The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-21-2017 Agenda Packet Tuesday, March 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. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (JOHNSON / CODRON – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation Receive a staff report and presentation about Development Agreements. NOTE: The Closed Session will take place in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. 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 ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 1 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 21, 2017 Page 2 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Andy Pease CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PRESENTATIONS 2. PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH (HARMON – 5 MINUTES) Presentation of a proclamation proclaiming March 2017 as “American Red Cross Month.” APPOINTMENTS 3. 2017 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES (GALLAGHER / GOODWIN – 5 MINUTES) Recommendation In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Liaison Subcommittees make appointments to the City's Advisory Bodies effective April 1, 2017 as set forth below and direct the City Clerk to continue to recruit for any unfilled vacant positions. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items. Packet Pg. 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 21, 2017 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit. 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Recommendation Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2017 AND JANUARY 28, 2017 (GALLAGHER) Recommendation Approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of January 10, 2017 - Closed Session and Joint City Council and Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Special Meeting and January 28, 2017 - Community Forum. 6. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3066-PHASE 2, 3761 ORCUTT ROAD (TR/ER SBDV-0067-2014) (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 2 (3761 Orcutt Road, SBDV-0067- 2014)” and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement and Biological Open Space Easement Agreement. 7. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVER REPLACEMENT (OLSON / GUARDADO) Recommendation 1. Award a contract and authorize a purchase order for Solutions II, Inc. in the amount of $298,349 for the replacement and installation of the public safety computer-aided dispatch and records management system, two servers, and five years of 24/7 support; and 2. Waive formal bids and authorize use of Government Services Administration (GSA) contract number GS-35F-0349S to sole source this project to Solutions II as allowed under 3.24.060 E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Muncipal Code. Packet Pg. 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 21, 2017 Page 4 8. ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2353-1, TRACT 2353-2, PRADO SEGMENT D, AND PRADO SEGMENT E (408 PRADO, TR 120-13) (CODRON / DOSTALEK) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the public improvements, certifying completion of the private improvements, and authorizing release of the securities for Tract 2353-1, Tract 2353-2, Prado Road Segment D, and Prado Road Segment E (408 Prado Road, TR 120-13).” 9. FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (CANTRELL / ELLSWORTH) Recommendation 1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for FY 2017-18 not to exceed $30,000; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing grant applications for funding provided through the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to increase education and enforcement programs focusing on regulations retail alcohol outlets” and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with the State if funding is awarded; and 3. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the award of the grant. 10. LAGUNA LAKE ADA TRAIL (GRIGSBY / VAN BEVEREN) Recommendation 1. As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, approve plans and specifications for the Laguna Lake ADA Trail, Specification No. 91388; and 2. Authorize staff to formally advertise for bids; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract including the Base Bid and Additive Alternates within the project construction budget of $220,000. Packet Pg. 4 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 21, 2017 Page 5 11. AWARD OF AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT (BRADFORD / ERIKSSON) Recommendation Authorize the City Manager to execute a new contract for auditing services to Glenn, Burdette, Phillips & Bryson, Certified Public Accountants (GBPB), for a term two fiscal years, beginning with the current fiscal year, to complete the term contemplated in the request for proposals (RFP) for such services. 12. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OF TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (CODRON / SCHNEIDER / PURRINGTON) Recommendation Adopt Ordinance No. 1632 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing Chapter 15.10 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing Inspection.” 13. AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (BRADFORD / JATHANNA) Recommendation Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Contract with Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) in the amount of $65,970 to engage GFOA for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system implementation. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 14. VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES ON A CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION” AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED “NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING” (GALLAGHER – 10 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Receive, and accept the City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition; and 2. Direct staff to prepare a report analyzing its impact and present the report the City Council on or before April 18, 2017. Packet Pg. 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 21, 2017 Page 6 15. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY STALWORK INC.) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TWO TREES LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET AND REVIEW OF TREE REMOVAL FINES (GRIGSBY / HORN / COMBS – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny a tree removal request at 2466 Augusta Street and waiving and levying civil penalties;” and 2. Not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of Tree No. 2 and Tree No. 6; and 3. Levy civil penalties associated with the unpermitted removal of Tree No. 1. 16. PUBLIC HEARING - 2017 RECYCLED WATER MASTER PLAN (MATTINGLY / METZ / BOERMAN – 45 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact;” and 2. Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement for delivery of recycled water outside the city limits consistent with the policies and findings identified in the General Plan. STUDY SESSION 17. STUDY SESSION FOR OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE EVALUATION (JOHNSON / HILL - 75 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Receive and file the staff-prepared report entitled “An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space;” and 2. Conduct a Study Session, receive public input and testimony regarding Open Space hours of use regulations, and provide direction to staff. Packet Pg. 6 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 21, 2017 Page 7 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, April 4, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the 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: 3/21/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Michael Codron, Community Development Director SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RECOMMENDATION Receive a staff report and presentation about Development Agreements. REPORT IN BRIEF The purpose of this report is to provide an overview and opportunity for City Council discussion related to development agreements. This report includes an overview of State Law and locally adopted ordinance requirements. In general, the evolution of the Development Agreement as a land use tool is a consequence of a larger tension between increasingly complicated land use regulations, high degree of public engagement, and developers’ and a community’s desire for certainty. The development process begins with the City’s General Plan. The General Plan outlines policies that guide projects and the City’s Zoning Ordinance along with other municipal code sections, which establish the development standards, which implement those policies. From there, a developer comes up with a vision and secures capital from lending institutions, hires architects and engineers to formulate plans, and employs consultants to conduct various surveys regarding the characteristics of the land. A developer incurs substantial debt, often spending millions of dollars on the early development entitlement phase. These costs and activities occur prior to the developer receiving the City’s approval to proceed with the project. The developer then runs the risk that the municipality will enact a subsequent zoning ordinance that renders the development infeasible. There are some statutory provisions within the Subdivision Map Act and Planning and Zoning Law which hedge this risk but those provision are not absolute or fully protect a development proposal from a major change in policy or zoning code changes. A Development Agreement is a solution to the inherent uncertainty in the development process and a means by which developers can protect their investment, a municipality can provide certainty about public improvements and financing and address other issues that are outside the regulatory authority of a City. Lastly, a Development Agreement is a contract between a municipality and a property owner/developer, which provides the developer with vested rights by freezing the existing zoning regulations and other issues applicable to a property in exchange for public benefits. This report outlines both state and local requirements for Development Agreements in the City of San Luis Obispo. Packet Pg. 9 1 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study session is to provide an overview of Development Agreements in the context of state law and Municipal Code findings required by the City of San Luis Obispo. This study session is being held now as some of the larger residential housing projects have requested a Development Agreement to memorialize the commitments of both the developer and the City. A Development Agreement is a contract between a developer and a City (or County) in which the city provides the developer with vested development rights for a defined period. In exchange for these extra benefits, the developer is required to provide “extraordinary” public or “community” benefits that exceed what the City could otherwise constitutionally require through the normal process of exercising its land use regulation authority (these are “police powers” delegated to local government by the state) in establishing conditions of approval for a project. Development Agreements are a unique planning tool authorized by statute pursuant to Government Code section 65864 – 65869.5. In some circumstances, Development Agreements can provide both greater flexibility and greater certainty in the development of large or complex projects, particularly those projects where development occurs in phases over many years. However, it should be noted that Development Agreements are legislative acts and subject to referendum, so the flexibility afforded by the tool is limited by community norms and values. Required Terms According with State law, a Development Agreement must include the following terms: 1. Duration of Agreement