into the project, is available for the development of the Orcutt Specific Plan area. Conditions and mitigation measures of the nearby Righetti (VTM3063) and Jones (VTM3066) were adopted to require these extensions in coordination with Utility Department requirements. These conditions are replicated in the proposed VTM3095 requirements to address these off-site improvements in conjunction with the project. Water: The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department provides potable and recycled water to the community and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City is the sole water provider within the city limits and most of the City’s water is supplied from multiple surface water sources. The City also uses recycled water for all approved uses consistent with the City’s Master Permit and Title 22. With the update of the City’s Water and Wastewater Element 2010, the City Council reaffirmed the policy for a multi‐source water supply. The full allocation of Nacimiento Reservoir approved by Council in March 2016 added an additional 2,102 acre feet (AF) to the City’s annual contractual limit.  Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoir: Combined Safe Annual Yield 6,940 AF/year  Nacimiento Reservoir: 5,482 AF/year dependable yield/ contractual limit  Recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): 187 AF in 2015. Recycled Water: The project will be required to utilize recycled water as appropriate within the OASP. Wastewater: The wastewater system for the City includes facilities for wastewater collection and treatment. The City’s collection system serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sewer service is provided only to properties within the City limits, with the exception of a few residential properties, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. There are approximately 15,200 service connections. The City’s WRRF processes wastewater in accordance with the standards set by the State. In 2016, the WRRF has an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.1 MGD and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 MGD. Based on average daily influent flow records for 2015 average flows to the WRRF are approximately 2.74 MGD. Solid Waste: The City’s Utilities Department is responsible for administering an exclusive franchise agreement with San Luis Garbage Company to collect and dispose solid waste generated by residential, commercial, and industrial customers in San Luis Obispo. This agreement also includes curbside recycling, and green waste service. There are three solid waste disposal facilities within San Luis Obispo County. Most solid waste collected in the city is disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently (2016) permitted to receive up to 1,650 tons of solid waste per day, with an estimated remaining capacity of 14,500,000 cubic yards (60.1 percent remaining capacity). In 2015, the Cold Canyon Landfill operator estimated the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2040. a-c, e) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service, which both have adequate capacity to serve the project, and a water supply plan is required for all OASP Final Maps (see OASP Mitigation Measure USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP to meet Fire Flow and Storage Standards). The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed sewer lines in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on -site sewer facilities according to City and Uniform Plumbing Code standards. The project proposal includes internal collection lines; off-site utility construction is currently proposed as a part of the Righetti Ranch #3063 subdivision to the west, which would connect the Planning Area to existing main line facilities at Tank Farm Road. From Tank Farm Road, generated wastewater will follow existing conveyance facilities to the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project site, please refer to Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional discussion regarding proposed improvements. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on potable and recycled water supplies, as anticipated under the recent General Plan Update and OASP FEIR; the incremental demand from the 18 residences is not considered to be significant. Provisions in the City General Plan, specifically the Water and Wastewater Management Element and the OASP, ensure that increased water use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. The Packet Pg. 435 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 34 project is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its share of constructing additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More specifically, the projects are subject to the citywide water impact fees. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Thus, compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water supplies are less than significant. f-g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for residential access to ensure that collection is feasible. The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The proposed project is required to reduce the waste stream generated by development consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf). A solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Conclusion: Based on compliance with the OASP and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-1, impacts are considered to be less than significant. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? --X-- The project is an infill residential development in an urbanizing area of the city. Without incorporation of the OASP development standards and the “self-mitigation” design features called for in the OASP, the project would have the potential to create significant impacts to the community. As discussed above, potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and hydrology and water quality will be less than significant with the VTM features included in the proposed plans and compliance with adopted mitigation measures. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? --X-- The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and hydrology and water quality. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --X-- Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. Packet Pg. 436 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 35 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, Orcutt Area Specific Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Report (2010) are available for review at the City Community Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401). The LUCE Update EIR can also be found at the following website: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan The OASP and OASP FEIR can also be found at the following website: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area- plans/orcutt-area b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the referenced documents have been added to each impact issue area discussion. Where project specific impacts and mitigation measures have been identified that are not addressed in the OASP and FEIR, original analysis has been provided to analyze impact levels as needed. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Please refer to Initial Study and OASP FEIR Required Mitigation and Monitoring Program. 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014 and Final EIR, October 2014 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014 and Final EIR, October 2014 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006 6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, June 2016 8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, March 2015 13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012 14. California Building Code 15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 16. Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, December 2015 17. Site Visit 18. Orcutt Area Specific Plan 2010 19. Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR 2010 20. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SLO APCD, April 2012 21. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community Development Department 22. 2001 Clean Air Plan San Luis Obispo County, SLO APCD, December 2001 23. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department Packet Pg. 437 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 36 24. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map 25. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 26. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence, SLO APCD, March 28, 2012 27. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Imel Subdivision) #3095 Project Plans 28. Applicant project statement/description, October 5, 2016 29. Imel Property Line of Sight to Righetti Hill Analysis, Cannon, June 8, 2016 30. Imel Gravity Sewer Analysis, Cannon, February 28, 2016 31. Imel Property Cultural Resources Study, Rincon Consultants, March 4, 2016 32. Existing Slopes Analysis, Cannon, May 2, 2016 33. Certified Arborist Letter Report, Rincon Consultants, April 26, 2016 34. Storm Water Analyses, Cannon; On-site June 20, 2016 and Off-site March 11, 2016 35. Imel Grading and Constraints Overlay, Cannon, August 26, 2016 36. Imel Grading in Creek Setbacks, Cannon, August 29, 2016 37. Jones and Imel Properties Biological Resources Assessment, Rincon Consultants, August 2014 38. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 14, 2016 Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 4. Applicant PD and Statements 5. Additional Plans and Exhibits 6. Biological Resources Assessment, Rincon Consultants, August 2014 7. Arborist Letter Report, Rincon Consultants, April 26, 2016 8. Onsite Detention Capacity, Cannon, June 20, 2016; Offsite Detention Strategy and Feasibility, Cannon, March 11, 2016 Packet Pg. 438 9 37 OASP FEIR REQUIRED MITIGATION and MONITORING PROGRAM Applicable mitigation measures carried forward from the certified Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR and Mitigation and Monitoring Program are listed below. Additional clarifications and new mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project are also listed below, and are presented in italics for distinction from the originally adopted measures. AESTHETICS AES-3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas. Lighting shall be shielded as shown in the Specific Plan and directed downward. Lighting shall not be mounted more than 16 feet high. Streetlights, where they are included, shall be primarily for pedestrian safety, and shall not provide widespread illumination unless necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Street lighting should focus on intersections and should be placed between intersections only when it is necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Trail lighting shall be at a scale appropriate for pedestrians, utilizing bollards, although overhead lighting may be used where vandalism of bollard lights is a concern. Prior to development of individual lots, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans and shall demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect nearby residential areas. AES-3(a) Monitoring Program: Compliance with lighting standards shall be shown on all tract and residential construction drawings, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION Operational Phase Mitigation AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy-conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double-paned windows. Final building construction plans will include needed solar conduits required for each residential unit for installing a roof-mounted solar system, at the option of each owner. AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and tele-learning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home. Packet Pg. 439 9 38 AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. AQ-1(a, d, e) Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings, and confirmed by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. Construction Phase Mitigation AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, or for all projects, regardless of the size of ground disturbance, when that disturbance would be conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors.  Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction.  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications.  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed off-road diesel is acceptable).  Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Installations must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.  Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.  Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of on-road heavy-duty equipment and trucks that meet the ARB's 1998 or newer certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines.  All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit. AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction:  Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.  Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible.  All dirt-stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.  Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan Packet Pg. 440 9 39 revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.  Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin. AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. AIR-1 Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp. AIR-2 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for Packet Pg. 441 9 40 removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: 1) notification to the APCD, 2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on Asbestos can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php. AQ-3(a-d), AIR-1, and AIR-2 Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to comply with existing regulations and secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) before the onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer. Where special-status plants are found, site development plans shall be modified to avoid such occurrences with a minimum buffer of 50 feet. The applicant seeking entitlement shall establish conservation easements for such preserved areas, prior to issuance of the first building permit for subsequent tracts. The Specific Plan shall be amended at that time to place these areas formally into open space, possibly as an overlay area. If total avoidance is economically or technologically infeasible then plants shall be salvaged and relocated under direction of an approved botanist, in accordance with Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f). If total avoidance can be achieved, Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. (It should be noted that avoidance is likely to be more cost effective in the long run compared to mitigation in the form of salvage and relocation). If total avoidance of special-status plant species can be achieved through Mitigation Measure B-2(b), Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. B-2(c) Incidental Take Permit. In the event that state listed species are discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall submit to the City signed copies of an incidental take permit and enacting agreements from the CDFG regarding those species as necessary under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code prior to the initiation of grading. If a plant species that is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act is discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, inclusive as necessary of signed copies of incidental take permit and associated enacting agreements, to the City prior to the initiation of grading. B-2(b, c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource Packet Pg. 442 9 41 agency permits and approvals. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-2(d) Special-Status Species CDFG-Approved Mitigation Plan. If total avoidance of the species occurrences is economically or technologically infeasible, a mitigation program shall be developed by the City in consultation with CDFG as appropriate. A research study to determine the best mitigation approach for each particular species to be salvaged shall be conducted. The special-status plant species mitigation program may include the following:  The overall goal and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring plan;  Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.  Potential sites for mitigation would be any suitable site within proposed open space depending on the species that is appropriately buffered from development. For a list of suitable habitats for the mitigation of each species refer to the list in Mitigation Measure B-2(a).  Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-term maintenance and protection of the special-status plant species to be included, including 4:1 in-kind replacement of removed native (i.e. oak and sycamore) trees, (i.e.: annual population census surveys and habitat assessments; establishment of monitoring reference sites; fencing of special-status plant species preserves and signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; a seasonally timed weed abatement program; and seasonally-timed seed and/or topsoil collection, propagation, and reintroduction of special-status plant species into specified receiver sites);  Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viable population(s) on the project site in perpetuity;  An education program to inform residents of the presence of special-status plant species and sensitive biological resources on-site, and to provide methods that residents can employ to reduce impacts to these species/resources in protected open space areas;  Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods used by monitoring personnel; and  Funding mechanism. B-2(e) Special-Status Plant Monitoring Frequency. Monitoring shall occur annually and shall last at least five years to ensure successful establishment of all re-introduced or salvaged plants and no-net-loss of the species or its habitat. In the case of annual plants it is difficult to determine if there has been a net loss or gain in a five year period. Therefore an important component of the mitigation and monitoring plan shall be adaptive management. The adaptive management program shall address both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances relating to the preservation and mitigation programs. The plan shall include follow up surveys every five years in perpetuity or until a qualified biologist can demonstrate that the target special-status species has not experienced a net loss. It shall also include remedial measures to address negative impacts to the special-status plant species and their habitats (i.e.: removal of weeds, addition of seeding/planting efforts) if the species is suffering a net loss at the time of the follow up surveys. Packet Pg. 443 9 42 B-2(f) Special-Status Species Habitat Replacement. The primary goal of the mitigation and monitoring plan is to ensure a viable population and no-net-loss of special-status species habitat within the project site. To ensure the no-net-loss of a species, the applicant shall create two acres of occupied special-status species habitat for every one acre of habitat impacted by project development. If resource agencies require a higher replacement ratio than 2:1, their requirements would prevail. The creation of habitat can occur in conjunction with the mitigation/relocation of wildflower field habitat if the research study indicates that the wildflower field and specific special-status plant species can be relocated and cohabitate. B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey. If occurrences of native perennial bunchgrass habitat of 0.5 acre or greater containing at least 10% or greater coverage of native perennial bunchgrass are found that area shall be placed in open space and a deed restriction placed over the area to protect it in perpetuity. If the area cannot be avoided for economical or technological reasons, then native grasses including perennial bunchgrasses shall be incorporated into the landscaping plant palette and the erosion control plan to replace the lost habitat. The most effective areas to receive native grass seed are graded areas that will be revegetated adjacent to open space. The acreage ratio of lost native perennial bunchgrass habitat to habitat replaced shall be no less than 1:1. Native perennial bunchgrass material shall come from locally collected seed stock to avoid contamination of the local gene pool. Because perennial bunchgrasses grow slowly at first, a “nurse” crop consisting of Nuttall’s fescue (Vulpia microstachys), California brome (Bromus carinatus), and pinpoint clover (Trifolium gracilentum) shall be added to the mix to stabilize any graded areas while the bunchgrasses become established. No non-native invasive plant species shall be used in landscaping. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal- IPC) maintains a list of the most important invasive plants to avoid. This list shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping. Planting equipment (i.e.: hydroseeding tank and dispensing mechanism) shall be cleaned of remaining seed from previous applications prior to use on-site. The hydroseed applicator shall be responsible for ensuring tanks have been properly cleaned of any seed that is not a part of the specified mix. Additional clarifying mitigation as recommended by applicant’s biologist (Rincon August 2014): Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of valley needlegrass grassland habitat shall be outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for this sensitive resource. This Plan will be approved by the City prior to its implementation and shall include the following:  Overall goals and measurable plan objectives,  Identification of specific areas for mitigation,  Specific habitat management and protection concepts that will be used to ensure the long term maintenance and continued protection of valley needlegrass grassland habitat,  Success criteria to be met,  An education program for residents,  Reporting requirements, and  Identification of funding mechanisms. The valley needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas shall be monitored annually for at least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this sensitive Packet Pg. 444 9 43 habitat has been achieved. To ensure no-net-loss of valley needlegrass grassland habitat, the applicant shall create one acre of mitigation habitat for every one acre of valley needlegrass grassland habitat impacted by implementation of the project. A copy of all permits, or other correspondence stating that no permit is necessary, shall be filed with the City prior to project implementation. The City shall ensure that all the required documentation is received prior to initiation of construction activities and shall oversee implementation of the Valley Needlegrass Grassland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Likewise, the City shall ensure that all the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures prescribed are fully implemented. B-2(d-g) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Trees (OASP) B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Removal of native trees, including sycamore and oak trees, shall require a minimum 4:1 replacement ratio, to be incorporated into the Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan and Five-Year Monitoring Plan. B-3(a) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Riparian Woodland and Wetland Habitat (OASP) B-4(a) Trail Setbacks. Trails shall be setback out of riparian habitat and out of the buffer area. The trail shall be a minimum distance of 20 feet from top of bank or from the edge of riparian canopy, whichever is farther. Trails shall be setback from wetland habitat at a minimum distance of 30 feet and shall not be within the buffer. Native plant species that will deter human disturbance shall be planted in the area between the trail and the wetland/riparian habitat including plants such as California rose (Rosa californica) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). No passive recreational use shall be allowed in the riparian or wetland habitats or drainage corridors. Packet Pg. 445 9 44 B-4(b) Development Setbacks. Development that abuts riparian and wetland mitigation areas shall also be setback at least 20 feet, and be buffered by an appropriately-sized fence and/or plants that deter human entry listed in BIO-4(a). B-4(c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and/or wetland habitat are proposed for removal pursuant to development under the Specific Plan, such development shall apply for all applicable permits and submit a Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance to wetlands and/or riparian habitat. The plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on-site using regionally collected native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat created to habitat impacted) in areas shown on FEIR Figure 4.4-2 as directed by a biologist. The resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional Basin is necessary as a mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be designed as directed by a biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and erosion control and using the final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out of the buffer area for riparian and wetland habitat. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components: 1) Description of the project/impact site (i.e.: location, responsible parties, jurisdictional areas to be filled/impacted by habitat type); 2) goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved); 3) description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation-site); 4) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan); 5) maintenance activities during the monitoring period (activities, responsible parties, schedule); 6) monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (performance standards, target functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports); 7) completion of compensatory mitigation (notification of completion, agency confirmation); and 8) contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism). In addition, erosion control and landscaping specifications included in the mitigation plan shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. B-4(a-c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction Packet Pg. 446 9 45 drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. The Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. Impacts to Wildlife (OASP) B-5(a) Bird Pre-Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to nesting special-status bird species and raptors including the groundnesting burrowing owl, all initial ground-disturbing activities and tree removal shall be limited to the time period between September 15 and February 1. If initial site disturbance, grading, and tree removal cannot be conducted during this time period, a pre-construction survey for active nests within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site no more than 30 days prior to the start of any construction activities (for ground-nesting burrowing owl survey [OASP FEIR]). If active nests are located, all construction work must be conducted outside a buffer zone of 250 feet to 500 feet from the nests as determined in consultation with the CDFG. No direct disturbance to nests shall occur until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to the start of construction. B-5(c) Monarch Pre-Construction Survey. If initial ground-breaking is to occur between the months of October and March a preconstruction survey for active monarch roost sites within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities. If active roost sites are located no ground-disturbing activities shall occur within 50 feet of the perimeter of the habitat. Construction shall not resume within the setback until a qualified biologist has determined that the monarch butterfly has vacated the site. B-5(a, c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. The Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required pre-construction survey reports. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths. Roadway widths adjacent to riparian and wetland habitats may be reduced to the minimum width possible, while maintaining Fire Department Requirements for emergency access, with slower speed limits introduced. Posted speed limits should be 25 mph. B-6(b) Culvert Design. Although closed culverts are to be the drainage conveyance method of last resort per the City Waterways Management Plan, where they are required, culverts connecting the Plan Area drainage corridors with upstream and downstream drainage corridors shall be evaluated during the suitability analysis pursuant to Mitigation Measure B- 5(e) to determine their importance to wildlife who could use them to travel to and from the Packet Pg. 447 9 46 site. If culverts are found to be of importance to wildlife, the culverts shall be evaluated for their potential for improvement (i.e. retrofitting, maintenance, or specific improvements depending on the types of species using them). The development pursuant to the Specific Plan and the City shall develop a plan for the improvement of the culverts. Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be achieved with sufficient setbacks from riparian and wetland habitats. Refer to B-4 for mitigation regarding riparian and wetland habitat setbacks. B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals. B-6(a-c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. B-6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal- IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan: • African sumac (Rhus lancea) • Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) • Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) • California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius) • Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula) • Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus) • Edible fig (Ficus carica) • Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) • French broom (Genista monspessulana) • Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis) • Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) • Myoporum (Myoporum spp.) • Olive (Olea europaea) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata) • Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia) • Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus) • Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) • Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T. ramosissima) • Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) • Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) Packet Pg. 448 9 47 With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan’s Suggested Plant List [Orcutt Area Specific Plan Appendix E] shall not be planted anywhere on-site because they are invasive non-native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation/enhancement area. B-6(d) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, constructional earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc), work in the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material. If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. CR-3(a) Prohibition of Archaeological Site Tampering. Off-road vehicle use, unauthorized collecting of artifacts, and other activities that could destroy or damage archaeological or cultural sites shall be prohibited. Signs shall be posted on the property to discourage these types of activities and warn of trespassing violations and imposed fines. CR-1(d), CR-3(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation, in the event of unforeseen encounter of materials, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY MITIGATION D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of the first Grading Permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a detailed erosion control plan (ECP) to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction period. The detailed ECP shall be accompanied by a written narrative and be approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum, the ECP and written narrative should be prepared according to the guidelines outlined in the DDM and should include the following: Packet Pg. 449 9 48  A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure milestones in chronological format;  Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or unstable slopes;  Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets and hydroseeding should be utilized. Silt fences should be installed downslope of all graded slopes. Straw bales should be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain inlets;  Description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and streets;  Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;  Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets) in public streets as a means of sediment control; and  The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated sediment, and the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment. D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the CWA. Pursuant to the NPDES Storm Water Program, an application for coverage under the statewide General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit (General Permit) must be obtained for project development. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to obtain coverage prior to site construction. The applicant can obtain coverage under the General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The filing shall describe erosion control and storm water treatment measures to be implemented during and following construction and provide a schedule for monitoring performance. These BMPs will serve to control point and non-point source (NPS) pollutants in storm water and constitute the project’s SWPPP for construction activities. While the SWPPP will include several of the same components as the ECP, the SWPPP will also include BMPs for preventing the discharge of other NPS pollutants besides sediment (such as paint, concrete, etc.) to downstream waters.  Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.  Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the City forty-five (45) days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the project site in excess of one acre. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP shall be also submitted to the City along with grading/development plans for review and approval.  Notice of Completion of Construction. The applicant shall file a notice of completion of construction of the development, identifying that pollution sources were controlled during the construction of the project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site. Packet Pg. 450 9 49 D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization. Vegetative or biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering) approaches to bank stabilization are preferred over structural approaches. Bank stabilization design must be consistent with the SLO Creek Stream Management and Maintenance Program Section 6. Streambank stabilization usually involves one or a combination of the following activities:  Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks and create a more stable slope;  Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites;  Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade stabilization structures;  Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment deposition;  Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by-pass channel;  Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularly at the toe of slopes. The bank stabilization design will:  Be stable over the long term; Be the least environmentally damaging and the “softest” approach possible;  Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream instabilities;  Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat.  Specify that only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls be used, to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The OASP proposes riparian enhancement of creek corridors. Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual shall be followed for riparian areas that are modified, created and/or managed for flood damage reduction, stream enhancement, and bank repair. Linear park terrace vegetation, streambank repair and channel maintenance projects may require stream channel modifications that include shaping, widening, deepening, straightening, and armoring. Many channel management projects also require building access roads for maintenance vehicles and other equipment. These construction activities can cause a variety of impacts to existing sensitive riparian and aquatic habitat that, depending on the selected design alternative, range from slight disturbances to complete removal of desirable woody vegetation and faunal communities. In urban areas within the SLO creek watershed, riparian vegetation often provides the only remaining natural habitat available for wildlife populations. D-4(a) Compliance with City’s Drainage Design Manual. All drainage improvements must be constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the City’s Drainage Design Manual. Either subregional facilities shall be constructed with the first phase of development or interim (on- site) drainage control shall be constructed. Interim facilities can be abandoned once regional facilities are available. The applicant shall submit a detention system plan to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The detention basins shall be designed to comply Packet Pg. 451 9 50 with applicable City drainage design standards and at a minimum have the following features:  Each basin should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain completely within 48 hours. The amount of outflow can be regulated with a fixed outfall structure. Such a structure must include an outfall pipe of a size and length that will give positive control on the outfall head. The principal outlet regulates the design discharge from the watershed above at a water level in the basin that does not exceed a certain maximum elevation.  Regional, or larger on-site facilities can pose significant hazards to public safety in the event of failure. In addition to the outlet control structure, an emergency overflow spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided. This spillway must satisfy the following requirements: − The spillway must be designed to pass the 100-year design storm event if the outlet works fail or if a runoff event exceeds the design event. The spillway design will be based on peak runoff rates for developed site conditions, assuming that the basins fill to the crest of the spillway prior to the beginning of the design event. − The spillway must be located so overflow is conveyed safely to the downstream channel.  Each basin shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100-year storm event with 2-foot freeboard between the design water surface elevation and the top of the embankment. At a minimum the basin must contain the 10-year flow without release to emergency spillway. If flows over the emergency spillway do occur, provisions must be made or be in place that will convey such flows safely.  The design volume of the basin must be sized to include the capacity for a five (5) year accumulation of sediment. Generally, the basin should be cleared out when it is half-full, as determined on a marked staff in the bottom of the basin, or a mark on a riser pipe. The amount of potential sedimentation in the basin shall be determined by a soils engineer or hydrologist, using the procedures such as those outlined in the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (May 1995) or as approved by the City Engineer or County Public Works Director.  