Depending on the scope of the development, Development Agreements typically have a term of 10-20 years. Nothing in the authorizing legislation prohibits a shorter or longer term. It may also include a provision that will extend the term in the event of litigation that seeks to challenge the approval of the Development Agreement for the period equal to the length of the time from initiation of litigation until final and non-appealable resolution. The duration clause can also include a “stale date”, or a timeframe for commencing the Project, which, if exceeded, results in expiration of the Development Agreement. Developers will often seek as long a term as possible while the City’s interest is o ften in incentivizing construction of the project as soon as possible. While it is important to be flexible, the duration of a Development Agreement should generally equal an adequate time for remaining pre-development efforts (e.g. engineering, design, financing, etc.), construction, and marketing. Accordingly, a large project that involves multiple phases such as Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch will likely proceed under a multi-year period of construction should have a matching extended duration (e.g. 15 to 20 years). Setting an appropriate duration matched to a realistic forecast of project development prevents developers from obtaining vested entitlements solely for enhancing property value. Provisions for subsequently amending (lengthening) the term can be included in the event of unforeseen circumstances, such as an intermittent or persistent real estate market downturn. Packet Pg. 10 1 2. Permitted Uses of the Property Development Agreements are not “regulatory documents”, they simply provide the Developer with a vested right for the term of the Agreement to use the property for the permitted uses, pursuant to adopted land use regulations (i.e., General Plan and zoning regulations) subject only to the procedures for review of individual projects. Development Agreements can both shorten or lengthen the term associated with entitlements. 3. Density/Maximum Height and Size of Buildings Development Agreements provide the Developer with a vested right for the term of the agreement to build to the approved density, height and size of buildings; subject only to the procedures for review of individual building projects (i.e. ARC and CHC reviews). Commonly, an adopted Specific Plan1 or other regulatory documents are included in the Development Agreement by reference, which is the case of the larger pending housing projects for Avila and San Luis Ranches. 4. Provisions for Reservation or Dedication of Land for Public Purposes Development Agreements set forth the developer’s obligations to dedicate and/or improve property for open space and community facilities. They typically describe all of the proposed public land dedications and level of improvements and obligate the developer to improve the land and dedicate it to the local government in accordance with a phasing plan. Optional Terms In addition, to the mandatory terms required by state law set forth above, Development Agreements typically include terms regarding the following matters: 1. Infrastructure Required Development Agreements typically describe the developer’s obligations for construction of infrastructure2, including but also beyond those required by the subdivision map(s) such as improvements for streets and sidewalks, parks and recreation facilities, stormwater management and wetlands, grading and floodplain management, storm drain, sanitary sewer, domestic and recycled water infrastructure, electricity, gas and telecommunications improvements, and transit. In the case of the two pending developments, it will be important that the Development Agreement clearly link not only required mitigations and policies, but also delineate improvements being funded that are beyond the fair share requirements of the developer and articulate when, how and if the developer will be reimbursed for these supernumerary improvements. 2. Affordable Housing Development Agreements typically set forth the developer’s obligation to provide affordable housing and other public benefits. The Development Agreement can specify the percentage of affordable and market rate units, the level of affordability, and tenure mix (rental vs. for sale). Moreover, the Development Agreement can require the delivery of units in terms of phases. Since the Development Agreement is voluntary, this can include inclusionary requirements on residential rental units. 1 Both Avila and San Luis Ranches are areas included in existing or new Specific Plan areas. 2 This includes infrastructure required by policy, development standards or through environmental mitigation. Packet Pg. 11 1 3. Fees and Exactions Development Agreements typically specify the types and amounts of fees and exactions that will apply to the project and the terms related to updating of any such fees, i.e., will the project be subject to such future increases or be “grandfathered”. 4. Infrastructure Financing Some portion of the public improvements may be financed through land secured public financing, such as formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), or other sources of public investment. The Development Agreement typically includes a financing plan as an exhibit that specifies the form and mechanism of public financing to be used and the obligations of the local government and the developer to implement and use the sources of public financing. Such provisions typically obligate the local agency to create and administer the financing mechanism(s) and provide other funding sources as may be specified. 5. Responsibility for CEQA Mitigation and other Mitigation Measures Development Agreements typically incorporate all applicable CEQA mitigation measures adopted by the local government in conjunction with the project approvals. Other mitigation requirements, for example any measures adopted to offset any negative fiscal effects of the project can be included in a Development Agreement. Terms Involving the Development Process 1. Phasing Development Agreements typically require the developer construct certain improvements (in addition to those “in-tract” improvements required pursuant to the subdivision map(s) and they commonly include plans for phasing pursuant to which the developer agrees to provide the identified infrastructure and community facilities concurrent with the discrete phases of the project. The required phasing of private development and public improvements is typically monitored and enforced through the subdivision map process, whereby tentative map applications would have to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, infrastructure plan and development standards and guidelines. It is also the case that project phasing can be arranged such that aspects of the project desired by the local government are “deferred” until a latter phase of the project, raising questions about whether there will be the motivation to actually complete this later phase. Remedies may need to be included to address a potential outcome that could limit desired public benefits. 2. Subdivision Maps Development Agreements may allow subdivision map approvals associated with the project to extend through the full term of the Development Agreement, particularly if the developer obtains a “master subdivision map” with subsequent phased tentative and final maps. Any special terms related to such extensions can be included. Packet Pg. 12 1 3. Subsequent Approvals Development Agreements typically set forth the approval process for individual projects. For example, all individual projects could be required to submit a final package of materials, including a site plan, building location, floor plans, exterior materials and colors, overall vertical dimension, hardscape and landscape concepts, vertical dimensions and fenestration for review pursuant to adopted design standards and guidelines. Other Standard Terms and Conditions Development Agreements typically include a common set of terms that are not expressly required by the State law, these include: 1. Assignment and Transfers The developer may transfer the property (or portions of the property) and the rights and responsibilities of the Development Agreement will “run with the land”. However, at the same time, the Development Agreement should require the original owner to remain fully responsible for all developer obligations under the Development Agreement (e.g., construction of infrastructure and obligation for public benefits), unless the local government is satisfied that the new owner(s) can meet these obligations. Typical assignment clauses give local agencies the right to review and approve such assignments, based on its qualifications and experience of the assignee. 2. Annual Review By law, Development Agreements must require an annual review of the developer’s compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement, which may be at an administrative level, or at a public hearing. 3. Indemnification Development Agreements typically indemnify the local agency from any legal action taken by a third party against the project at any time and for any reason, saving negligence by the local agency. 4. Vested Rights Development Agreements may provide that the local government will not enact any ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, ballot initiative, or other measure applicable to the Project which would adversely affects the rate, type, manner, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of the Project or which would otherwise conflict with the scope of the Project set forth in the Agreement. It may also provide that the local government’s regulations governing the permitted uses, design, and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development will be those in force as of the adoption date of the Development Agreement. However, uniform building codes, typically resulting from state law, will always be those in effect at the time of approval of the applicable building, grading or other construction permits. 5. Investor and Mortgagee Protection Development Agreements typically include terms for the benefit of any equity investors or commercial lenders that may be involved in the project, such as the right to notice of defaults Packet Pg. 13 1 and an ability to cure defaults. 6. Public Benefits The public benefits offered by the developer or sought by the City will ultimately bear some relationship to the value of the project; the developer will need to rationalize the additional cost of these public benefits into their overall project economics. However, as a general measure, the public benefits offered should meet or exceed the estimated value of the vested entitlement to the developer combined with the estimated City cost of any terms conferring additional benefit to the developer (e.g. fee relief). Because of varying financial circumstances including such factors as the developer’s basis in the land, current economic conditions, and site assembly and preparation costs the financial feasibility will vary. Stronger, more feasible projects will have greater capacity and willingness to fund public benefits while less feasible projects, including those with considerable merit, will have a lesser ability to fund extraordinary public benefits. Accordingly, there can be no precise generalized metric regarding “ability to pay”. While the following factors can help frame the matter and assure that the City’s request for public benefits are at least “in the ball park”, the amount of public benefit will always result for analysis of the particular case and the related negotiation with the developer. a. Overall project value The extraordinary public benefits required as a part of a development agreement will ultimately be a project cost, in one fashion or another. As such, they will affect project economics in the same way as development impact fees and other project mitigation costs that may be imposed on the project. Generally, a “rule of thumb” or industry standard is that aggregate infrastructure and off-site mitigation costs should not exceed 15 percent of total project retail value. Under certain circumstances, this percentage could be a bit higher, but there are also circumstances where it may be too high. In order to do this calculation, it is necessary to compute the total aggregate burden of impact fees, other infrastructure costs, and other mitigation and compare the result with estimated project retail value. If there is some remaining capacity, it can provide an indicator of what may be reasonable in terms of negotiating public benefits. The City is currently evaluating these factors in the current Development Agreement being negotiated for the San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch Projects. 