The basin and its outfall must be sized so that approximately 85% of the total stormwater storage, excluding sediment storage in the basin, can be recovered within twenty-four hours of the peak inflow. A basin overflow system must provide controlled discharge (emergency spillway) for the 100-year design event without overtopping the basin embankment and maintain adequate freeboard. The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system or safe drainage way. The principal outlet must be able to drain the detention facility within 48 hours of the end of the 100-year storm by gravity flow through the principal outlet.  Any detention basin design must be accompanied by a soils report. This report should address allowable safe basin slopes with respect to liquefaction, rapid draw down, wave action and so forth. Additionally, the report should also address sedimentation transport from areas above the basin and allowable bearing pressures where structures are to be placed. The soils report must address the level of the water table and the effects of the basin excavation on the water table. D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification. Final detention basin system designs for project-specific EIRs within the Orcutt Plan Area shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. Per the Wastewater Management Plan, the project shall not cause more than a 5% increase of peak run off rates for the 2-, 50-, and 100-year 24 hour storm event. Final Packet Pg. 452 9 51 basin designs shall provide stage-storage-outflow curves and outfall structure details for all detention basins. The San Luis Obispo SLO/Zone 9 HEC-HMS hydrology model may be used to model final detention basin system cumulative downstream impacts should specific projects propose substantial changes to conceptual design, at the discretion of the City Engineer. D-5(a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed swales (biofilters) into the project drainage system where feasible for runoff conveyance and filtering of pollutants. A preferred alternative to concrete drainage swales to transport the runoff to roadside ditches, these swales shall be lined with grass or appropriate vegetation to encourage the biofiltration of sediment, phosphorus, trace metals, and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge into the formal drainage network. General design guidelines relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales are: 1) a dense, uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants; 2) vegetation that is tolerant to the water, climatological, and soil conditions of the project site is preferred; 3) grassed swales that maximize water contact with the vegetation and soil surface have the potential to substantially improve removal rates, particularly of soluble pollutants; and 4) pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the flow path length is increased. General maintenance guidelines for biofilters are discussed in Mitigation Measure D-5(b). A Best Management Practice (BMP) filter device shall be installed to intercept water flowing off of proposed parking lot and roadway surfaces. Water quality BMPs shall be those identified in the California Stormwater Quality association’s BMP handbook. Whenever feasible, the preferred approach to treating surface runoff will be the use of drainage swales rather than mechanical devices. The chosen method for treating runoff shall be a proven and documented pollution prevention technology device that removes oil and sediment from stormwater runoff, and retains the contaminants for safe and easy removal. The chosen device shall possess design features to prevent resuspension of previously collected contaminants and materials, and contain a built-in diversion structure to divert intense runoff events and prevent scouring of the previously collected sediments. The filter devices shall be designed and sized to treat the run off from the first 25 mm (1 inch) of rainfall. The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City Director of Public Works. D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works for review and approval a long-term storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to protect storm water quality after the construction period. The SWPPP shall include the following additional BMPs to protect storm water quality:  Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the majority of litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus entering local waterways. Regular sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing the amount of litter in storm drain inlets (to prevent clogging) and public waterways (for water quality). The project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this maintenance is completed prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.  Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality. The maintenance of biofilters on the project site will be the responsibility of a homeowner’s association for the proposed project. Biofilter maintenance would include: 1) Regular mowing to promote growth and increase density and pollutant uptake (vegetative height should be no Packet Pg. 453 9 52 more than 8 inches, cuttings must be promptly removed and properly disposed of); 2) Removal of sediments during summer months when they build up to 6 inches at any spot, cover biofilter vegetation, or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation; and 3) Reseeding of biofilters as necessary, whenever maintenance or natural processes create bare spots.  Proper maintenance of detention basins is necessary to ensure their effectiveness at preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality. Necessary detention basin maintenance includes: 1) regular inspection during the wet season for sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets; 2) regular (approximately every 2-3 years) removal of basin sediment; and 3) if an open detention basin is used, mowing and maintenance of basin vegetation (replant or reseed) as necessary to control erosion. A maintenance plan must be developed and provided along with the design documents. Long-term detention basin maintenance plans must clearly delineate and assign maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for local and regional detention basins. Maintenance reports shall be submitted annually to City’s Public Works Department.  For basins greater than 5,000 m3 (4 ac-ft) storage (i.e. the Upper Fork regional detention basin), vehicular access for maintenance of the basin and outlet works, removal of sediment, and removal of floating objects during all weather conditions must be provided. An access road must be provided to the basin floor of all detention facilities. This road must have a minimum width of 3.7 m (12 ft) and a maximum grade of 20%. Turnarounds at the control structure and the bottom of the basin must have a 12-m (40-ft) minimum outside turning radius.  The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all residences at the project site. At a minimum the information should cover: 1) general information on biofilters and detention basins for residents concerning their purpose and importance of keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter; 2) proper disposal of household and commercial chemicals; 3) proper use of landscaping chemicals; 4) clean-up and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter; and 5) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.  The stormwater BMP devices shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The devices shall be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e. November 1st) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e. May 1st). All devices will be checked after major storm events. The results of the inspection and maintenance report shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7, the applicant shall be encouraged to use pervious paving material to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. In addition to the low impact development (LID) practices described in the above measures, the Specific Plan shall incorporate the following as requirements of future development within the area, to the extent appropriate for type and location of development:  Reduced and disconnected impervious surfaces  Preservation of native vegetation where feasible  Use of tree boxes to capture and infiltrate street runoff Packet Pg. 454 9 53  Roof leader flows shall be directed to planter boxes and other vegetated areas  Soil amendments shall be utilized in landscaped areas to improve infiltration rates of clay soils.  Incorporate rain gardens into landscape design These LID practices shall be utilized wherever feasible and appropriate to ensure that the pre-development stormwater runoff volume and pre-development peak runoff discharge rate are maintained, and that the flow frequency and duration of post development conditions are identical (to the extent feasible) to those of pre-development conditions. LID practices are subject to the review and approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as part of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance. D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a-b), D-5(a-d) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and construction plans. Monitoring will include Natural Resources Department staff consultation and implementation at time of landscaping construction plan review and Engineering- Public Works staff at the time of tract construction. Compliance will be verified by the City Public Works Department in consultation with the Natural Resources Manager. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION G-2(a) Geotechnical Study Parameters. As stated in Program 3.4.1.a. of the proposed Specific Plan, a geotechnical study shall be prepared by a State-registered engineering geologist for the project site prior to site development. This report shall include an analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying materials according to the most current liquefaction analysis procedures. This study shall also:  evaluate the potential for soil settlement beneath the project site;  evaluate the potential for expansive soils beneath the project site; and  assess the stability of all slopes in the areas where construction is to occur. This evaluation shall determine the potential for adverse soil stability and discuss appropriate mitigation techniques. Appropriate setbacks from unstable slopes and areas below potential rockfall zones shall be implemented. No development of residential structures is to occur in areas where rockfall hazards could damage buildings. The following suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include but need not be limited to:  specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;  removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;  drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soil;  in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or  other alterations to the ground characteristics. G-3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering. If the project site is identified to be in a high potential for settlement zone (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)) the building foundations, transportation infrastructure and subgrades shall be designed by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce settlement impacts could include but need not be limited to:  excavation and recompaction of on-site or imported soils; Packet Pg. 455 9 54  treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to recompaction; or  foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential settlement such as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the Uniform Building Code(UBC). G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. If the project site is identified as having expansive soils (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)), the foundations and transportation infrastructure shall be designed by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include but need not be limited to:  excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils; and  foundation design to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion such as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC. G-2(a), G-3(a), G-4(a) Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include review and approval by City Engineering staff and building inspectors. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. NOISE MITIGATION N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the following:  Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can be shielded with a barrier.  Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.  Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors and similar power tools.  Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment. N-1(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director. PUBLIC SAFETY MITIGATION S-2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall develop Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that disclose to potential buyers or leasers that aircraft over-flights occur, and that such flights may result in safety hazard impacts should an aircraft accident occur. In addition, prior to recordation of final map, avigation easements shall be recorded over the entire project site for the benefit of the SLO County Regional Airport. Packet Pg. 456 9 55 S-2b Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Community Development, City Attorney and Engineering staff approvals of the Disclosure(s) prior to recordation of a final tract map. PUBLIC SERVICES MITIGATION PS-2(a) Road Widths, Fire Hydrants. Road widths and internal circulation, as well as the placement of fire hydrants, shall be designed with the guidance of the Fire Department. A road system that allows unhindered Fire Department access and maneuvering during emergencies shall be provided. The San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall review all improvement plans for proposed development in the Orcutt Area to ensure compliance with City standards and the Uniform Fire Code. PS-2(b) Non-combustible exteriors. Buildings that are in areas of moderate fire hazard and which are close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard shall have non-combustible exteriors. PS-2(c) Defensible Space. Accessible space free of highly combustible vegetation and materials shall be provided in the area 30 feet around all structures located within the moderate wildland fire hazard areas. PS-3(a) Buildout Date Notification. The applicant shall notify the San Luis Coastal Unified School District of the expected buildout date of each phase of the project to allow the District time to plan in advance for new students. PS-3(b) Statutory School Fees. The applicant shall pay the statutory school fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to the appropriate school districts. PS-2(a-c) and PS-3(a-b) Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Fire Marshal and Community Development Department. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MITIGATION TR-1 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans showing the construction of a “pork chop” island at the intersection of “I” Street and “B” Street”, which would restrict this intersection to right-turn-in and right-turn-out movements. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. TR-1 Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Public Works Department. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MITIGATION USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP To Meet Fire Flow and Storage Standards. Concurrent with applications for Final Map(s), the applicant shall submit a water supply plan to meet adequate fire flow standards for all lots within each Final Map. Implementation of such a water line extension plan shall be included as a part of public improvement plans for the subdivision, and approved by Utilities, Public Works and the City Packet Pg. 457 9 56 Engineer. This implementation plan may include a financing plan, including reimbursement provisions, approved by the City Council at the time of considering any Final Map. Required water main line extension(s) to the subdivision shall be completed and operational to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director, prior to issuance of any building permits for any of the residential and/or commercial uses. USS-1 Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed and implemented by the City Engineer’ s office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for Tract 3095. Packet Pg. 458 9 Packet Pg. 459 9 Packet Pg. 460 9 January 18,2017 Shawna Scott, Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm St. San Luis Obispo Ca 93401 SUBJEC丁:Dear Ms.Scott: Thank you forincluding the San Luis Obispo County Air Po∥ ution Control District(APCD)in the environmental review process. We have completed our review ofthe proposed prOleCt On the west side of Orcutt Road immediately southwest ofttiburon Wayln San Luis Obispo. The⊂ity of San Luis Obispo has completed the Draftlnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(:S/MD)forthe prOposed lmel Ranch Subdivision. The lS/A/1ND is tiered off ofthe Orcutt Area Specific Plan(OASP)Final Environmentallrnpact Report. The app∥cant,Ambient⊂ornrnunlties,proposes to subdivide an exlstlng 5.49-acre parcelinto 23 1ots including:1 8 residentlallots for the development of 1 8 single―fan∩|ly homes′two lots to support onsite detentlon basins′and three open space lots. 乃ero〃οttηg areスPCD cο “ meηlsめ αr are ρertineη ι `ο 的なρrOJieca GENERAL⊂OMMENttS As a commenting agency in the Californla Environmental Quallty Act(⊂EQA)revieW process for a praect′the AP⊂D assesses air pollution lmpacts from both the construction and operational phases of a proleCt,Wlth separate significant thresholds for each. Please under:ined text. As noted on page 12 ofthe lnttialstudy,the prqectis in close proximity to existing residential untts and could potentially expose sensitⅣe receptors.丁 herefore,the prolect proponent vvl∥be required′ by the(DASP rnitigate rneasures,to subrnlt final tract construction plans to SLO⊂APCD for cornrnent and/or approval priorto grading and construction of the project. 丁he fo∥owlng:s a list ofltems that should be addressed in the tract construction plans. Construction Phase Enlissions Natura∥y occurring asbestos(NOA)has been identifled by the⊂a∥fornia Air Resources Board as a toxic air contarnlnant. Serpentlne and ultramaflc rocks are very cornrnon l0O% Posl Consumer Recyc ed Poper Air Pollution Control District San Luis Obispo County AP⊂D⊂ornrnents Regarding the lmel Ranch Subdivision(SBDV-2586-2016′ Tract 3095) T805781 5912 1002 w slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401Packet Pg. 461 9 lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forlmel Ranch Subdlvision ノαβυσν ′乙2θ フア ρqge 2 o/5 throughout Ca∥fornia and rnay contain natura∥y occurring asbestos. 丁he SLO County APCD has identified areas throughout the county where NOA rllay be present(See the APCD′s2012⊂EQA Handbook′Technical Appendix 4.4). lfthe prolect site is located ln a candldate area for Natura∥yOccurring Asbestos(NOA)′the fO∥OWing requirements apply. ∪nderthe CARB Air丁 oxlcs⊂ ontrol Measure(AttCM)fOr Construction′Grading′Quarrying′and Surface Mining Operatlons(93105)′山 evaluation is conducted to deterrnine if the ar exemption req」est rnust be filed wlth the APCD2 1fthe site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation′the app∥cant rnust comply vvith a∥requirements outlined ln the Asbestos AttCM. 丁his rnay include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Moreinformation on NOA can be found at slocleana!r.orgbuslness/asbestos.php. Demolitlon/Asbestos Demo∥tion activities can have potential negatlve air qua∥ty lrnpacts′lncluding issues surroundlng proper hand∥ng′abatement′and disposal of asbestos contalning rnaterial(ACNl). Asbestos containing rnaterials could be encountered during the demontion Or remode∥ng of existing structures or the disturbance′demo∥tion′or relocation of above or below ground uti∥ty plpes/pipe∥nes(e.g.′transite pipes orinsulation on pipes). :f thiSttrttCt WII!include attoftheSe bestos NESHtt These requirementsinclude′but are notllmited to:1) written notiflcatlon′within at least 1 0 business days of activities cornrnencing′ to the APCD′2)an asbestos suⅣey conducted by a Certlfied Asbestos⊂onsultant,and′ 3)app∥Cable removal and disposal requirements ofidentlfled A⊂M. Please contactthe APCD Engineering&⊂omp∥ance D市 ision at(805)781-591 2 or gO to slocleanalr.o製 rules― rf遇旦lations/asbestoコ ±単for further information. 丁o obtain a Notification of DemontiOn and Renovation forrn go to the″Other Forms″ section of slocleana:r.org/librattdown10ad―formstthp. Effect市 e February 25,2000′ .lf you have any questions regardlng these requlrements,contact the APCD Engineerlng&⊂omp∥ance Dlvision at(805)781-5912. Dust Control P!ease note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions.the contractor or bu∥der sha∥considerthe use of an APCD¨approved dust sunoressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control.For a list of suppressants,see Sectlon 4.3 of the⊂EQA Air Quality Handbook; Construction Permit Reoulrements Based on the information provided,we are unsure ofthe types of equipmentthat rnay be present during the projectrs conStruction phase. Portable equipment′50 horsepower(hp)Or greater′used during construction activitles rnay require Ca∥fornia statewlde portable equipment registration (iSSued by the Ca∥fornia Air Resources Board)or an APCD perrnit. Packet Pg. 462 9 lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for lmel Ranch Subdivision ノα/7υ αッ 7乙 2θ 7ア Pagc 3 o/5 The fo∥owing listis provided as a guide to equlpment and operations that may have perrnitting requirements′but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a rnore detalled listing′refer to the Technical Appendices,page 4-4′in the APCD;s2012 CEQA Handbook. o Power screens,conveyors′diesel englnes,and/or crushers, o Portable generators and equipment vvith engines that are 50 hp or greater; o Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generatori o internal combustion engines, o Rock and pavement crushingi o Unconfined abrasive blasting operationsi o ttub grindersi o ttrornrnel screensi and′ ・ Portable plants(e.g.aggregate plant,asphalt batch plant′concrete batch plant′etc). ● 丁his proiect iS in close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors.ProieCtS that will have diesel powered construction activity in close proximity to any sensitlve receptor sha∥implementthe fo∥owing rnitigation rneasures to ensure that pub∥c health benefits are rea∥zed by reducing toxlc risk frorn diesel errlissions: construct th釧匹ゴ望上」睦望馴凶L狙 t Sha∥implement the fol:owiュロ」Ш辱菫狙trOl techni撃』es: 1. a. 0"‐roα J diese′ve力 ′c′es sha∥complywlth Section 2485 ofTitle 13 ofthe Ca∥fornia⊂ode of Regulations.丁 his regulation lirnits id∥ng frorn diese卜 fueled cornrnercial rnotor vehicles with gross vehicular welght ratings of rnore than l o,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. lt apphes to Ca∥fornia and non―⊂a∥fornia based vehicles. ln general′the regulation specifles that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Sha∥notidle the vehiclers prlmary diesel engine for greater than 5-rninutes at any location′except as noted in Subsection(d)Ofthe regulationi and′ 2. Sha∥not operate a diese卜 fueled aux∥iary power system (APS)to pOWer a heater,air conditloner,or any anc∥lary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting ln a sleeper berth for greater than 5.O rnlnutes at any location when within l′000 feet of a restrlcted areal except as noted in Subsection(d)ofthe regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board's ln-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state's 5-minute idling limit. Packet Pg. 463 9 lnitlal Study/Mitlgated Negative Declaration forlmel Ranch Subdivision ノαr7t7α γ 7乙 2077 Page 4 o/5 d. The speciflc requirements and exceptions ln the regulations can be reviewed at the following web skes:www.arb.cこ翼pv/msprgtttruCk‐idling生ョctsheel撃 df and ¨.arb.ca. . AND/OR 2. Diesel ldli 1/e receρ ιOrsわeたわ ased oη めe ln addition to the state required dieselldling requirements,the proieCt applicant shall comply with these rnore restrictive requirements to rninirnize lmpacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas sha∥not be located within l,000 feet of sensitive receptors; b. Dieselid∥ng vvithin l,000 feet of sensitive receptors sha∥not be pernlitted; c. Use of alternative fueled equlpmentis recornrnendedi and d. signs that specify the nO id∥ng areas rnust be posted and enforced atthe slte. Proposed truck routes should be evaluated and selected to ensure routing patterns have the least irnpact to resldential dwe∥ings and other sensitive receptors,such as schools,parks,day care centers′nursing homes,and hospitals.lfthe proiect has signficant truck trips where hauling/truck trips are routine actlvlty and operate in close proxlrnlty to sensitive receptors,toxic risk needs to be evaluated. ln additloni to the operational phase rTlitigation rneasures outline in the(DASP FEIR Mitigatlon and Monitoring Progran∩′the APCD recornrnends the fo∥owing rneasure be included. Residentlal Wood⊂ombustlon Under AP⊂D Rule 504,on当 EAPCD a口単Eoved wood burnlЩ ttdevlces can be lnsta∥edin new . 丁hese devlces include: . All EPA-Ceftified Phase ll wood burning devices; o Catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 4.1 grams per hour of particulate matter which are not EPA-Certified but have been verified by a nationally- recognized testing lab; o Non-catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 7.5 grams per hour of paniculate matter which are not EPA-Certified but have been verified by a nationally- recognized testing lab; o Pellet-fueled woodheaters; and o Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. lf you have any questions about approved wood burning devices. please contact the APCD Ensineering and Comoliance Division at (805) 781-5912. Packet Pg. 464 9 lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for lmel Ranch Subdivision Jonuory 17,2017 Poge 5 of 5 Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. lf you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me at (805) 781-5912. Sincerely, ´|し。6- Melは sa Guise Air Quality Specialist MAGハ hs cc: 丁odd Srnith h:ヽplanヽ ceqaヽ prolect_reviewN3000ヽ 3900ヽ 3993‐1ヽ 3993‐l docx Packet Pg. 465 9 United States Department of the Interior ______ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ventura fish and Wildlife Office ______ 2493 Portola Road,Suite B Ventura,California 93003 January 31,2017 Shawna Scott,Associate Planner Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,California 93401 Subject:Comments on the Initial Study for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.3095 I.mel Ranch Subdivision (City File SBDV-2586-20 1 6/ER-2586-20 16) Dear Ms. Scott: We have reviewed the Initial Study for the Imel Ranch Subdivision Vesting Tentative Tract Map.Ambient Communities (the Applicant)is proposing to create 18 residential lots for the development of 18 single-family homes and associated infrastructure.The proposed project would be implemented along the west side of Orcutt Road,immediately southwest of Tiburon Way in the City and County of San Luis Obispo. The mission of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)is working with others to conserve, protect,and enhance fish,wildlife,plants,and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.To assist in meeting this mandate,the Service provides comments on public notices issued for projects that may have an effect on those resources,especially federally-listed plants and wildlife.The Service’s responsibilities also include administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended (Act).Section 9 of the Act prohibits the taking of any federally listed endangered or threatened wildlife species.“Take”is defined at Section 3(19)of the Act to mean “to harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,kill, trap,capture,or collect,or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”The Act provides for civil and criminal penalties for the unlawful taking of listed wildlife species.Such taking may be authorized by the Service in two ways: through interagency consultation for projects with Federal involvement pursuant to section 7,or through the issuance of an incidental take permit under section l0(a)(1)(B)of the Act. Our review of the proposed project indicates that the area that would be affected may support the threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonli).We recommend that the Applicant perform a habitat suitability assessment for the species following the Service’s August 2005 Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-Legged Frog (www.fws,gov/sacrainentoleslsurvey-protocolsguidelinesldocuinents/ctf survey guidance_aug2005 .pdf). IN REPLY REFER TO: O8EVENOO-2017-CPA-0034 Packet Pg. 466 9 Shawna Scott 2 If suitable habitat is present for the species on the site you should contact us to help determine what measures may be appropriate to conserve the species and their habitats.We can also provide guidance on the steps that may be needed to comply with the Act. If you have any questions,please contact Dou-Shuan Yang of my staff at (805)644-1766, extension 313,or by electronic mail at Dou-ShuanYang@fws.gov. Sincerely, Field Supervisor Packet Pg. 467 9 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney SUBJECT: 2017 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution establishing a Legislative Action Platform for 2017; and 2. Provide direction to staff on the scope and application of the legislative platform related to advocacy for non-legislative items or particular projects; and 3. Appoint the Mayor, City Attorney and City Manager to act as the primary legislative liaisons between the League of California Cities and the City of San Luis Obispo. DISCUSSION Legislative Action Program Attached for the Council’s consideration is a resolution establishing the City’s 2017 Legislative Action Platform. Similar resolutions have been adopted by the Council since 1993. The City Attorney's Office coordinates the Legislative Action Program with assistance from the Administration Department and from various City departments, as appropriate. This resolution authorizes staff to respond to legislative issues affecting the City (via letters signed by the Mayor or relevant Department Head), provided that the positions taken in the letters are consistent with the priorities identified in Exhibit A to the resolution (Attachment - A) and League of California Cities advocacy efforts. By establishing a broad legislative platform and delegating responsibility to the Mayor and staff to respond to proposed legislation and recommendations from the League of California Cities, the City is better able to react quickly to changed circumstances and urgent requests than it would be if each item were brought to the Council at its regular meetings. The process is considered a best practice, has been efficient given the limited City resources available, and the City continues to be very active in communicating its positions on Federal and State legislation. In 2016, the Mayor, on behalf of the City Council, sent 19 letters pertaining to pending legislation utilizing the Council Legislative Action Platform. In preparing this year’s draft platform, input was solicited from all City Departments. Staff was asked to take a critical look at the items within their scope of operations and expertise and evaluate whether there was an opportunity to narrow or focus the platform. With that look, no significant revisions were recommended. All changes, including language clean-ups and issue consolidations, are shown in the legislative draft of the 2016 Platform attached to this report (Attachment - B). In addition to Council’s substantive direction on the platform, staff also is seeking direction as to the application of the platform to City positions on particular projects or applications that Councilmembers believe raise issues related to the platform. Historically, and as affirmed last year by the prior City Council, the platform has been utilized primarily to advocate for or against a Packet Pg. 468 910 particular piece of legislation and not for or against a particular project or permitting application (adjudicative acts before other jurisdictions’ legislative bodies). Staff continues to recommend that the scope be limited to legislative action, but, given a new Council majority, staff again requests explicit direction from the Council majority on that issue to ensure clarity in expectations moving forward. Legislative Liaison Appointments The League of California Cities encourages cities to appoint a council member and a staff person to act as legislative liaison between the League and the City. Staff recommends that Mayor Heidi Harmon act as the Council legislative liaison and the City Attorney and the City Manager serve as the staff liaisons. FISCAL IMPACT Because no additional staff workload is anticipated as a result of this ongoing program, no new fiscal impact will be incurred. ALTERNATIVES The Council may wish to include other issues, not included in the current draft. However, it is important to note that the Legislative Platform allows the City to take action on any bills and other measures formally supported by the League of California Cities. It is staff’s recommendation that desired additions to the Platform are generally crafted and flexible to allow for quick responses to legislation important to cities. Attachments: a - Resolution b - Legislative Draft of 2016 Platform Packet Pg. 469 910 R ____ RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE CITY LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2017 AND APPOINTING THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF PERSON TO ACT AS LIAISON BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES WHEREAS, a major objective of the City Council is to adopt an aggressive legislative action platform which strengthens local government, promotes City goals and defends the City against legislative actions by State and Federal governments that would weaken local government and/or take away traditional revenue sources; and WHEREAS, it is vital to the fiscal health and the self determination of the City to effectively communicate with State Legislators and Federal representatives in order to favorably influence State and Federal legislation, regulations and grant requests; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities conducts a legislative analysis and advocacy program on behalf of cities for State issues and major Federal issues; and WHEREAS, the City desires to be proactive and involved in the governmental decision making processes directly affecting the City legislative priorities identified in Exhibit “A,” and other selected issues as may from time to time be recommended by the League of California Cities; and WHEREAS, a key component of the City’s Legislative Action Platform is face-to-face meetings between City representatives and elected officials at the Federal, State, and County levels, and coordination with similar efforts made by other local government entities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby: 1. Establish the Legislative Action Platform for 2017 as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” and authorize the Mayor and designated staff to take positions on legislation generally consistent with the Legislative Action Platform and such other resolutions and recommendations of the League of California Cities as may be from time to time presented to the City; and 2. Appoint Mayor Heidi Harmon to act as Council Member legislative liaison and City Manager Katie Lichtig and City Attorney Christine Dietrick to act as staff legislative liaisons with the League of California Cities. Packet Pg. 470 910 Resolution No. XXXX (2017 Series) Page 2 Upon motion of ____________________ , seconded by ________________, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___ day of __________ 2017. ___ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: _______________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________________, __________. _______________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 471 910 EXHIBIT A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Community Development 1. Promoting reforms of the entire State mandated HCD Regional Housing Need Allocations process to recognize local resource limitations. 2. Providing funding (i.e. through Cap and Trade or other sources) for communities to pay for public infrastructure that meet mandated greenhouse reduction goals. 3. Providing funding to implement programs and related action items contained in Climate Action Plans to quantitatively reduce greenhouse gases. 3.4. Promoting funding for the transition to clean technologies and low or zero-carbon energy. 4.5. Promoting funding sources to accomplish retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings. 5.6. Promoting funding of on-campus housing at Cal Poly for student and faculty housing and University acquisition of single family residences for staff and faculty housing. 6.7. Preserving local control of planning and zoning matters. 7.8. Supporting efforts to increase funding for affordable housing and supportive housing services for very low, low and moderate income individuals and/or families for all cities and communities and opposing the erosion of local inclusionary housing and in-lieu fee programs. 8.9. Supporting continued funding of National Housing Trust Fund and streamlined and efficient implementing regulations at the state level. 9.10. Promoting additional state funding to implement AB 32 and SB 375 through local general plan updates that implement the regional sustainable communities plan and alternative planning strategy, if needed. 10.11. Promoting funding for the identification, acquisition, maintenance and restoration of historic sites and structures. 11.12. Supporting continued or expanded funding for CDBG program. Packet Pg. 472 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 2 12.13. Supporting reinstatement of protections from imposition of additional building or site conditions prior to issuance of a building permit for seismic related improvements to buildings subject to a mitigation program established according to state law (City URM Program) as previously provided in Government Code Section 8875.10 (this section was repealed effective January 1, 2009). 13.14. Supporting continued local control over mobile home park rent stabilization and the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. Encourage the amendment of Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code and other relevant law for the purpose of ensuring that mobile home park residents are not involuntarily removed from homes or otherwise economically impacted if parks are subdivided or converted. 14.15. Promoting financing for and implementation of AB 811 property-assessed clean energy districts. 15.16. Encouraging continued viability of inclusionary housing provisions and avoidance of conflicts with Costa-Hawkins Act. 16.17. Encouraging consistency in state legislation dealing with transportation, housing and land use issues and eliminating potential conflicts between regional housing requirements, smart growth mandates and environmental legislation. 17.18. Enabling the issuance of parking citations on private property. 18.19. Advocating full funding of authorized programs under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, including providing more flexibility in the use of Federal funds on the local level to address housing for the homeless. 19.20. Supporting legislation that provides funding sources for appropriate human service agencies that support the mission of the Human Relations Commission. 20.21. Supporting responsible review and revision of CEQA to ensure sound environmental determinations. Economic Development 21.22. Promoting funding and/or legislation using tax credits or other incentive programs to encourage research and development by businesses in California. 22.23. Supporting funding and policies for the promotion of California as a place to locate businesses. 