7. Enforcement Enforcement is a key element of a Development Agreement in the event of non-performance by either the Developer or a City or County. Accountability and enforcement terms can include bonding requirements, encumbrances of title, mechanisms in the event of default, including reverter clauses, and other contractual cure provisions. Enforcement provisions are a critical component of a Development Agreement and should be required if the project does not proceed as planned and approved. Packet Pg. 14 1 Locally Adopted Requirements The City adopted Municipal Code Chapter 17.94 in 1989 to establish procedures and requirements for development agreements for the purposes of specifying 25 policy areas largely related to application requirements, findings, public hearing requirements, administration, and relationship to other approvals and entitlements. The primary purpose is to codify local requirements related to Development Agreements to compliment the state framework that established the statutory authority for Development Agreements. The City has approved one Development Agreement that was overturned by referendum along with other entitlements related to the San Luis Ranch Property. The City does not have any current Development Agreements and the codified framework provides a useful foundation for the local processing of any agreements. The approval process for Development Agreements is established by the City’s Municipal Code. The process requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council, in consideration of the following findings: A. The proposed development agreement is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; B. The proposed development agreement complies with zoning, subdivision and other applicable ordinances and regulations; C. The proposed development agreement promotes the general welfare, allows more comprehensive land use planning, and provides substantial public benefits or necessary public improvements, making it in the city’s interest to enter into the development agreement with the applicant; and D. The proposed project and development agreement: 1. Will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working in the surrounding area; 2. Will be appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with adjacent land uses; or 3. Will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Ord. 1134 § 1 (part), 1989) It should be noted that Draft Environmental Impact Reports are being circulated for both Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch for public review. Both reports conclude that there will be significant adverse impacts on the environment even after all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures are implemented. These two pending projects both propose to use Development Agreement in order to coordinate the extensive financing, phasing, and environmental mitigations associated with these projects. The inability to use a Development Agreement would be a significant drawback for the City in terms of addressing the complicated planning and financing issues that are associated with these projects. The City’s municipal code requirements that projects not have a significant adverse impact is significantly more constraining than required under state law and will otherwise limit a very useful planning tool to coordinate the extensive planning, infrastructure and financing issues that are generally within the scope and purpose of a Development Agreement. To that extent, Staff is requesting direction if the City should pursue ordinance changes to require any project Packet Pg. 15 1 associated with a Development Agreement to mitigate impacts to the maximum extent feasible as required under CEQA. Questions for City Council direction Does the City Council support the use of Development Agreements? 1. Does the City Council conceptually support the use of Development Agreements as outlined in this report? 2. What specific concerns or issues does the City Council have with Development Agreements? 3. What are examples of public benefits that the Council believes are generally required to support the use of a Development Agreement? 4. Are there any other details related to Development Agreements that the City Council wants Staff to consider when negotiating? Municipal Code requirements 1. Does the City Council want staff to return with any recommended changes to the City’s Municipal Code to facilitate the use of Development Agreements for complex housing projects that may have remaining adverse impacts; even after all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been imposed? 2. Are there any other changes to the City’s Municipal Code that the Council wants to make in order to address any concerns? CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Utilities Departments support the use of Development Agreements to specify fair share responsibilities and to ensure that infrastructure phasing occurs in conjunction with planned development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No action is being requested and Development Agreements for individual projects are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT There is a variety of financial objectives related to including a Development Agreement as part of the entitlement package for any project. A primary purpose is to clearly articulate both the City and developer’s financial responsibilities and because a Development Agreement is voluntary in nature, it provides a mechanism for the City to require improvements or other remuneration that is not otherwise required by policy, development standard or any required mitigations. Development Agreements should be evaluated within the City’s financial policies and appreciation for comprehensive fiscal impacts. If infrastructure financing is sought as part of a Development Agreement, comprehensive debt capacity should be viewed as shared resource by Packet Pg. 16 1 all of the local governments serving the development area. ALTERNATIVES The City Council could decide not to use Development Agreements as a planning tool. This is not recommended since there are currently two projects moving forward: Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch. The projects should be evaluated based on the General Plan and public infrastructure financed through the City’s fiscal policies, which include land based financing. The City Council also adopted a Major City Goal to continue to implement the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on economic development and responsiveness, structurally balanced fiscal outlook, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing. Through a Development Agreement, land based financing will be evaluated in accordance with the City’s financial policies. Attachments: a - Council Reading File - Development Agreement Packet Pg. 17 1 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 18 1 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk Prepared by: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: 2017 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Liaison Subcommittees make appointments to the City's Advisory Bodies effective April 1, 2017 as set forth below and direct the City Clerk to continue to recruit for any unfilled vacant positions. DISCUSSION San Luis Obispo has a long history of involving its residents in the business of City government. Holding a position on an advisory committee and/or commission provides an opportunity for interested residents to participate in the governing of their community under guidelines and procedures established by Council. The City holds an Annual Advisory Body Recruitment to fill those positions which commence on April 1st of each year. This year the City recruited to fill 38 scheduled and unscheduled Advisory Body positions. The recruitment was conducted between November 1, 2016 and January 20, 2017. A total of 98 applications were received. Council Liaison Subcommittees conducted interviews during the months of February and March. The following recommendations will fill 31 of these vacancies. No vacancies currently exist on the Administrative Review Board, Citizens’ Transportation Advisory Committee, Investment Oversight Committee, and Zone 9 Advisory Committee and therefore no recruitment was held. Council Liaison Subcommittee Recommendations Architectural Review Commission 1. Appoint Richard Beller to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Greg Starzyk to a one-year term expiring March 31, 2018. Bicycle Advisory Committee 1. Reappoint Lea Brooks to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Jenna Smith to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Construction Board of Appeals 1. Reappoint Robert Vessely to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Reappoint James Thompson to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 3. Appoint Gresham Eckrich to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 4. Continue to recruit for one unfilled vacancy for a representative with disability with a term expiration of March 31, 2018. Packet Pg. 19 3 Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission 1. Reappoint Ken Kienow to a three-year term expiring June 30, 2020. 2. Reappoint Michael Multari to a three-year term expiring June 30, 2020. 3. Continue to recruit for one unfilled vacancy with a term expiration of June 30, 2020. Cultural Heritage Committee 1. Appoint Damon Haydu to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Glen Matteson to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Housing Authority 1. Reappoint Anthony Chubon to a four-year term expiring March 31, 202 1. 2. Reappoint Aimee La Rue, as the family tenant member, to a four -year term expiring March 31, 2021. 3. Reappoint Patricia Souza, as the senior tenant member, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Human Relations Commission 1. Appoint Barrie DuBoise to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Brett Raffish to a one-year term expiring March 31, 2018. 3. Continue to recruit for one unfilled vacancy with a term expiration of March 31, 2019. Jack House Committee 1. Reappoint Toni Kincaide to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Dorothy Sundbye to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Mass Transportation Committee 1. Reappoint James Thompson, as the technical representative member, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Parks and Recreation Commission 1. Appoint Suzan Ehdaie to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Personnel Board 1. Appoint Barrie DuBoise to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Continue to recruit for one unfilled vacancy with a term expiration of March 31, 2021. Planning Commission 1. Appoint Scott Mann to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Nickolas Osterbur to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Promotional Coordinating Committee 1. Appoint Zoya Dixon to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Diana Cozzi to a two-year term expiring March 31, 2019. Packet Pg. 20 3 Tourism Business Improvement District Board 1. Reappoint LeBren Harris to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Appoint Kimberly Walker to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 3. Continue to recruit for one unfilled vacancy with a term expiration of March 31, 2021. Tree Committee 1. Reappoint Richard “Alan” Bate to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 2. Reappoint Scott Loosley to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 3. Reappoint Jane Worthy to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. 4. Appoint Sean O’Brien to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2021. Applications of those who were unsuccessful in this process will be kept on file for the next year and will be notified of any subsequent vacancies. RECURITEMENT The following Advisory Bodies have vacancies and interested individuals are encouraged to apply: 1. Area Agency on Aging (1) 2. Human Relations Commission (1) 3. Construction Board of Appeals, for a representative with disability (1) 4. Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (1) 5. Personnel Board (1) 6. Tourism Business Improvement District Board (1) The City Clerk’s Office will continue to recruit for these vacancies. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE All applications are available in the City Council reading file and for public review in the Office of the City Clerk. Packet Pg. 21 3 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 22 3 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Special Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January, 10, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; Carrie Gallagher City Clerk, Monica Irons Human Resources Director, and Nickole Sutter Human Resources Analyst; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS City Attorney Dietrick called for public comment. None ---End of Public Comment--- Packet Pg. 23 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 2 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 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: Erik Baskin, et al. v. City of San Luis Obispo; United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:16-cv-08876 REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION Following the Closed Session, City Attorney Dietrick stated that for Item A, no reportable action was taken and for Item B, Council authorized defense of the City in Baskin et al. v. City of San Luis Obispo, retention of Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore, and authorized City Manager to allocate funding to support the litigation. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a Special Joint City Council and Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., at the Ludwick Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, California for the purposes of holding a Community Forum to discuss the 2017-19 Goal-Setting and Budget Process. The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ____________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 24 5 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Joint City Council and Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC) Special Meeting CALL TO ORDER A Joint City Council and Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC) Special Meeting was called to order on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. in the Ludwick Community Center, located at 864 Santa Rosa 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. Commissioners Christopher Coates, Ken Kienow, Ken Tasseff, Vice Chair Jeri Carroll, and Chair Michael Multari 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 Andy Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME Mayor Harmon provided welcoming remarks and included that tonight’s meeting is a joint meeting with the Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission as it is an opportunity to provide feedback on the use of the Local Revenue Measure and act as the Annual Citizen Oversight Meeting. Packet Pg. 25 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 2 PROCESS, FISCAL OUTLOOK, CURRENT GOALS, LOCAL SALES TAX PRIORITIES Mayor Harmon called upon City Manager Katie Lichtig and Interim Finance Director Xenia Bradford to begin their presentation. APPROACH TO TONIGHT’S FORUM Mayor Harmon called upon Don Maruska, facilitator, to review the approach for tonight’s community forum. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN COMMUNITY FORUM During the public comment period, members of the public provided input on the issues and goals that were priority to them. Public comments were grouped into the following categories: Housing Issues Kaila Anderson, spoke in support of making housing a priority and finding policy solutions for housing solutions. Ermina Karim, San Luis Obispo, Chamber of Commerce spoke in support of investing in transportation infrastructure to reduce the amount of time people spend in their cars. Ron Yukelson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of affordable workforce housing; he noted the need for inclusionary zoning policy and mixed use development which includes housing. Donna Lewis, Avila Beach, spoke in support of long term affordability programs versus equity share programs in housing. Erik Justesen, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding a more diverse supply of housing to support affordable housing for local employees and requested additional funds for infrastructure. Scott Smith-Cooke, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of creative affordable housing solutions and home sharing programs, he provided information on Home Share SLO. Celeste Goyer, San Luis Obispo, supports creative options in housing including home sharing that doesn’t include new construction. Tim Waag, San Luis Obispo, Advocate for housing the homeless supports an increase in affordable workforce housing, he requested the removal of government restrictions on affordable housing stock to include tiny homes. Jabeth (Jay) Sachs, Oceano, supports an application process to prioritize affordable homes to those who have been living locally however he feels this may be a discriminatory process. Lee Gilford, Las Vegas, supports a lack of governmental interference to allow small homes to develop and reallocation of land for a place to locate new homes. Packet Pg. 26 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 3 Marcia Alter, Arroyo Grande spoke regarding Home Share SLO as a partial solution for local housing needs, noting training offered to people to learn how to live with others. Phil Hurst, spoke regarding tiny homes as an alternative solution to the housing crisis. Enrique Ivers, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the loss of tax revenue resulting in a need to attract new businesses and a new workforce; he noted the need for additional housing to accommodate a new workforce. Community Livability Gail Karacsony, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the relocation of Bishop Peak parking access onto Patricia Street and requested that an environmental neighborhood impact study be done to consider alternate locations. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, representing Save our Downtown, spoke in support of an update to the zoning code regulations. Jeanne Kinney, spoke regarding a need for a zoning code update Russ Brown, San Luis Obispo, Save our Downtown, spoke regarding a need for a zoning code update. Leslie Halls, spoke regarding the housing market and supports the overturn of the Rental Housing Ordinance. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of a zoning code regulation update. Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, supports neighborhood wellness, spoke regarding late night noise and crime. Warren Fox, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding a lack of lighting on the Cal Poly campus and the need for a fair party registration policy. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of a small town feel in the area by making changes to the zoning code regulations. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of neighborhood wellness and providing adequate water to the existing residents before adding additional residents. Downtown Livability Dominic Tartaglia, San Luis Obispo representing the Downtown Association requested consideration of a City grant to be matched by contributions from the Downtown Association to be used to conduct a feasibility study and implementation of an assessment district to fund and enhance services in the downtown. James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for public safety improvements noting support for a zoning ordinance change to lower the height limit in the downtown area, an urban Packet Pg. 27 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 4 design plan, adoption of urban design guidelines, a pedestrian plan as well as a creek master plan. Kevin Harris, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of Downtown Little Theater Board, spoke in support of the Mission Plaza Master Plan and Cultural Center. Wendy George, Morro Bay, spoke regarding tourism and noted support for the implementation of a revised Mission Plaza Plan including a $250.000 per year contribution over the next 2 years for a new museum of art building. Dave Hacker, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the S. Broad Street plan and in support of left turns and the implementation of pedestrian crossings. Tom Brajkovich, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of less density in the Downtown area; he voiced a need for a zoning code update, requested more parking garages and less in lieu of fees, as well as additional parks, and open space area. Historic Preservation Pierre Rademaker, speaking on behalf of Friends of the La Loma Adobe, spoke in support of Historic Preservation surrounding adobes. Bob Vessely, speaking on behalf of Friends of the La Loma Adobe, noted a need for cultural resources and spoke regarding a plan to restore adobes. James Papp, Jack House Docents and Cultural Heritage Committee Member, spoke in support of using what the City has in smarter ways, he requested a new global historic structure survey. Eva Ulz, San Luis Obispo, representing the History Center, noted support for historic preservation and cultural districts. Community Livability - Climate Action/Renewable Energy Grant Helete, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding an urgent the need for a climate action plan. Bill Bradlee, ECOSLO, voiced support for a climate coordinator and use of the 2012 Climate Action Plan as a starting point. Eric Veium, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding renewable energy and the need to support the current climate action ad hoc working group to form an official advisory body and join Central Coast Power. Savanna Cooper, Grover Beach, spoke in support of implantation of roof top solar and additional electric car charging stations downtown. Infrastructure - Bicycles and Transportation Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, representing Bike SLO County, spoke in support of Vision Zero and Multi Modal Transportation. Packet Pg. 28 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 5 Chenin Otto, San Luis Obispo, representing Bike SLO County, spoke in support of a railroad safety trail feasibility study from Pepper Street to the train station. Jonathan Roberts, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding safe bike routes to local schools. Melanie Mills, spoke regarding a need for a feasibility study for a protected bikeway on Madonna Road and a safe ped-way crossing of Highway 101. Jim Woolf, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of major infrastructure improvements and an end to reliance on cars. Karen Aydelott, San Luis Obispo, representing Bike SLO County, spoke