23.24. Supporting funding for the state tourism promotion program. Packet Pg. 473 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 3 24.25. Supporting the effective and efficient use of all communications technologies including voice, video, data, and information services over wired and wireless transmission technologies. 25.26. Supporting telecommunications reform legislation and other measures that preserve local control over public rights-of-way, protect local resources and guarantee access to, funding for, and local flexibility in utilizing funds for public, educational and government (PEG) access television. 26.27. Supporting the expansion of public infrastructure financing tools and funding for infrastructure to provide economic development opportunities. 27.28. Promoting development of green business and head of household jobs. 28.29. Supporting factual analyses of impacts and associated mitigations for losses of major regional employers that provide significant head of household jobs. Finance 29.30. Supporting meaningful fiscal reform that allows each level of government to adequately finance its service responsibilities while continuing to support efforts to protect the City from loss of revenues due to State take-aways and unfunded State or Federal mandates. 30.31. Endorsing legislation that provides local government with a fair share tax on catalog and Internet sales; and opposing legislation that limits state or local authority to tax catalog or Internet sales. 31.32. Supporting efforts to collect the full amount of local transient occupancy tax from online sales of lodging. 32.33. Supporting the continuation of California Specialized Training Institute activities within San Luis Obispo County. 33.34. Opposing legislation that removes the municipal bond tax exemption. 34.35. Supporting clarity regarding local regulatory control and revenue equity for cities in any statewide regulation or permitting of medical marijuana establishments or uses. Human Resources/Employee Relations/Human Relations 35.36. Supporting additional workers’ compensation reforms that lower employers' costs while still protecting workers and opposing legislation that would restrict appropriate cost controls in the workers’ compensation system. Packet Pg. 474 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 4 36.37. Supporting pension and retiree health benefits reform efforts in concert with the League of California Cities and the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Board of Directors. 37.38. Opposing the expansion of the "Peace Officers' Bill of Rights," "Firefighters' Bill of Rights," or other attempts to curtail management rights. 38.39. Supporting legislation to protect the City's continued ability to administer its Cafeteria benefit Plan and maintain comprehensive health care coverage for eligible employees, in a financially sustainable manner . 39.40. Supporting reforms that limit the financial impacts of joint and several liability on public entities. 40.41. Supporting the clarification, modification or repeal of AB 646 fact finding requirements. 41.42. Opposing the expansion of procedural rights and requirements in administrative disciplinary proceedings that increase costs and expand the timeframe and scope of administrative processes. Public Safety 42.43. Continuing State and Federal funding support for school safety, disaster preparedness, earthquake preparedness, Homeland Security, hazardous material response, State COPS program and other local law enforcement activities. 43.44. Preserving the City's authority to investigate police misconduct. 44.45. Supporting efforts to expand the scope of parental responsibility for crimes committed by minors. 45.46. Preserving the authority of local control on issuance of concealed weapons permits. 46.47. Supporting legislation to help curb alcohol-related criminal behavior and underage drinking. 47.48. Opposing new or increased state fees for state provided law enforcement services. Packet Pg. 475 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 5 49. Supporting the fair and efficient allocation of radio spectrum that provides quality frequencies, free from interference, for all local public safety communication needs. 48.50. Supporting efforts to enhance radio and data system(s) stability and interoperability among public safety agencies and jurisdictions . 49.51. Supporting efforts to reduce retention periods for video monitoring data not related to an identified incident or operation. 50.52. Preserving the City's right to regulate activities with adverse health and safety impacts on local streets, sidewalks and right-of-ways. 51.53. Supporting legislation to improve and enhance the safety of cargo transported via rail, including but not limited to: safety enhancements for rail vessel construction with an emphasis on efforts to rapidly improve the safe transport of volatile crude oil and limit the use of older, “grandfathered” containers and vessels; enhancements in remote monitoring and control of railcar speeds; reduction of railcar speeds in populated areas like San Luis Obispo; enhancements in communications, notifications and information dissemination to local governments, especially public safety agencies. 52.54. Supporting legislation to preserve and enhance local control, at the City level, for the provision of public safety services, including the scope and provision of medical and non-medical emergency services. Public Works 53.55. Supporting increased availability of grant funding to replace aging infrastructure of all types, e.g. streets, bridges, water, sewer, parks, and storm sewer systems, etc. 54.56. Supporting increased funding for projects that improve flood protection for the City. 55.57. Supporting funding for implementation of clean stormwater / low impact infrastructure replacement. 56.58. Ensuring cooperation and prompt approval from Federal and State regulatory agencies (such as the Department of Fish & Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers) for necessary projects involving the City's creek system. 57.59. Exempting assessments for vital infrastructure from Proposition 218 requirements. Packet Pg. 476 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 6 58.60. Supporting monetary incentives or grant funding for alternative fuel vehicles for replacement of municipal fleet equipment. 59.61. Supporting monetary incentives or grant funding for retrofitting municipal buildings with Energy Management Systems to centrally control all lighting and HVAC systems. 62. Supporting realistic municipal clean stormwater requirements at the State Board or legislative level. 60. Parks and Recreation and Natural Resources 61.63. Supporting State and Federal funding and other measures to promote the acquisition, protection, preservation and restoration of natural resources, open space, coastal resources, signature land forms, wetlands and park development, including continued funding for the Land and Water Conservation Grant Program and for the California Conservation Corps. 62.64. Supporting the expansion of National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of San Luis Obispo County to protect this fragile habitat from offshore oil and gas development. 63.65. Opposing any development under existing or new offshore oil and gas leases off the Coast of San Luis Obispo County. 64.66. Supporting measures to prohibit discharge of pollutants into the ocean (e.g. selenium contaminated waters from the San Joaquin valley). 65.67. Supporting placement of the new water bond (Proposition 1) and encouraging the Resources Agency and its departments to expedite the distribution of bond funds to take advantage of the many favorable opportunities for land and easement acquisition and enhancement project contracting that exist at this time. 66.68. Seeking legislative exemption from property taxes on lands dedicated to open space purposes which are outside the boundaries of the jurisdiction owning such lands. 67.69. Protecting funding for vital regional and community services that negatively impact Californian's access to parks, open space, after school programming, senior services, facilities that promote physical activity, protect natural resources, and strengthen safety and security. Packet Pg. 477 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 7 68.70. Promoting policies that recognize the benefits of parks and recreational facilities in the advancement of "sustainable communities" and curbing greenhouse gas emissions, including: strengthening policies that fund parks, open-space, bike lanes and non-motorized trails through the development and implementation of a carbon credit and offset program, and advocating for the strong integration of local and regional park and non-motorized transportation improvements into "Smart Growth Scenarios" pursuant to SB 375. 69.71. Supporting access to joint use of schools; parks and open space; development of streets and trails that encourage physical activity and healthy living. 70.72. Supporting extension or permanent legislation at the federal level of enhanced tax deductions for charitable donations of Conservation Easements Transportation 71.73. Supporting changes in gas tax laws that allow local tax for transportation purposes based on a majority vote of the public. 72.74. Supporting the continuation of, and increased funding sources for street maintenance projects, transportation improvements, transit operations and bicycle facility projects. 73.75. Supporting clean air transit funding for San Luis Obispo County , in particular funding that provides for alternative modes of transportation with clean air benefits. 74.76. Supporting actions to: (1) promote cooperation and mutual support between metropolitan planning organization (MPO) agencies and local transit providers, and (2) discourage trends toward " MPO agencies/regional "control" of local transit providers. 75.77. Encouraging private transportation companies (such as Union Pacific Railroad) to reach agreements for sharing of properly secured right of way corridors for other compatible uses such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 76.78. Opposing the proposed diversion of any funding source for transportation that reduces amounts designated for transit operations. 77.79. Supporting funding for projects to implement adopted complete street plans demonstrated to improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 78. Supporting provision of Cap and Trade funding for intercity rail. Packet Pg. 478 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 8 80. 81. Support increased funding for existing Active Transportation Program (ATP). Utilities 79.82. Supporting clean water funding programs. 80.83. Supporting recycling and waste diversion programs such as green waste composting and enhancing local government's ability to comply with solid waste reduction requirements. 81.84. Supporting measures that require the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards establish a process to evaluate, in advance of adoption, the costs of compliance for pending and future regulatory actions on NPDES permittees. 82.85. Supporting legislation that requires the State's environmental agencies to conduct peer review of proposed regulations to ensure that the proposal is based on sound science. 83. Supporting measures that require the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards establish a process to evaluate, in advance of adoption, the costs of compliance for pending and future regulatory actions on NPDES permitees. 84.86. Supporting the elimination of mandatory minimum penalties for violations of NPDES Requirements and returning discretionary control to the Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officers (i.e. repeal SB 709). 85.87. Supporting measures to ensure reasonableness in the administration of NPDES permit governing City operations, including pursuing a municipal representative on the Regional Water Quality Control Board 86.88. Promoting the safe, responsible, and cost-effective reuse of Exceptional Quality or better biosolids. 87.89. Supporting any appropriate streamlining of the state regulatory processes. 88.90. Supporting sustainable energy programs. 89.91. Supporting incentives for distributed energy generation projects such as solar power. Commented [FD1]: Delete, it is a repeat of 81 above Packet Pg. 479 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 9 90.92. Supporting legislation allowing cities/agencies to establish fees for the costs of operating mandated water quality programs such as, but not limited to, municipal storm water and total maximum daily loading. 91.93. Supporting federal legislative action to transfer Salinas Reservoir from Army Corps of Engineers Military Project to Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Project. 92.94. Supporting the implementation of the California Urban Water Conservation Council's Best Management Practices regarding urban water conservation and compliance with AB 1420. 95. Supporting amendments to the Urban Water Management Planning Act to recognize past investment in water conservation and the City's ability to comply with SBx7-7 and other water conservation regulations. 96. Oppose legislation that requires recycled water to be included in water conservation regulations. 93.97. Supporting legislation eliminating departing load charges which discourage the use of alternative energy resources. 94.98. Allowing the use of Public Goods Funds for the development and installation of energy saving or green energy generating projects to benefit local government. 95.99. Promoting the protection of water resources, including water quality, watershed protection, and treatment discharge measures. 96.100. Supporting the protection of our natural resources from invasive species. 97. Promoting sustainability of our water resources through the use of recycled water and other best practices. 101. 102. Supporting regional water resiliency initiatives. County/Regional Priorities 98.103. Supporting legislation and other policy considerations to expand funding for the delivery of case management, drug, alcohol, and detoxification services, mental health services, and the establishment of shelter facilities. Packet Pg. 480 910 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR 2016 2017 Page 10 99.104. Working with the County to assure land use practices that are consistent with the Memorandum of Agreement adopted by the City Council and County Board of Supervisors in 200516 regarding development near the edges of the City. 100.105. Encouraging participation by County in providing nearby parking for County employees and clients, and alternate transportation and parking demand reduction. 101.106. Supporting County development of a local ordinance providing additional local oversight and regulation of the land application of Pollutant Concentration (PC) or better biosolids. 102.107. Working cooperatively with the County to solve City/County flood problems. 103.108. Supporting the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District's legislative program, where consistent with the City's adopted policies and platform. 104.109. Supporting the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments' legislative advocacy activities, where consistent with the City's adopted policies, platform and public project objectives. 105.110. Supporting County efforts to enhance dangerous animal regulation and enforcement. 106.111. Supporting the streamlining, clarification and simplification of conflict of interest regulations applicable to local officials. Commented [FX2]: NA new MOA was adopted in 2016 Packet Pg. 481 910 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 482 910 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director Courtney Steck, Interim Budget Manager SUBJECT: 2016-17 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and discuss an update of changes in the financial position (Attachment A, Sections A &B) based on revised projections for all funds for the 2016-17 fiscal year, and 2. Receive an update on Status of Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives (Attachment A, Section C); and DISCUSSION The accompanying Mid-Year Budget Review for 2016-17 provides a comprehensive overview of the City’s fiscal condition at the mid-point of the fiscal year. The Transmittal Memorandum (starting on page A-1) sets forth a concise summary of key General Fund revenue and expenditure trends since adoption of the 2016-17 Supplemental Budget to the 2015-17 Financial Plan in June 2016. The report’s focus is on the General Fund; however, staff provides updated information for each fund. The report also includes a comprehensive status of Major City Goals, Other Important Objectives, and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. Background The City’s two-year Financial Plan provides for the submittal of a report on financial status to the Council every six months. For fiscal monitoring purposes, on-line access to up-to-date information is available to all departments. Additionally, focused reports are issued to the Council and staff on key revenues such as sales tax, transient occupancy tax and investments, as well as ad hoc reports as needed. However, the formal submittal of a review at the mid-point of the fiscal year provides an opportunity to take broader look at the City’s financial picture, including: 1. Updating beginning fund balance projections based on actual results for the p rior fiscal year as confirmed in the audit and reported in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 2. Analyzing revenue trends since adoption of the Financial Plan, and revising revenues and ending fund balance projections accordingly. 3. Identifying and presenting any areas of uncertainty or concern, and recommending corrective action or additional funding if required. Packet Pg. 483 11 4. Presenting the status of major City goals, CIP projects and other important objectives. Report Organization Section A: Transmittal Memorandum: Provides a narrative overview of the City’s fiscal environment. Provides an update to 2016-17 fund balance projections with previous fiscal year audited fund balance results and the most recent revenue and expenditures trends. Provides a summary of administrative and previously adopted by Council budget adjustments since the adoption of 2016-17 Supplemental Budget. Provides with Mid-Year recommended budget adjustments for Council approval and recommendations for the use of surplus fund balance. Section B: Financial Condition Summaries: Provides comprehensive presentations and updates of projected revenues and expenditures based on staff’s best and most prudent professional judgment. Updates beginning fund/working capital balances b ased on actual audited 2015-16 results and projected ending balances for 2016-17 based on changes from original budget estimates. Section C: Status of Goals and Objectives: Provides a report on Major City Goals, Other Council Objectives, and the status of major Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Section D: Recent financial and revenue reports: Provides the most recent Quarterly Financial Report, Quarterly Sales Tax Newsletter and Monthly TOT Report. Summary of Mid-Year Budget Review Results This Mid-Year review shows that the City continued to experience slow economic growth for the past six months. Sales tax revenue which is the most volatile source of revenue for the General Fund because it closely correlated with economic fluctuations and which amounts to 37% of total General Fund revenues, slowed down in growth (in other words, still growing but at a much slower pace than anticipated in the budget). Due to prudent expenditure management and more favorable than expected revenue trends in 2015-16, the City has one-time funds in the amount of $4.25 million; however, further draw on this fund balance is projected within this fiscal year due to decline in revenue. Unassigned fund balance for General fund including Local Revenue Measure sub-fund is projected at $3.35 million at the end of fiscal year 2016-17. Of this amount, no Local Revenue Measure funds are available to allocate for projects or services. This is due to precise accounting for the Local Revenue Measure funds in the sub-fund. Staff is recommending that the Council not allocate these one-time General Fund resources at this time and as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan Budget. Staff believes this approach would give the City Council the best opportunity to understand the financial conditions, the needs of the Community and align allocation of these funds with Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives. Staff will make recommendations regarding these one-time funds when the Council considers providing Strategic Budget Direction on April 18, 2017 and will continue to monitor current year financial position and make recommendations as necessary. Fiscal Impact There are no mid-year expenditure adjustments recommended with this report. The report provides with revenue and expenditure projections based on the mid-year results and updates changes in financial position for each fund based on 2015-16 actuals and projections through the Packet Pg. 484 11 end of 2016-17 fiscal year. Staff will continue to monitor financial position and will make recommendations as necessary. Attachments: a - Council Reading File - 2016-17 Mid Year Final Packet Pg. 485 11 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 486 11 Meeting Date: 2/21/2017 FROM: Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND FIVE-YEAR FISCAL FORECAST: 2017-22 RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and discuss the results of the General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast for 2017- 22 (Attachment A); and 2. Concur with the Activation of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan (Attachment B) REPORT IN BRIEF The City enters the 2017-19 Financial Planning period with a proven record of “exceptionally strong” financial performance, as recently re-affirmed by Fitch Ratings (an international credit rating agency), who praised the City’s budget-management practices and financial planning. The City showed “robust financial planning and policy framework” according to Fitch Ratings. Past performance shows a robust recovery from the Great Recession. The City was able to rapidly rebuild financial flexibility after the recession and quickly restore fund balance as well as fiscal stability. In spite of exceptional past performance, the City is facing significant challenges ahead. The City has gone from a situation of Steady Growth Equally Challenged by Expenditure Growth and Uncertainties to one of Slowing Economic Growth outpaced by Expenditures. As for revenues, our economy is going to grow but much more slowly than previously projected. Expenditures will grow significantly, primarily due to increased costs for retirement payments. Based on these and other assumptions and if the City continues to operate withut course corrections, the forecast indicates a structural imbalance as early at Fiscal Year 2018-19 and escalating over the remainder of the forecast (approximately $2.7 million in Fiscal Year 2018-19 growing to $6 million in FY 2021-22). Yet, as we know from our history, the City has a long and distinguished history of policy-based action to counteract financial adversity. One policy that helps guide us in situations such as this is the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan (FHCP). This policy provides a general framework for addressing financial challenges similar to the ones we face today (triggers include weakening revenues and significant escalation of costs). Staff recommends that strategic short-term provisions of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan be implemented in the current Fiscal Year while a longer-term plan is developed. Staff intends to present an action plan consistent with this FHCP on April 18, 2017 with the Strategic Budget Direction as part of the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal work program. It is important to note that our civic infrastructure (community involvement, robust policy framework, dedicated City Council and employees, to name a few) will serve San Luis Obispo well in successfully navigating the challenges ahead. Packet Pg. 487 12 BACKGROUND Forecast Purpose The purpose of the attached Five-Year Fiscal Forecast is to assess the General Fund’s ability over the next five years to accomplish five things: 1. Deliver current service levels; 2. Maintain existing infrastructure and facilities. 3. Preserve the City’s long-term fiscal health by aligning operating revenues and expenditures; 4. Maintain fund balance at policy levels; and 5. Reinvest in the General Fund supported Capital Improvement Program, particularly in areas that are underfunded such as infrastructure maintenance, fleet replacement, IT replacement, and facilities maintenance. It is important to stress that the forecast is not the budget. The forecast informs the budget process but it does not represent formally adopted revenues or expenditures. Its purpose is to provide context with focus on long-term fiscal health for considering the City’s ability to continue current services, maintain existing assets and/or fund new initiatives. DISCUSSION The City’s financial planning is focused on achieving the highest priorities for the community within the City’s means. The City’s adopted fiscal and budget policies are focused on long-term fiscal health. Each financial plan starts with a Council Goal Setting Process, which is informed by community input and fiscal outlook. Per the City’s fiscal policies, the Council also reviews financial position at mid-year of each Fiscal Year to review fund balance financial position based on the latest trends in revenues and expenditures. Additionally, the City’s fiscal policies, (including the Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy, our fund reserve policy and the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan) position the City to be flexible and focused on outcomes in good times as well as in response to adverse fiscal conditions. While the City Council has limited ability to increase revenue without voter approval due to California law, the Council has discretion over allocation of resources for non-mandated services. The General Fund Five-Year Forecast informs the Council with a long-term financial outlook. The forecast uses inputs from subject matter experts (Beacon Economics and HDL), an in-depth review of the latest trends regarding revenues and expenditures as well as financial outlook through the five-year period ending Fiscal Year 2021-22. The forecast presents the financial position of the General Fund if the City stays the course funding the current level of services, in the same manner while also incorporating anticipated changes in revenues and expenditures. One last note on the importance of the General Fund forecast – many of the assumptions used for the General Fund are also applicable to the Enterprise Funds. While some of the assumptions and impacts will have varying effect on each fund, in many cases they will apply to each fund. A good example of this is fair share allocation of retirement payments or the assumptions about Packet Pg. 488 12 other assumed cost increases (fuel, energy, etc.). So while this forecast applies to the General Fund there are important pieces that will apply to the Enterprise Funds as the program managers craft their Fund forecasts for review. Summary of General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast for 2017-22 On December 13, 2016, Council reviewed the City’s Fiscal Outlook, which was presented with the Budget Foundation. The theme of the forecast was Steady Growth Equally Challenged by Expenditure Growth and Uncertainties. The economic outlook showed a slowing down in growth of major sources of revenue such as sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT). There are several uncertainties at play as we chart a course with the fiscal forecast. Further slowing down in the economy and the potential for a recession continues to be an uncertainty. Policy changes at the Federal level are also part of the uncertainty framework. The closure of the Diablo Caynon Power Plant has not been analyzed as part of this forecast. Planning for this eventuality needs to be on-going. The Council approved a Settlement Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company on December 13, 2016 related to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Closure Joint Proposal. The agreement includes a payment by PG&E to local jurisdictions, including $1.82 million to the City of San Luis Obispo to ease economic impacts by creating or updating economic development strategies. These one-time funds will be available to make a plan on how to address these impacts and, more importantly, take action to prepare the community for the scheduled closure. Based on Mid-Year review, revenue growth continued to slow through the end of December 2016 and the national economy showed slower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth than expected. This revenue trend combined with very significant policy changes by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), discussed below, now shows a forecast where the theme has shifted to: Slowing Economic Growth outpaced by Expenditures. CalPERS Changes Ensure Long-Term Sustainability of Retirement Fund: As for the expenditure growth, CalPERS has made changes to ensure long-term sustainability of retirement fund that will significantly influence the City expense projections. Specifically, over the last five or so years the CalPERS Board has taken several actions to address the significant stock market loss in 2008 and demographic study that concluded that employees were living longer and retiring earlier. Most recent policy changes made by CalPERS were to establish a fixed timeline of thirty years to pay down unfunded liability and, in 2015, the Board implemented a Funding Risk Mitigation policy, which was expected to gradually lower the long- term discount rate over 21 years. These changes are all directed towards ensuring that the retirement fund is fiscally sound, which is overall a positive. Nonetheless, these policy changes have driven significant increases in payments to CalPERS to support the retirement benefits for our current and retired employees. These increased costs have been included in the City’s budgets and fiscal forecasts in the past but these costs are rising at a faster pace than was projected. This is in part because current actuarial estimates from CalPERS were understated and recent financial performance in terms of returns on investment did not meet actuarial expectations. On December 21, 2016, the CalPERS Board voted to “lower discount rate to seven percent over the next three years.” The discount rate is the expected rate of investment returns for CalPERs Packet Pg. 489 12 managed funds. This latest action taken by the CalPERS Board leads to significant impacts to participating agencies. The lowering of the discount rate directly translates into higher required contribution rates for normal cost and higher payments toward the unfunded liability. The increase in payments will first affect the City’s budget in Fiscal Year 2018-19 and will grow over the following eight years. CalPERS utilized a smoothing mechanism where required payments are escalated over a five-year period. This applies to each of the three-step process of lower the discount rate over three years. According to CalPERS, this action is driven by the most recent market performance, which yielded a zero-percent return in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and growing pension payments. As mentioned before this action strengthens long-term sustainability of the fund but also significantly increases the City’s obligations to CalPERS. The estimated impact to the General Fund due to the discount rate change is estimated to amount to approximately $3.2 million dollars by Fiscal Year 2021-22 and continue to rise to approximately $5 million by 2025 (beyond the five-year forecast but CalPERS is implementing increases over an eight year period). These increases are in addition to the already escalated CalPERS rates factored into the forecast due to previous actions to pay down the unfunded liability in 30 years and demographic assumption changes. The total estimated increase in CalPERS payments is estimated to reach $8.3 million by the outer year of this forecast in Fiscal Year 2021-22. These increased payments are estimated based on the latest information provided by CalPERS. The information from CalPERS provides with ranges of percent increases over time and apply to both required normal cost and unfunded liability required contributions. The Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual Actuarial Valuation for the City’s CalPERS retirement plans is expected to be released in the summer of 2017, which will further provide information on the impacts to the City. Detailed Fiscal Forecast Findings Revenue Building on the fiscal projections conducted by Beacon Economics and the City’s sales tax advisor (HdL) that was presented to the Council in conjunction to with the Economic Outlook in December 2016, Staff has reviewed Fiscal Year 2015-16 year-end results and the last six months of actual receipts in revenue sources. Based on this analysis and economic outlook at the national, state and local level, revenue trends have been evaluated and presented in the Five-Year Forecast in Attachment A. The main driving force on the revenue side is slowing down in Sales Tax growth. This decline will negatively influence both the current Fiscal Year by approximately -$1 million and the five- year outlook. The City contracts with HdL companies to review and forecast sales tax estimates. HdL forecast assumptions are based on approximately 2% sales tax growth through the 2017-19 Financial Plan, followed by a mild and brief recession in Fiscal Year 2019-20 and a rapid recovery and 2.8% sales tax growth in the outer years. Property tax growth remains solid. Based on estimates from the County of San Luis Obispo estimate, the property tax for Fiscal Year 2016-17 is projected approximately $250,000 higher than was originally adopted with the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Supplemental Budget. The property Packet Pg. 490 12 tax growth is estimated to be strong due to large developments in the City limits currently under construction. The growth rate through the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Financial Plan is estimated at 6 percent and is lowered to 5 percent in outer years. This forecast is also informed by Beacon Economics econometric analysis that was presented in December with the Economic Outlook. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) growth showed significant slowing down in this Fiscal Year compared to previous Fiscal Year. This is primarily explained by relatively high growth in the previous Fiscal Year and constant room inventory as well as properties holding a fairly high average daily rate. TOT growth is projected to pick back up in Fiscal Year 2018-19 due to expected openings of three hotel properties, which will add a total of 244 rooms, once all properties are complete. All other revenue sources remain in line with previous projections. The forecast does not include any adjustments to service charges fee schedules and is based on current fee schedule annually increased by Consumer Price Index, when applicable. Any update to fees will be incorporated into staff’s proposals for the Council’s consideration on April 18 when Strategic Budget Direction is sought. Expenditure The operating expenditures in this forecast represent anticipated expenditure levels based on the current business model and level of service. The expenditure growth is estimated at 2.5 percent in future years based on anticipated cost increases aligned with the increases that took place in the current Fiscal Year 2015-17 Financial Plan. In addition, by law, minimum wage increases will take place throughout the five-year period. The most significant impact on the expenditures side is the impact of recent announcement of CalPERS to lowering the discount rate (also sometimes called the rate of return) from 7.5 percent to 7 percent over a three-year window. The first budgetary impacts will begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. Lowering the discount rate will increase both the required contributions for both normal cost (which is presented to the city as a percentage rate) and unfunded liability (which is now presented as a fix dollar amount). As an example, based on the sensitivity analysis in latest annual valuation reports (as of June 30, 2015), a decrease in the discount rate to 6.5 percent would result in an increase to the City’s unfunded liability, for all funds, of approximately $23 million dollars. A one-half percent reduction, holding all other variables steady, could be estimated at approximately half of this amount. The forecast includes estimated increases in payments both toward normal cost and increased payments toward unfunded liability. The increases in normal cost are calculated conservatively at the higher end of the percent increase provided by CalPERS. The estimated increases in payments toward unfunded liability are calculated at mid-range of the range provided by CalPERS. Currently the City’s payment toward unfunded liability is approximately 6% of the total unfunded liability of the City’s plans. Utilizing the mid-range point of the suggested range of impact is aligned consistently with a similar proportional payment to total outstanding accrued unfunded liability. CalPERS will implement the discount rate in a three-step process and will apply a smoothing methodology to each impact increasing payments over a period of five-years from each change. Packet Pg. 491 12 In a Circular Letter issued on January 19, 2017, CalPERS provided with estimated ranges of potential increases to both normal cost and unfunded liability over an the 8-year period. The published rates increases are shown in in the table below. Valuation Date Fiscal Year Impact Misc. Plans Safety Plans Misc. Plans Safety Plans 6/30/2016 2018-19 0.25% - 0.75% 0.5% -1.25% 2% - 3% 2% - 3% 6/30/2017 2019-20 0.5% - 1.5% 1.0% - 2.5% 4% - 6% 4% - 6% 6/30/2018 2020-21 1.0% - 3.0% 2.0% - 5.0% 10% - 15% 10% - 15% 6/30/2019 2021-22 1.0% - 3.0% 2.0% - 5.0% 15% - 20% 15% - 20% 6/30/2020 2022-23 1.0% - 3.0% 2.0% - 5.0% 20% - 25% 20% - 25% 6/30/2021 2023-24 1.0% - 3.0% 2.0% - 5.0% 25% - 30% 25% - 30% 6/30/2022 2024-25 1.0% - 3.0% 2.0% - 5.0% 30% - 40% 30% - 40% UAL PaymentsNormal Cost *Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) CalPERS representatives have indicated that the 2015-16 Actuary Reports will be released to participating agencies in the summer time. The table above provides with CalPERS estimated ranges, showing potential impacts to payments for both normal cost and Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL). These ranges do not provide with exact amounts CalPERS will require the City to contribute, but can be used to forecast potential impacts. Actual required contributions in the future may also be impacted by further demographic changes and actual rate of return. CalPERS issues an Annual Valuation report annually, which is based on the past experienced lagged by one year. For example, the required contributions paid in fiscal year 2016-17 are based on 2014- 15 Annual Valuation report. Therefore, when the assumption in discount rate is changed from 7.5% to 7.375%, the lowering of the discount rate will increase both normal and unfunded liability required contributions to CalPERS reported with the 2015-16 valuation, which will translate into required payments within the 2018-19 fiscal year. The ranges above inform the estimated future required contributions based on the methodology used by CalPERS to create these estimated ranges. In accordance with the circular latter release in January 2017, the ranges should be used