in support of a need to complete the trail from Los Osos Valley Rd to the County connector trail. Heather Matteson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of a community choice aggregation plan. Donette Dunaway, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of access to open space and extended nighttime use of mountain bike and hiking trails. Trevor Peterson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of providing bike access on Broad Street. Will King, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of volunteer trail workers and requested the need for park ranger service funding. Infrastructure - Funding and Support Ryan Caldwell, representing SLO Chamber of Commerce supports creative funding strategy’s in regards to infrastructure as well as the need for the paying down of unfunded liabilities and address escalating costs. Brad Brechwald, San Luis Obispo, supports transportation funding through grants. Mary Gardner, Los Osos, supports funding for transportation infrastructure through grant funding, Measure G revenues, and funding available through private developers. Robert DeGraff, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding traffic safety and the need for traffic signals. Dan Kallal, spoke in support of the Broad St. Corridor Plan. Sarah Flickinger, San Luis Obispo, representing Los Verdes Park 1 & 2 HOA, spoke regarding funding for a LOVR bypass project. Infrastructure - Neighborhood Lighting Jana Colombini, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Student Body President, spoke regarding the need for increased neighborhood lighting, and suggested the use of motion detectors. Archie Mitchel, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for increased street lighting. Packet Pg. 29 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 6 Riley Nilsen, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for increased lighting. Brett Raffish, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for increased lighting. Anthony Haddad, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for increased lighting. Culture and Recreation John Rolph, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the Performing Arts Center. John Ashbaugh, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of public art and the need for a cultural district to be located downtown. James Duenow, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding unfunded retirement liabilities Tim Townley, spoke in support of the Damon Garcia fields and year round maintenance. Kelly McNeil, Nipomo, supports of an update to the Parks Element and Master Plan; in addition, she noted a need for an indoor roller rink. Parks and Recreation - Updates and Upgrades Heather Billling, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for a Park and Recreation element update through grant funding. Steve Davis, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of a Parks and Recreation element update. Scott Cleere, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for lighting at Sinsheimer tennis courts. Reggie Greenwood, spoke regarding a need for a night lighted practice facility and installation of turf fields at Damon Garcia. Park and Recreation – Pickle Ball Bobbi Binder, President of the SLO Pickle Ball Club, spoke in support of Pickle Ball expansion. Environmental Health - Open Space B.K. Richard, San Luis Obispo, representing Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, spoke in support of the need for open space. Connor Culhane, Atascadero, spoke in support of open space and mountain bike trails. Carolyn Huddleston, Templeton, spoke in support of open space. Erik Rutherford, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of open space through the addition of park rangers. Packet Pg. 30 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 7 William (Bill) Waycott, San Luis Obispo, noted Council responsibility to protect rare local California plants. Laguna Lake John Smigecsa, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of Laguna Lake restoration. John Wakeman, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of Laguna Lake restoration. Jonathan Lindenthaler, spoke regarding the need for Laguna Lake dredging. Arnold Ruiz, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of Laguna Lake restoration and requested a canal be built for fish habitat. Environmental Health - Water issues Mila Vujovich La Barre, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding water issues and in support of quality water for all current and future residents. Janine Rands, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of water bottle and Styrofoam use reduction. Sherri Danoff, Avila, representing Protect Scenic 101, spoke regarding the need to eliminate billboards. Fiscal Health - General Vivian Hanover, spoke regarding economic development including job and housing issues. Ron Tilley, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the need for workforce housing. Annie Malak, San Luis Obispo, noted concern for unfunded pension liabilities. Kayne Randolph, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of self-funding in the case that Federal funding is no longer available. Bill Ostrander, supports publicly funded elections. Random Topics Jim Aaron, San Luis Obispo, supports a more robust water conservation effort. Coco Herda, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support for mental health issues. Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding unfunded pension obligations. PARTICIPANTS VOTE ON TOP PRIORITIES WITH DOTS All attending participants were provided with an opportunity to “cast their vote” by applying green sticker dots to posters for their five top priorities for general fund expenditures and five Packet Pg. 31 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 10, 2017 Page 8 yellow dots to their top priority for Measure G expenditures. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting is 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. 32 5 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Saturday, January 28, 2017 Special Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the City/County Library Community Room located at 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Carlyn Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN COMMUNITY FORUM WELCOME Mayor Harmon announced that all Council Members were in attendance, she welcomed members in the audience and introduced facilitator, Don Maruska. OVERVIEW: PURPOSE, PROCESS & GUIDELINES Don Maruska explained the interactive process with Council Members for this workshop, and facilitated the process throughout the course of the workshop. Packet Pg. 33 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 28, 2017 Page 2 BY CATEGORY, DISCUSS RELATIONSHIP OF GOALS TO CURRENT ACTIVITIES, FORMULATE AND SELECT CANDIDATE GOALS Facilitator Maruska then proceeded through each of the individual categories and crafted Council goals. Discussion ensued during which staff responded to questions and the Council formulated candidate City goals by category and discussed the relationship of goals to current activities. Council recessed for a break at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:32 a.m., with all Council Members present. Discussion and review of the individual goals by category continued. PUBLIC COMMENTS Facilitator Maruska opened the public hearing. During the public comment period, 3 members of the public provided input on the issues and goals that were of priority to them. John Smigreski, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding a great City plan and encouraged Council to fund the restoration of Laguna Lake. John Belsher, San Luis Obispo, noted Zoning and Planning concerns; he spoke in support of housing as a major City goal. Sarah Flickinger, San Luis Obispo, requested that Council consider the views of all residents’ and noted the importance of quality outreach and inclusiveness. ---End of Public Comment--- Council recessed for lunch at 12:22 p.m. and reconvened at 1:20 p.m., with all Council Members present. DISCUSS AND CLARIFY THE GOALS, EACH MEMBER PREPARES A WRITTEN BALLOT RANKING THE GOALS Council recessed for a break from 1:40 p.m. and reconvened at 2:05 p.m., with all Council Members present. Staff returned after the recess with the following tabulation of the ranking: Packet Pg. 34 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 28, 2017 Page 3 REVIEW AND IDENTIFY MAJOR CITY GOALS 2017-19 Financial Plan COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING PRIORITIES Goal Statement Mayor Harmon Council Members Rivoire Christianson Gomez Pease Total Average MAJOR CITY GOALS Housing Facilitate increased production of all housing types designed to be economically accessible to the area workforce and low and very low-income residents, through increased density and proximity to transportation corridors in alignment with the Climate Action Plan. (e.g. zoning related to Measure G) 4 3 4 4 5 20 4.0 Multi-Modal Transportation Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan, pedestrian safety, and the Short-Range Transit Plan. (Measure G) 4 4 3 3 4 18 3.6 Climate Action Implement Climate Action Plan, assess requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City” target, and implement cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green Team. (determine if tangible Measure G items) 5 3 4 4 2 18 3.6 Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on economic development and responsiveness, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing. (parts are related to Measure G, evaluate further) 4 4 4 4 2 18 3.6 OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE Downtown Vitality Continue to improve safety, infrastructure investment, and maintenance in the Downtown and support Downtown Association’s proposal to consider a Downtown improvement district. 2 3 3 3 2 13 2.6 Packet Pg. 35 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 28, 2017 Page 4 NOT PRIORITIZED Parks and Recreation Update Parks and Recreation Element and propose future improvements of trails and facilities consistent with the updated element. 2 2 2 1 3 10 2.0 Laguna Lake Restoration Continue implementation of the Laguna Lake Reserve Conservation Plan contingent upon support for the collaborative financing plan. 0 2 1 2 3 8 1.6 TOTAL 21 21 21 21 21 105 5 = Most important, highest priority for City to achieve over the next two years. 4 = Very important goal to achieve. 3 = Important goal to achieve. 2 = Address if resources are available. 1 = Defer to 2019-21 for consideration. 