as follows. “To illustrate how this table can be used as a guide to include the change in discount rate in the calculation of pension contributions, a Miscellaneous plan with a current normal cost of 15 percent of payroll can expect an increase of 15.25 percent to 15.75 percent of payroll in the first year (Fiscal Year 2018-19), and 18 percent to 18 percent in the firth year (Fiscal Year 2012-23). For the UAL payment, a plan with a projected payment of $500,000 in the Fiscal Year 2018 -19 and $600,000 in Fiscal Year 2022-23 can expect the revised payment to be $510,000-$515,000 ($500,000*2.00%/$500,000*3%) for Fiscal Year 2018-19, and $720,000-$750,000 ($600,000*20%/$600,000*25%) for Fiscal Year 2022-23. These estimated increases incorporate both the impact of the discount rate change and the ramp up.” The estimated impact to the General Fund of the discount rate change is estimated to amount to approximately $3.2 million dollars by Fiscal Year 2021-22 and continue to rise to approximately $6 million by 2025. This increase is in addition to already escalated CalPERS rates factored into Packet Pg. 492 12 the forecast due to previous actions to pay down unfunded liability in thirty years and changes to demographic factors. The total estimated increase in CalPERS payments for normal cost and unfunded liability combined is estimated to reach $8.3 million per year by the outer year of this forecast in Fiscal Year 2021-22. These costs are estimated based on the latest information provided by CalPERS. The 2015-16 Actuarial Valuation for the City’s CalPERS retirement plans is expected to be released in the summer of 2017, which will provide detailed information regarding the impacts on the City. The City will continue to evaluate the impact of the discount rate (including possibly having an outside peer review of these estimates) and will return to Council with the Strategic Budget Direction with further analysis of this issue. It is important to recognize that the City has made proactively significant progress in its efforts to contain retirement costs, such as adding 2nd and 3rd tier benefit programs that now reflect membership of 34 percent of total City employees and increasing the employee portion of retirement contributions toward the cost of retirement under those tiers. These actions will continue to lower the future costs of retirement to the City as an employer; however, this process will occur over time and is not expected to significantly change the immediate expenditure levels included in this forecast. Since 2014, the City began making lump sum pre-payments toward the unfunded liability starting in 2014 for a cumulative total in the amount of $2.74 million. Another cost containment measure the City pursued in 2016 is to join the Lability Excess Insurance Program (EIP) administered by the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority. This program creates a new pool for only the CJPIA members with the lowest claims and establishes a self-insurance amount over which the CJPIA will insure. Given the City’s low levels of claims, the City will benefit from this program over time. For Fiscal Year 2016-17, rather than paying a $2 million premium under the Primary Insurance Program for first dollar coverage, the City paid a rate of $984,500 and moved into the EIP. The City’s deductible under this program is $500,000 and requires funds be set aside to ensure adjudicated claims can be fully funded from the city’s self-insurance fund balance; however, the fiscal forecast assumes adequate fund balance will be reached by Fiscal Year 2019-20, resulting in annual savings to the City of approximately $500,000. This timetable for achieving full funding of the self-insurance fund balance will be assessed as part of the implementation of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan. All General Fund contributions toward Capital expenditures are forecasted based on historic levels of contribution. Staff will review this assumption as part of the process of assessing a plan moving forward that will be presented at the Council meeting concerning Strategic Budget Direction. Immediate Actions in Light of Changing Conditions - Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Due to the increase in required contributions to the pension plans along with mild slowing down in the economy and a potential for a mild recession within this time, staff recommends that the Council activate the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan (Attachment B). The purpose of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan is to establish a framework and general approach in responding to adverse fiscal circumstances. The four key elements of the plan are: 1. Maintaining minimum fund balance at policy levels Packet Pg. 493 12 2. Following other key budget and fiscal policies 3. Monitoring the City’s fiscal health on an ongoing basis 4. Assessing the challenge: short or long-term problem? According to the plan any of the following would reasonably trigger actions in accordance with the plan:  Adverse fiscal circumstances as determined by the city Manager, such as:  Natural or human-made disaster.  State budget takeaways.  Large, unexpected costs.  Economic downturns.  Whenever there are two consecutive quarters of adverse fiscal results in one or more of the City’s top five General Fund revenues:  Sales Tax  Property Tax  Transient occupancy tax (TOT),  Utility user tax (UUT)  Vehicle license fee (VLF) “swap” Adverse results include:  Actual declines in revenues.  Significant variances from projected revenues The Fiscal Health Contingency Plan also articulates that while the plan is focused on the General Fund the Enterprise Funds will fully participate. The two rationale for participation of all funds are as follows:  We are one organization: all parts need to participate.  It is strategically important to limit Enterprise Fund rate increases (rate decreases would also be nice) at a time when we may be consider General Fund revenue increases. Additionally, the Enterprise Funds will be impacted in a similar fashion as the General Fund as it relates to CalPERS costs. As a result, the Enterprise Funds should be participating with as much intention, diligence and purpose as the General Fund. Staff will implement the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan to contain costs in the short term and to develop and implement short and long-term measures into the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Financial Plan. Staff intends to focus on the Council adopted highest priorities and within parameters of the City’s fiscal policies. Staff will return to Council in April with Strategic Budget Direction (including a work plan for the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal). All of this effort will inform the Preliminary Budget recommendations presented by the City Manager in May. All of the information shown here is described more fully in the Five-Year Fiscal Forecast Packet Pg. 494 12 document that is provided as Attachment A. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action to receive and discuss the Five-Year Forecast or to concur with activation of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan. However, if the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan is not activated, it may be more challenging for the City to implement measures to close the budget-gap. Attachments: a - 2017-22 General Fund Five-Year Forecast b - Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Openable Packet Pg. 495 12 General Five-Year Forecast: 201- 6lowing Down Growth outpaced by Expenditures February 2017 Packet Pg. 496 12 Page 1 of 4 Purpose of Five-Year Forecast The purpose of Five-Year Forecast is to assess the General Fund’s ability over the next five years to accomplish five things: 1.Deliver current service levels; 2.Maintain existing infrastructure and facilities. 3.Preserve the City’s long-term fiscal health by aligning operating revenues and expenditures; 4.Maintain fund balance at policy levels; and 5.Reinvest in the General Fund supported Capital Improvement Program, particularly in areas that are underfunded such as infrastructure maintenance, fleet replacement, IT replacement, and facilities maintenance. The forecast does this by projecting revenues over expenditures over a five-year period, using assumptions about economic conditions, future expenditure scenarios, and other salient factors. If this balance were to be negative, the balance would represent a “budget gap” that requires corrective action consistent with the City’s commitment to fiscal sustainability. The Five-Year Forecast presents with an overview of the General Fund over the next five years. The forecast incorporates the Mid-Year review of the latest trends in revenues and expenditures. Future major revenue sources are further analyzed by partnering with consulting firms specializing in econometrics and specific revenue sources such as sales tax and utility user’s taxes. The forecast sets the stage for the upcoming budget process but it does not represent formally adopted revenues or expenditures. Its purpose is to provide context for considering the City’s ability to continue current services, maintain existing assets and/or fund new initiatives. It is important to stress that this Five-Year Forecast is not a budget. This Five-Year forecast for the General Fund, is based on a slowing down revenue growth and rapid growth in expenditures due to recent policy change by the California Public Employee’s Retirement System to lower discount rate, which results in significant budgetary implication and growth in expenditures over the five-year horizon. The theme of this forecast is “Slowing Down Growth outpaced by Expenditures.” The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that governments of all levels forecast major revenues and expenditures extending over several years into the future. The forecast should be clearly stated and made available to stakeholders in the budget process. It should also be regularly monitored and periodically updated. The City of San Luis Obispo, through its financial planning process, embraces each of these recommendations in making the forecast an integral part of the budget process. Packet Pg. 497 12 Page 2 of 4 Summary of Findings The City enters the 2017-19 Financial Planning period with a proven record of “exceptionally strong” financial performance, as recently re- affirmed by Fitch Ratings (an international credit rating agency), who praised the City’s budget- management practices and financial planning. The City showed “robust financial planning and policy framework” according to Fitch Ratings. Past performance shows a robust recovery from the Great Recession. The City was able to rapidly rebuild financial flexibility after the recession and quickly restore fund balance as well as fiscal stability. In spite of exceptional past performance, the City is facing significant challenges ahead. The City has gone from a situation of Steady Growth Equally Challenged by Expenditure Growth and Uncertainties to one of Slowing Economic Growth outpaced by Expenditures. As for revenues, our economy is going to grow but much more slowly than previously projected. Expenditures will grow significantly, primarily due to increased costs for retirement payments. Based on these and other assumptions and if the City continues to operate in the same way with no course corrections, the forecast indicates a structural imbalance (budget gap) as early at Fiscal Year 2018-19 and escalating over the remainder of the forecast (approximately $2.7 million in Fiscal Year 2018-19 growing to $6 million in FY 2021-22). Yet, as we know from our history, the City has a long and distinguished history of policy-based action to counteract financial adversity. One policy that helps guide us in situations such as this is the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan (FHCP). This policy provides a general framework for addressing financial challenges similar to the ones we face today (triggers include weakening revenues and significant escalation of costs). Staff recommends that strategic short-term provisions of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan be implemented in the current Fiscal Year while a longer-term plan is developed. Staff intends to present an action plan consistent with this FHCP on April 18, 2017 with the Strategic Budget Direction as part of the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal work program. The City of San Luis Obispo contracts with Beacon Economics to provide with Economic Forecast for the City of San Luis Obispo. Beacon Economics forecast is based on time- series econometric techniques based on historical correlations and forecasts of future economic trends. Beacon Economics utilizes a layered approach based on the National, State of California and regional forecast. The forecast reviews trends in all general fund revenue sources and provides with higher level of focus on review of major sources of revenue for the City. Sales Tax represents approximately 36% of the General Fund Revenue, followed by Property Tax at 14%, Transient Occupancy Tax at 10%, Utility Users Tax at 8%, and Development Review Fees at 7%. Sales Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax revenue sources are highly correlated with economic fluctuations. Building on the fiscal projections conducted by Beacon Economics and the City’s sales tax advisor (HdL) that was presented to the Council in conjunction to with the Economic Outlook in December 2016, Staff has reviewed Fiscal Year 2015-16 year-end results and the last six months of actual receipts in revenue sources. Based on this analysis and economic outlook at the national, state and local level, revenue trends have been evaluated and presented in the Five- Year Forecast in Attachment 2 to this report. The main driving force on the revenue side is slowing down in Sales Tax growth. This decline will negatively influence both the current Fiscal Year by approximately -$1 million and the five- year outlook. The City contracts with HdL companies to review and forecast sales tax estimates. HdL forecast assumptions are based on Slowing Economic Growth outpaced by Expenditures Packet Pg. 498 12 Page 3 of 4 approximately 2% sales tax growth through the 2017-19 Financial Plan, followed by a mild and brief recession in Fiscal Year 2019-20 and a rapid recovery and 2.8% sales tax growth in the outer years. Property Tax estimated revenue continues to show positive strong growth. 2015-16 actual property tax revenue growth was 5% over the previous year. Beacon Economics forecast based on assessed valuation trend over time and building permits, shows an expected growth rate above 6% through fiscal year 2017-18 and above 5% in the outer years. In addition, three significant projects are underway in San Luis Obispo incorporated area that are expected to significantly contribute to the property tax revenue growth for the City. The projects are Monterey Hotel, Garden Street Terraces and China Town. The Economic outlook is based on a 6% growth projection through the 2017-19 Financial Plan, 5.5% percent growth in 2019-20 and 5% growth thereafter due to higher degree of uncertainty in the outer years. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) growth showed significant slowing down in this Fiscal Year compared to previous Fiscal Year. This is primarily explained by relatively high growth in the previous Fiscal Year and constant room inventory as well as properties holding a fairly high average daily rate. TOT growth is projected to pick back up in Fiscal Year 2018-19 due to expected openings of three hotel properties, which will add a total of 244 rooms, once all properties are complete. All other revenue sources remain in line with previous projections. The forecast does not include any adjustments to service charges fee schedules and is based on current fee schedule annually increased by Consumer Price Index, when applicable. Any update to fees will be incorporated into staff’s proposals for the Council’s consideration on April 18 where Strategic Budget Direction is sought. The operating expenditures in this forecast represent anticipated expenditure levels based on the current business model and level of service. The expenditure growth is estimated at 2.5 percent in future years based on anticipated cost increases aligned with the increases that took place in the current Fiscal Year 2015-17 Financial Plan. In addition, by law, minimum wage increases will take place throughout the five-year period. The most significant impact on the expenditures side is the impact of recent announcement of CalPERS to lowering the discount rate (also sometimes called the rate of return) from 7.5 percent to 7 percent over a three-year window. The first budgetary impacts will begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. Lowering the discount rate will increase both the required contributions for both normal cost (which is presented to the city as a percentage rate) and unfunded liability (which is now presented as a fix dollar amount). As an example, based on the sensitivity analysis in latest annual valuation reports (as of June 30, 2015), a decrease in the discount rate to 6.5 percent would result in an increase to the City’s unfunded liability, for all funds, of approximately $23 million dollars. A one-half percent reduction, holding all other variables steady, could be estimated at approximately half of this amount. Based on preliminary information released by CalPERS, providing with ranges of potential increases over time, the forecast includes estimated increases in payments both toward normal cost and increased payments toward unfunded liability. The increases in normal cost are calculated conservatively at the higher end of Packet Pg. 499 12 Page 4 of 4 the percent increase provided by CalPERS. The estimated increases in payments toward unfunded liability are calculated at mid-range of the range provided by CalPERS. Currently the City’s payment toward unfunded liability is approximately 6% of the total unfunded liability of the City’s plans. Utilizing the mid-range point of the suggested range of impact is aligned consistently with a similar proportional payment to total outstanding accrued unfunded liability. CalPERS will implement the discount rate in a three-step process and will apply a smoothing methodology to each impact increasing payments over a period of five-years from each change. On December 21, 2016, the CalPERS Board voted to “lower discount rate to seven percent over the next three years.” This latest action taken by the CalPERS Board leads to significant impacts to participating agencies. The lowering of the discount rate, or expected rate of return, directly translates into higher required contribution rates for normal cost and higher payments toward the unfunded liability. The increase in payments will first affect the City’s budget in Fiscal Year 2018-19 and will grow over the following 8 years. CalPERS utilized a smoothing mechanism where required payments are escalated over a five-year period. This applies to each of the three-step process of lower the discount rate over three years. According to CalPERS, this action is driven by the most recent market performance, which yielded a zero- percent return in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and growing pension payments. As mentioned before this action strengthens long-term sustainability of the fund but also significantly increases the City’s obligations to CalPERS. The estimated impact to the General Fund due to the discount rate change is estimated to amount to approximately $3.2 million dollars by Fiscal Year 2021-22 and continue to rise to approximately $5 million by 2025 (beyond the five-year forecast but CalPERS is implementing increases over an eight year period). These increases are in addition to the already escalated CalPERS rates factored into the forecast due to previous actions to pay down the unfunded liability in 30 years and demographic assumption changes. The total estimated