0 = Not a priority goal. No shading = Major City Goal Light shading = Other Important Objective Dark shading = Not prioritized Italics & Underline indicates possible Measure G funding applicability ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt the Housing, Multi-Modal Transportation, Climate Action and Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility as the Major City Goals and as other important objectives; Downtown Vitality. Major City Goals Housing: Facilitate increased production of all housing types designed to be economically accessible to the area workforce and low and very low-income residents, through increased density and proximity to transportation corridors in alignment with the Climate Action Plan. TOTAL POINTS: 20 AVERAGE POINTS: 4.0 Multi - Modal Transportation: Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan, pedestrian safety, and the Short-Range Transit Plan. TOTAL POINTS: 18 AVERAGE POINTS: 3.6 Climate Action: Implement Climate Action Plan, assess requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City” target, and implement cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green Team. TOTAL POINTS:18 AVERAGE POINTS: 3.6 Packet Pg. 36 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 28, 2017 Page 5 Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility: Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on economic development and responsiveness, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing. TOTAL POINTS:18 AVERAGE POINTS: 3.6 Other Important Objectives Downtown Vitality: Continue to improve safety, infrastructure investment, and maintenance in the Downtown and support Downtown Association’s proposal to consider a Downtown improvement district. TOTAL POINTS:13 AVERAGE POINTS: 2.6 Not Prioritized Parks and Recreation: Update Parks and Recreation Element and propose future improvements of trails and facilities consistent with the updated element. TOTAL POINTS:10 AVERAGE POINTS: 2.0 Laguna Lake Restoration: Continue implementation of the Laguna Lake Reserve Conservation Plan contingent upon support for the collaborative financing plan. TOTAL POINTS: 8 AVERAGE POINTS: 1.6 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:52 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 37 5 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 38 5 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3066-PHASE 2, 3761 ORCUTT ROAD (SBDV-0067-2014) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the Final Map for Tract 3066-Phase 2 located at 3761 Orcutt Road and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement and Biological Open Space Easement Agreement in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. DISCUSSION Background Tract 3066 (SBDV-0067-2014) is located at 3761 Orcutt Road (Attachment A). This subdivision is commonly known as the Jones subdivision. A vesting tentative map for Tract 3066 was approved by the City Council on May 19, 2015, by Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) (Attachment B). The tentative map (Attachment C) approved the creation of three mixed use lots, 14 lots for constructing up to 43 condominium units and common areas, two open space creek lots, nine single family lots for the subdivider (Ambient Communities) to develop, and four or five single family lots for the Jones family to develop dependent on the alignment of Tiburon, for a total of up to 33 lots. The Jones lots are commonly referred to as the “homestead lots.” The tentative map approval included options for a temporary and preferred alignment for Tiburon Road. The preferred alignment would line up the intersection with existing Tiburon on the east side of Orcutt, but was dependent upon acquisition of off-site right-of-way. The subdivider of Tract 3066 has acquired the necessary right-of-way for the preferred Tiburon alignment, which resulted in the additional property needed to create the fifth single family lot for the Jones family. The fifth homestead lot was discussed in the tentative map staff report and included in the conditions of approval for Tract 3066 and is therefore consistent with the approved tentative map. On December 13, 2016, Council approved a final map for a first phase of Tract 3066 to create two lots solely for financing purposes. The Phase 1 map recorded on December 21, 2016. All conditions of Tract 3066 were deferred to Phase 2, which is the last phase of this subdivision. The Phase 2 map will create 33 lots as follows: 1. Three mixed-use lots 2. Seven lots for up to 43 condominium units 3. Five common area lots for parking, private streets, and private drive aisles 4. Two common area lots for private open space and drainage 5. Two HOA-owned lots for preservation of creek/biological open space 6. Nine lots for single family homes for subdivider 7. Five lots for the Jones homestead site Packet Pg. 39 6 Subdivision Improvements The public improvements required for this subdivision consist of the streets fronting the subdivision (Sponza Drive, Tiburon Way, Orcutt Road, and Ranch House Road), secondary access to Tank Farm Road via Righetti Ranch Road, improvements at the Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection, and utilities within the public streets. All of the on-site streets and utilities will be privately owned and maintained. The scope of the proposed subdivision improvements on Oructt Road and Tank Farm Road to be constructed with Tract 3066-Phase 2 are the same as those discussed in detail in the staff report for the Righetti Tract 3063-Phase 1 subdivision approved by Council on February 21, 2017. Said improvements are shown in Attachment D. Affordable Housing As identified in Condition #90, 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 developer for construction of affordable units. The agreement will be recorded prior to recordation of the final map. Open Space Agreements In order to preserve the natural biological resources, scenic beauty, and openness over the creek areas, the Subdivider will enter into a Biological Open Space Easement Agreement with the City to preserve Lots 31 and 32 as Biological Open Space. These lots will be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association subject to the restrictions in the easement agreement. The resolution approving the final map (Attachment G) also authorizes the Mayor to sign the Biological Open Space Easement Agreement. The portion of creeks located on the Jones homestead Lots 1 and 3 will be preserved through a Restrictive Covenant for Private Open Space that will be recorded against the property. As with the Biological Open Space Easement Agreement, restrictions are placed on the use of the open space area; however, the City is not a party to the covenant. There is language in the covenant that it cannot be amended or terminated without prior City approval. 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. The Subdivision Map Act allows for time extensions to be requested by the Subdivider and granted by the City. The final map for Tract 3066-Phase 2 (Attachment E) 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 the 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. Packet Pg. 40 6 Appropriate securities will be submitted prior to map recordation to guarantee completion of the required subdivision improvements as shown in the Subdivision Agreement (Attachment F). The resolution approving the final map (Attachment G) 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. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Orcutt Area Specific Plan and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The Jones Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3066 (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 2. However, the public improvements that will be constructed with this phase will result in an increase in maintenance costs for the public streets and public utilities upon acceptance of the improvements by the City. 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. 41 6 Attachments: a - Vicinity Map b - Resolution No. 10620 c - Tentative Map d - Subdivision Improvements e - Draft Final Map f - Subdivision Agreement g - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map Packet Pg. 42 6 Packet Pg. 43 6 RESOLUTION NO. 10620 (2015 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3066 CREATING 33 LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3765 ORCUTT ROAD TR/ER SBDV- 0067 -2014; TRACT #3066 JONES) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on March 25 and April 8th, 2015 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering SBDV- 0067 -2014, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 11.56 -acre site into 33 lots; and recommended the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, the April 8, 2015 Planning Commission hearing was 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. CEQA 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 SBDV- 0067 -2014 (Tract No. 3066): 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 #3066, as detailed herein. 2. A supplemental initial study has been prepared for VTM #3066 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) of environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of additional mitigation measures to those imposed by the FEIR, all of which are incorporated below. R 10620 Packet Pg. 44 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 2 3. 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: 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; 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. ConstructionPhaseMiti agtion 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. Packet Pg. 45 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 3 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. 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 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. Packet Pg. 46 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 4 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. 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. Packet Pg. 47 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 5 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 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 Packet Pg. 48 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 6 Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) shall be used to authorize incidental take when no other Federal agency such as the Corps is involved. This process includes 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. [OASP 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. 0 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). Packet Pg. 49 6 Resolution No. 10620 ( 2015 Series) Page 7 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(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. 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) B -6c 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. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION CR -1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of Packet Pg. 50 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 8 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 -Id 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: Be stable over the long term; Packet Pg. 51 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 9 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. 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 Packet Pg. 52 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 10 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 Jones Ranch (TR 3066), the improvement plans for the tract shall include connections to future improvements planned by Tract 3063 (Righetti Ranch) to convey sanitary sewer service to the existing connection points on Tank Farm Road. Prior to recordation of Tract 3066, (a) the needed improvements through Tract 3063 shall be completed and available to tie -in Tract 3066, or (b) Tract 3066 shall provide easements and financial guarantees that guarantee Tract 3066 can proceed with construction of Tract 3063 improvements to serve the Jones Ranch. 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. S -4(d) 55- Gallon Drums. Prior to development on the property where 55- Gallon drums were identified on FEIR Figure 4.9 -1, soils samples shall be taken in the vicinity of the drums and analyzed for total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (TEPH) by EPA method 8015, heavy metals by CCR Title 22 metals, and solvents by EPA method 8260B. If levels of contaminants are found to exist in concentrations that exceed regulatory thresholds, further sampling may be needed to determine the extent of contamination. If contamination is delineated, an appropriate remediation method shall be implemented according to the size of the area contaminated and the contaminant involved. Packet Pg. 53 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 11 S -4d Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Engineering staff review of soils sampling and implementation of appropriate remediation measures, if required, prior to tract construction in the vicinity of any such positive sample(s). TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION T -4 Street B & Tiburon Way Alignment. Applicant shall align Street B with the existing alignment of Tiburon Way and design the roadway curvature to maintain appropriate residential speeds. T -4 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. T -6 Traffic Calming & Safety. Intersection of Streets A & B shall be controlled by a single lane urban compact intersection. Eliminate Mid -block crosswalk on Street A. Align curb, gutter, and sidewalk with Sponza Drive of the Taylor Wingate Project. T -6 Monitoring Program: Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer's office with the subdivision plans and accompanying final map prior to recordation of the final map. 