increase in CalPERS payments is estimated to reach $8.3 million by the outer year of this forecast in Fiscal Year 2021-22. These increased payments are estimated based on the latest information provided by CalPERS. The information from CalPERS provides with ranges of percent increases over time and apply to both required normal cost and unfunded liability required contributions. The Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual Actuarial Valuation for the City’s CalPERS retirement plans is expected to be released in the summer of 2017, which will further provide information on the impacts to the City. Conclusion: If the City continues to operate in the same way with no course corrections, the forecast indicates a structural imbalance (budget gap) as early at Fiscal Year 2018-19 and escalating over the remainder of the forecast (approximately $2.7 million in Fiscal Year 2018-19 growing to $6 million in FY 2021-22). The revenues over expenditure graph (Attachment 1) shows the blue line (sources) under the red line (uses). The difference between these lines represents the budget gap or structural imbalance. Attachment 2 to this report provides with the five-year outlook showing sources over uses for the General fund based on the assumptions discussed in this report. Packet Pg. 500 12 Attachment 1Packet Pg. 50112 City of San Luis Obispo - General Fund Five Year Fiscal Forecast 2017-19 Financial Plan #REF! $ in 000's Actual Actual1 Revised 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 1 Sales Tax 15,273 17,498 16,584 16,932 17,277 17,186 17,659 18,170 2 Measure Y/G Sales Tax 7,136 7,178 7,391 7,607 7,679 7,636 7,790 7,959 3 Sales Tax Prop 172 410 405 428 405 405 405 405 405 4 Property Taxes 9,632 10,187 10,767 11,172 11,843 12,494 13,119 13,775 5 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 3,849 4,113 4,365 4,593 4,846 5,088 5,343 5,610 6 Transient Occupancy Tax 6,806 7,113 7,186 7,328 7,695 8,079 8,483 8,908 7 Utility Users Tax 5,211 5,414 5,506 5,562 5,729 5,901 6,078 6,078 8 Franchise Fees 2,790 1,538 1,540 1,527 1,527 1,527 1,527 1,527 9 Business Tax 2,203 2,492 2,500 2,747 2,884 3,028 3,180 3,339 10 Real Property Transfer Tax 298 366 373 381 388 396 404 412 11 Subtotal Taxes 53,608 56,304 56,640 58,255 60,273 61,742 63,988 66,182 12 Transfers In (Gas, TDA, CoS, Other)1,505 2,924 2,353 3,190 3,239 2,560 2,590 2,307 13 Other Subventions & Grants 1,278 1,539 316 316 316 316 316 316 14 Development Review Fees 5,274 5,624 5,373 5,400 5,562 5,729 5,901 6,078 15 Recreation Fees 1,881 1,759 1,640 1,800 1,836 1,873 1,910 1,948 16 Other Service Charges 1,875 1,952 1,750 1,803 1,821 1,839 1,858 1,876 17 Other Revenues 697 891 543 543 543 543 543 543 18 Subtotal Non-Tax Revenues 12,510 14,689 11,975 13,052 13,317 12,860 13,118 13,069 19 Total Resources 66,118 70,993 68,615 71,307 73,591 74,602 77,106 79,251 20 Operating Expenses (excl PERS)2 44,576 46,223 49,548 50,518 53,130 53,791 55,099 56,698 21 PERS Normal Costs 4,322 3,612 3,866 4,101 4,210 4,316 4,424 4,531 22 PERS Unfunded Liability 3,536 5,629 6,871 7,212 8,767 9,861 10,584 11,341 23 PERS Discount Rate Adjustment 606 1258 2197 3271 24 Subtotal: Operating Expenses 52,434 55,464 60,285 61,831 66,713 69,226 72,304 75,841 25 Debt Service 5,312 3,025 3,246 3,212 3,202 2,912 2,520 2,520 26 Transfer to CDBG 73 147 154 154 154 154 154 154 27 Transfer to Insurance Benefit Fund 280 2,124 1,740 - - - - - 28 Transfer to Parkland Development Fund 900 29 CIP - Fleet Replacement 533 384 - 604 471 485 500 500 30 CIP - IT Replacement 991 617 2,621 726 1,261 525 551 579 31 CIP - Major Facility Replacement 551 146 505 770 790 1,190 917 962 32 CIP - All Other & Local Measure Funded projects)2,197 3,329 6,507 3,497 3,652 3,502 3,550 3,728 33 Subtotal: Operating Transfers 9,937 9,773 15,673 8,963 9,529 8,768 8,192 8,443 #REF! 34 Total Expenditures 62,371 65,237 75,958 70,794 76,242 77,994 80,496 84,283 35 Resources Over/(Under) Expenses 3,747 5,757 (7,343) 513 (2,651) (3,392) (3,390) (5,032) 36 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 20,317 24,566 21,539 14,196 14,196 14,709 11,545 11,317 37 Nondispensable/Restricted/ Committed - (8,074) (489) (489) (489) (489) (489) (489) 38 Funding Adjustment 502 (709) - - - - - 39 Ending Fund Balance 24,566 21,539 14,196 14,709 11,545 11,317 8,155 6,285 40 Reserve @ 20% Operating Costs (10,487) (11,476) (10,683) (10,924) (11,468) (11,621) (11,905) (12,246) 41 Designated Reserve (8,108) (519) (519) (519) (519) (519) (519) 42 Reserve Over/(Under) Policy Level 5,971 10,063 2,994 3,266 (442) (823) (4,269) (6,480) Five Year Forecast 17-19 Financial Plan Attachment - 2 Packet Pg. 502 12 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Originally Prepared in October 2001 Plan Purpose The purpose of this plan is to establish a framework and general approach in responding to adverse fiscal circumstances. What It’s Not: This plan is not intended to be a specific “recipe” for expenditure cuts or revenue increases: this needs to be determined on a case-by- case basis. Preparing detailed reduction options before they are truly needed is not recommended for three reasons: If not taken seriously, quality thought will not be given to them. If taken seriously, this is likely to result in needless anxiety, and sends a conflicting message if “times are good.” And even if these were not constraints, they would have a short shelf-life: needs and priorities change over time. However, this plan does set forth the foundation of principles and values upon which specific responses will be based. Triggers This plan will be “triggered” by any of the following: Any adverse fiscal circumstances as determined by the City Manager, such as: z Natural or human-made disasters. z State budget takeaways. z Large, unexpected costs. z Economic downturns. Whenever there are two consecutive quarters of adverse fiscal results in one or more the City’s top five General Fund revenues: z Sales tax z Property tax z Transient occupancy tax (TOT), z Utility users tax z Vehicle license fee (VLF) “swap” Adverse results include: z Actual declines in revenues. z Significant variances from projected revenues. General Fund Focus This plan is focused on the General Fund, but Enterprise Funds (water, sewer, parking, transit and golf) will also fully participate for two key reasons: We are one organization: all parts need to participate. It is strategically important to limit Enterprise Fund rate increases (rate decreases would also be nice) at a time when we may be considering General Fund revenue increases. Key Plan Elements There are six key elements to this plan: Maintaining minimum fund balance at policy levels. Following other key budget and fiscal policies. Monitoring the City’s fiscal health on an ongoing basis. Assessing the challenge: short or long-term problem? Packet Pg. 503 12 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 2 Identifying options. Preparing and implementing the action plan. n Minimum Fund Balance First Line of Defense in Adverse Circumstances Maintaining minimum fund balances at policy levels: Allows continued operations and projects in responding to short-term problems. Provides a bridge—“breathing room”—in addressing longer-term problems while comprehensive response plans are developed. This is especially important under Proposition 218, since there are limited opportunities to implement new revenues. o Other Key Budget and Fiscal Policies Following our other key budget and fiscal policies will prevent problems to begin with, and keep them from getting bigger when they do happen. These are set forth in Section B of the Financial Plan, and include: Balanced budget Conservative investment practices Diversified revenues User fee cost recovery Enterprise funds New development pays its own way Limited use of debt financing Fleet replacement Contracting for services Productivity improvements Z Fiscal Health Monitoring In accordance with our budget and fiscal policies, the City will develop and implement effective ongoing systems for reporting and monitoring our fiscal condition. These include: Interim Reporting Reliable automated financial management system On-line access organization-wide via the network Monthly financial reports Quarterly “Newsletter” (provided electronically to all employees) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project-to-date expenditure report Mid-Year Budget Review Special Reports: Sales Tax, TOT, Investments Annual Reporting Preparing audited financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and highest standards. q Assess: Short or Long-Term Problem? Different Strategies for Different Problems Short-Term: One-time event or downturn that is not likely to continue indefinitely. “One-time” fixes are an appropriate response for “one-time” problems. Long-Term: Ongoing downturn in revenues or increases in costs that are systemic. In this case, “one-time” fixes won’t work: this requires new ongoing revenues or ongoing expenditure reductions. Assessment: Short-Term Problem Hiring Chill. City Manager approval will be required to fill vacant regular positions. To fill a vacant position, department heads must demonstrate that it is necessary in meeting public health, safety or other high-priority service needs that cannot be met on an interim basis through contract, overtime or temporary staffing. In implementing the “chill,” the goal is not just short-term savings, but preserving future options if the problem turns-out to be ongoing. Packet Pg. 504 12 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 3 Travel Chill. We will limit travel and training: City Manager approval will be required for all Travel Authorizations. CIP Project Deferrals. The CIP Review Committee will identify candidate projects for possible deferral or deletion. “One-Time” Operating Cost Review. The Budget Review Team will identify special projects in the operating budget for possible deferral or deletion. Fund Balance. The City will consider use of fund balance below policy levels. Other. The City will consider other short-term expenditure curtailments as appropriate. Assessment: Long-Term Problem Implement “short-term” actions. (This follows the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.) Prepare long-term forecast to define the problem. Prepare revenue increase and expenditures reduction options tailored to problem definition via the forecast. z It is likely to take 3-6 months to prepare plans; and another 3-6 months to implement them. z This underscores the importance of strong fund balance and short-term expenditure reductions to create the time needed to prepare and implement reasonable long-term plans. r Identify Options In the long-term, there are only two basic budget- balancing options: Increase revenues. Reduce expenditures (and related service levels). In the short-term, use of fund balance is an option, but not it is not a viable long-term solution: we can only spend reserves once. An exception is the strategic use of fund balance that reduces future year operating costs or increases ongoing revenues. Expenditure Reduction Options Tough But Simple Fact: Meaningful ongoing expenditure reductions require reductions in regular staff costs, including public safety personnel: . 85% of General Fund costs are operating. 80% of General Fund operating costs are for staffing. 90% of General Fund staffing costs are for regular staffing. Over 50% of General Fund staffing costs are for public safety. General Strategy Department Heads are responsible for crafting operating expenditure reduction options that: Are real and “doable.” Reflect the least service impacts to the community—no game-playing in proposing least-likely reductions and non-starters. Are ongoing. Describe service impacts. Are within the City’s ability to do independently—no speculative reductions contingent upon actions by others. Can be implemented within three months after adoption. Are net of any related revenues from fees or grants. Maintain essential facilities, infrastructure and equipment at reasonable levels—no deferred maintenance posing as genuine cost reductions. Packet Pg. 505 12 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 4 Reflect participation from throughout their organization. Option “Targets” Targets for surfacing operating expenditure reduction options will generally be: Based on percentage reductions from current operating budgets, less significant one-time costs. The same for all departments. Targets are likely to exceed the “gap” identified in forecast in order to surface an array of reasonable policy choices based on priority considerations, and not driven by arbitrary across-the-board decreases. Stated simply, like making choices at a restaurant, making priority-based decisions depends on having more options on the menu than we plan on ordering. Operating expenditure reductions are not likely to be sole “budget-balancers,” but identifying their service impact is critical to attracting support for new revenues and other mitigation strategies. Key Principles in Preparing Operating Expenditure Reduction Options Any service reductions will be balanced, and ensure that highest priority services are retained. Reductions will be based on service priorities, not vacant positions: attrition is a helpful tactic, but will not be the driving strategy in reducing costs. On the other hand, one of the key purposes of the “hiring chill” is to create flexibility in making reductions based on priorities while mitigating the need for lay-offs. Our focus will be on retaining “front-line” core services, and reducing services with the least impact on the community at-large. On the other hand, we need to preserve “organizational” infrastructure, and ensure that appropriate and necessary internal review functions remain. CIP Projects The CIP Review Committee will be responsible for identifying ongoing reduction opportunities. Projects intended to maintain existing infrastructure and facilities will generally have higher priority over “new” facilities. Likely exceptions include: z Direct adverse impacts to public health and safety. z Outstanding contractual commitments. z Significant outside resources or related one- time revenues. Revenues: Limited Options The Budget Review Team, working with representatives from the operating departments, will have the lead responsibility for identifying revenue options. However, it is likely that any new significant revenues will require voter approval under Proposition 218; and most likely, this election cannot be held until the next regular municipal election (November of even-numbered years). There are two exceptions when revenue elections can be held at any time: Emergency declared by unanimous vote of the Council. Two-thirds voter approval for “earmarked” revenues. Nonetheless, there may be options for increased user fees, fines or use of property. (On the other hand, if these were easy to do, we would probably have already done them!) Employees throughout the organization will be encouraged to surface revenue- raising options, with the recognition that expenditure reductions are likely to play the play the leading role in balancing the budget. Significant New Revenues: Voter Support Required Voter approval will require time for effective preparation before a measure is placed on the ballot. Packet Pg. 506 12 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 5 Critical Success Factor: An effective, community-based group that will work hard to pass measure. Legislative Advocacy Depending on the reason for the adverse circumstances (and especially if they are driven by state or federal budget actions), the City will work closely with its elected representatives and others (such as the League of California Cities) in mitigating service (and related cost) reductions. Unlikely Long-Term Budget Balancers Fund balance below policy levels. Using fund is balance is a one-time course of action; it cannot fix a structural imbalance. Significant reductions in training. With fewer employees, it will be even more important to ensure that we have a highly-skilled, well- trained work force. Involvement and Participation The City will actively solicit and encourage participation by key stakeholders in the budget- balancing process including: Organization as a whole. Employee associations. Community groups. This will require effective and ongoing communication with them. The Budget-Balancing Paradox. Balancing the budget and closing the “forecast gap” from a strictly numbers perspective is easy. However, after cutting CIP projects, reducing staff, and negotiating and implementing employee concessions, emerging from the process with a vibrant, high-morale, high- productivity organization is hard. Which leads to the budget-balancing paradox: at a time when the organization is at its nadir with downsizing, the resulting smaller organization needs its employees to be even more energized, fired-up and motivated to perform. In our experience, there is only one way to beat this paradox: believing that the process used in communicating with employees and meaningfully engaging them in finding solutions matters. To use Steven Coven’s metaphor, how we go about this process is an opportunity to make deposits in our credibility bank, not just withdrawals. It’s an opportunity to both show our organizational character and values, and to build them. Employee Involvement Department heads will encourage employee participation and involvement in preparing expenditure reduction options. The City will strive to identify likely position reductions resulting from this plan six months before implementation in order to: z Be straight forward with affected employees about their employment outlook. z Provide transfer opportunities. z Allow affected employees a reasonable amount of time to make other plans. Key Value: Respect. There are downsides to this approach, and many organizations consciously keep force-reduction actions under wraps as long as possible because of them. However, treating employees with respect means informing them about City plans that affect them as soon as possible. It also means sharing the hard facts (and consequences) in a straightforward and timely way, even if this is painful at times for the organization. Because ultimately, respect means believing (contrary to Jack Nicholson's Marine Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men) that employees can handle the truth. Communication Strategies The following identifies possible communication strategies with employees and the community. Employees Ongoing employee briefings with City Manager, Finance & IT Director and Department Heads. Packet Pg. 507 12 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 6 Ongoing updates via voice mail or email. Periodic “newsletters” and “rumor control corner” on the Intranet Ongoing briefings with employee association representatives. Special organization-wide briefings as appropriate. Community Viewpoint articles in The Tribune and editorial board briefings. New releases. Presentations to interested community groups. Periodic “newsletters” via direct mail or utility billing inserts. Web site updates. Community forums and workshops. Possible Formation of Community Advisory Group We may form an “ad hoc” advisory group depending on the circumstances, with careful consideration of: When should they become involved in the process? Who should be on it? What’s their role? s Finalize and Implement Action Plan With advice from Department Heads and the Budget Review Team, the City Manager is responsible for preparing the recommended action plan. Council approval is required for implementation. Finance will closely monitor results of the action plan in achieving its goal, and will quickly report any significant deviations to the City Manager and Council. SUMMARY While the specifics of both the process will change based on the circumstances, having a clear strategy in place as the foundation for decision-making in tough fiscal times that reflects our organizational values has been a key factor in the City’s success in preserving our long-term fiscal and our organizational vitality. Packet Pg. 508 12