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 construction 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 3066. Packet Pg. 54 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 12 SECTION 2. Vesting Tract Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The City Council does hereby approve application SBDV- 0067 -2014 TR/ER (VTM #3066, "Jones Ranch "), a tentative tract map to create up to 33 residential, commercial and open space lots, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions being incorporated into the project: Findingsl 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, R -3 -SP, R -4 -SP, and CC -MU zoning districts. 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 3066 and the required architectural review process, which will allow for detailed review of development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards. 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 recordation of the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdvider and granted by the Packet Pg. 55 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 13 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, and intersection improvements. 3. The map and improvement plans shall provide for all minimum street improvements and utility placements within the improved or partially improved streets adjoining the subdivision as needed for orderly development to the satisfaction of the City. In some cases, "dry" pipes may be required to be constructed under improved street sections for the benefit of others. 4. 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. 5. 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 frontages of the Mixed Use Commercial Lots 24 — 26. The easements may be removed or reduced under the footprint of proposed buildings. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate all public Open Space in fee to the City, consistent with the OASP, in conjunction with or prior to the Phase 1 map recordation unless otherwise deferred or a reimbursement agreement is processed. Deferral shall be approved by the City and may require that all appropriate OASP fees are paid as a condition of development. The land shall be granted free and clear of all encumbrances to the satisfaction of the City. 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 C /OS Lots 31 and 32 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 may be required for specific open space areas, creek corridors, bikeways, and utility corridors in a format approved by the City. Packet Pg. 56 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 14 9. A wildland fuel management /reduction zone along with any required easements and /or zone limits shall be provided for Lots 31 and 32 to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. If required, the 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, weed abatement, and creek maintenance within the established fuel reduction zone 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 related to the OASP and City codes and ordinances. 11. Off -site easements and /or dedications may be required to facilitate secondary points of access, through street access, and public water and sewer main extensions beyond the tract boundary and in accordance with the GASP. 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, 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 Packet Pg. 57 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 15 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. 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. 15. Unless an alternate access and egress plan is approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief, the westerly Phase 1 of Jones Ranch shall be provided with a secondary access to Orcutt Road in conjunction with an access to Tank Farm Road. The completion of development may need to be deferred to Phase 2 or the B Street bridge would need to be construction in conjunction with Phase 1. 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 prior to commencing with combustible construction. 16. 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. 17. 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 concepts identified in the GASP, 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. Packet Pg. 58 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 16 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The public improvement plans may need to include full frontage improvements on Orcutt Road from north of B Street to Tank Farm Road, including the Imel and Garay properties. The northerly transition may require improvements across the Fiala frontage. The plans shall show 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, OASP, 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. 22. 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 OASP full build -out road section and adjoining road segments beyond the tract boundaries. 23. The Orcutt Road improvements shall be constructed as a condition 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 not feasible. 24. 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. 25. The applicant shall conduct neighborhood speed surveys one year after occupancy of Packet Pg. 59 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 17 each phase at locations approved by the Director of Public Works. If 85th percentile speeds exceed current City NTM thresholds additional traffic calming measures shall be installed. The applicant shall bond for these potential additional traffic calming measures. 26. All mitigation measures (MM) specific to Transporation requirements shall be provided as detailed under CEQA section 1, above, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 27. 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 #3066. Any such program(s) will be subject to approval by the City Council. 28. The subdivider shall be responsible for securing the off -site right -of -way needs for VTM #3066, and dedicating that right -of -way to the city as a condition of final map approval. On and Off -Site Improvements 29. 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. 30. Off -site improvements may include but are not limited to roadways, sewer mains, water mains, stormdrain improvements, off -site access roadways, the water main extensions provided by MM USS -1, and the "B" Street to Tiburon Way alignment improvements. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. The subdivider shall provide additional documentation on the easement agreement related to the existing well and appurtenances located on the Jones parcel and serving the Fiala property. Some existing non - conformance was generally recognized per Appendix Section A -2 of the OASP. Additional detail and clarifications may be required on the final map and improvement plans to acknowledge any legal non - conforming utility installations between the parcels /lots in question. 34. 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 Packet Pg. 60 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 18 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. 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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 frontage. Utilities 39. 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 Jones Ranch Homeowners Association 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. 61 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 19 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. Recycled water mains shall be extended along A Street, B Street, and /or Sponza to serve the landscape irrigation of the project's R2 lots and commercial lots. Applicant shall work with the Water Division of the City's Utilities Department to determine the appropriate size of all proposed recycled water mains. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. 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. Packet Pg. 62 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 20 48. The subdivider shall provide a plan for meeting off -site wastewater main line extensions as needed (pursuant to MM PS -4) through adjoining VTM43063. Said plan shall be approved by the Utilities Director before approval and recordation of any final map. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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. 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. 52. Omitted ....covered by COA #68 Righetti 53. 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 shall be undergrounded in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. Areas of road widening along Bullock Lane, if required for a secondary access, 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. 54. Terminal end utility poles shall be located off -site unless otherwise approved by the City. 55. Preliminary undergrounding plans for the entire subdivision shall be processed through PGE and any respective wire utility companies in conjunction with the map recordation. 56. 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 adjoining public streets as applicable per City Engineering Standards. 57. 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. 58. Lighting fixtures, including public streetlights shall not exceed 16' in height in accordance Packet Pg. 63 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 21 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 and Stormwater 59. Any permit approvals required from the Army Corp of Engineers, California 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. 60. 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 higher governmental authority agency permits. Sensitive areas shall be staked, fenced, or otherwise delineated and protected prior to commencing with construction, grading, or grubbing. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. 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 Packet Pg. 64 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 22 are more restrictive. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. 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. 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. 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. The developer shall show legal entitlement to access or annex into the regional detention basin or shall provide an alternate drainage solution and strategy to the satisfaction of the City. 73. 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- Packet Pg. 65 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 23 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. 74. 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. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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. 78. 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. 79. 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. 80. 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). Packet Pg. 66 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 24 Fire 81. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from an existing public way wherever there are 30 or more housing units. Emergency Vehicle Access points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access. 82. 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. 83. 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 84. 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. VTM #3066 shall have the option of establishing their own HOA, or be incorporated into the "Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA) established under VTM #3063 Righetti Ranch). To the extent desired by the subdivider, individual phases of the project may include sub - associations (such as for the affordable housing and /or townhome products) 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: a. The initial set of CC &R's provided for the VTM #3066 final map shall define either an independent HOA for Jones Ranch, or will be automatically incorporated into the Righetti Ranch Master HOA through annexation provisions of 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 #3066. b. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property owners, sub - associations or the Master HOA 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. c. 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. d. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long -term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. 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 Packet Pg. 67 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 25 Garbage Company regarding the collection time and preferred location for the placement of trash and recycling containers to minimize the obstruction of project streets. h. No changes in city- required provisions of the CC &R's will be considered valid and in effect without prior City Council approval. i. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions. Planning Requirements 85. 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. 86. 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. 87. 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. 88. 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. 89. 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. Director decisions may be appealed pursuant to standard city policies. 90. 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, , and 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 Packet Pg. 68 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 26 compliance). 91. The tentative tract map as presented includes an option to create a fifth (51') homestead parcel for Jones Ranch in the event that the `B" Street to (existing) Tiburon Way "preferred road alignment" is completed. This alignment (off -site through the Imel property), is described in Exhibit A which identifies how the 5t" parcel would be described and accessed with utilities and vehicles. 92. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 93. 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. Packet Pg. 69 6 Resolution No. 10620 ( 2015 Series) Page 27 j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking. 94. 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. 95. 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. 96. 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 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. an Marx ATTEST: Packet Pg. 70 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 28 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 ti r} t° , day of _ T" ," , 20 r Packet Pg. 71 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 29 Exhibit A LAIN OF FIALA I o IN PART) Y . 11 } RI 47 ice-- _ 10,415 SQFT !I r ~ _.,s • . [; ..•' rr., i x y OPEN SPACE / PROPOSIM OM SPACE fuh39"Off II ,. 3r SOFT, i 10,161 SA3'"F NET Oi £1,IENT k 1 x 1 `• 44' y Y..,6 2 SOFT ; I 14 fl Ij q SOFT wT 5B 7,694 SQFT jiij I I n.+8s SQF • ' I K rl![, v[n AAITO L7F 1°luury MAY ` q a osc a ja L I 170 p a E RIE PFWAiC h Ci4, ® x AM l II Il i,I11Y FASFNO i 1 ,4.00 SQFT 14.2&0 54FT SEN SPACE £FS+t1Gf% 1 r t s LANDS Or JMEL -- -_ y EAST HALF LOT 127` 73 DEEDS 173) N TM% I, 4 4 90 1091 1 INCH = 50 FEET SHEET SIZE; 11" x 17" Jones Homestead Lots I Graphic JONES RANCH — TRACT 3066 Cannon JONES HOMESTEAD Revision to VTTM 3066 ,..,.:,. c r tYOUT SAN LUI$ i19 {SpCy, CA Packet Pg. 72 6 Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series) Page 30 Exhibit A Jones Homestead Lots Narrative Revision to VTTM 3066: APN 004 - 705 -008 The Jones family is requesting to have five (5) homestead lots remain on their property as opposed to the four lots originally submitted. Therefore Ambient Communities is requesting that the Vesting Tract Map be updated to include the additional lot for a total of 66 lots. This request is enhanced by the proposed solution for the option "A" road alignment for "B" Street and Tiburon which will best align Tiburon as the preferred option. Additionally the Jones family is requesting that, as the original owner, they retain ownership in fee of the entire property. The Jones family will grant an open space easement to the City of San Luis Obispo for the required open space areas on lot 1 and lot 3 of the proposed vesting tentative tract map. The Jones family will continue to maintain the property. If desired, the Jones family will create a Common Maintenance Agreement for the homestead lots to ensure the properties are properly maintained in perpetuity. Packet Pg. 73 6 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 746 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863•••Packet Pg. 756 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 766 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 776 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 786 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 796 T.T.1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 806 T.T.1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 816 T.T.1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863Packet Pg. 826 0156030 DECIDUOUS TREES Acer rubrum / Red Maple Calodendrum capense / Cape Chestnut Ginkgo biloba / Maidenhair Tree Jacaranda mimosifolia / Jacaranda Koelreuteria paniculata / Golden Rain Tree Lagerstroemia fauriei / Crape Myrtle Liquidambar styraciflua / American Sweet Gum Pistacia chinensis / Chinese Pistache EVERGREEN TREES Arbutus x `Marina` / Arbutus Standard Geijera parviflora / Australian Willow Lagunaria patersonii / Primrose Tree Magnolia grandiflora / Southern Magnolia Metrosideros excelsus / New Zealand Christmas Tree Quercus suber / Cork Oak Ulmus parvifolia / Chinese Elm ACCENT TREES Cassia leptophylla / Gold Medallion Tree Cercis occidentalis / Western Redbud Crataegus phaenopyrum / Washington Hawthorn Lagerstroemia indica / Crape Myrtle Pyrus communis / Common Pear RIPARIAN TREES Cornus Species / Dogwood Juglans hindsii / California Black Walnut Platanus racemosa / California Sycamore Populus fremontii / Fremont Cottonwood Quercus agrifolia / Coast Live Oak Salix Species / Willow SHRUBS - 6` TO 10` Alyogyne huegelii / Blue Hibiscus Arctostaphylos Species / Manzanita Buddleja davidii / Butterfly Bush Carpenteria californica / Bush Anemone Ceanothus Species / Wild Lilac Cercocarpus betuloides / Mountain Mahogany Dendromecon harfordii / Island Bush Poppy Dodonaea viscosa / Hopseed Bush Fremontodendron californicum / California Flannel BushGarrya elliptica / Coast Silktassel Heteromeles arbutifolia / Toyon Leptospermum Species / Tea Tree Myrtus communis / Common Myrtle Rhamnus crocea / Redberry Rhus ovata / Sugar Bush Ribes aureum / Golden Currant Ribes speciosum / Fuchsia Flowering Gooseberry Romneya coulteri / Matilija Poppy Rosmarinus officinalis `Tuscan Blue` / Tuscan Blue Rosemary SHRUBS - 3` TO 5` Agave attenuata / Agave Anigozanthos flavidus / Kangaroo Paw Arctostaphylos Species / Manzanita Artemisia californica / California Sagebrush Baccharis pilularis / Dwarf Coyote Brush Callistemon viminalis `Little John` / Dwarf Weeping Bottlebrush Ceanothus Species / Wild Lilac Cistus Species / Rock Rose Elymus condensatus `Canyon Prince` / Canyon Prince Wild Rye Eriogonum arborescens / Santa Cruz Island Buckwheat Helictotrichon sempervirens / Blue Oat Grass Lavandula Species / Lavender Leonotis leonurus / Lion`s Tail Muhlenbergia rigens / Deer Grass Perovskia Species / Russian Sage Phlomis fruticosa / Jerusalem Sage Phormium tenax / New Zealand Flax Pittosporum tobira `Variegata` / Variegated Mock Orange Salvia Species / Sage SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVER - TO 2` Achillea millefolium / Common Yarrow Arctostaphylos Species / Manzanita Baccharis pilularis / Dwarf Coyote Brush Ceanothus Species / Wild Lilac Chamaemelum nobile / Chamomile Correa Species / Australian Fuchsia Cotoneaster Species / Cotoneaster Deschampsia cespitosa / Tufted Hair Grass Dietes bicolor / Fortnight Lily Echeveria Species / Hens and Chicks Eriogonum fasciculatum / Common Buckwheat Festuca glauca / Blue FescueMimulus aurantiacus / Sticky Monkey Flower Myoporum parvifolium / Trailing Myoporum Rosmarinus officinalis `Prostratus` / Dwarf Rosemary Sedum Species / Stonecrop Symphoricarpos mollis / Creeping Snowberry Thymus Species / Thyme SHRUBS - RIPARIAN AREAS Baccharis pilularis / Dwarf Coyote Brush Carex Species / Ice Dance Sedge Distichlis Species / Saltgrass Heteromeles arbutifolia / Toyon Mimulus aurantiacus / Sticky Monkey Flower Mimulus guttatus / Seep Monkeyflower Myrica californica / Pacific Wax Myrtle Rhamnus californica / California Coffee Berry Ribes speciosum / Fuchsia Flowering Gooseberry Rosa californica / California Wild Rose Rubus ursinus / California Blackberry Sambucus mexicana / Mexican Elderberry TURF - CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE "B" STREET"A" STREETSPONZA STREETEXISTING TREES TO REMAINTTSchematic Planting PlanL1Packet Pg. 836 "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. 846 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863JOB#131007Packet Pg. 856 6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$3)-2%Packet Pg. 866 6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$3)-2%Packet Pg. 876 6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$3)-2%Packet Pg. 886 6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$3)-2%Packet Pg. 896 6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$3)-2%Packet Pg. 906 6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$3)-2%Packet Pg. 916 6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$3)-2%Packet Pg. 926 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 3066-Phase 2, City of San Luis Obispo, California, as approved by the City Council on the ____ day of _______________, 201___. The Subdivider desires that said Tract 3066-Phase 2 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. 93 6 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. 94 6 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. 95 6 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. 96 6 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. 97 6 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. 98 6 7 EXHIBIT 1 TRACT 3066-Phase 2 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 #3066 Mitigation Measures to mitigate for the loss of special status plant species and vegetation community as a result of project implementation. The Subdivider has submitted a rider to the Tract 3063-Phase 1 bond 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 #25 of Council Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series), the Subdivider has deposited a faithful performance security in the amount of $25,000 to retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct neighborhood speed surveys one year after final occupancy of Tract 3066-Phase 2 on the perimeter streets of the subdivision (Sponza Drive, Ranch House Road, and Tiburon Way). If the 85th percentile speeds exceed current City Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) thresholds, additional traffic calming measures shall be installed. The $25,000 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 $25,000 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. 99 6 8 EXHIBIT 1 TRACT 3066-Phase 2 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2 6. The Subdivider has submitted a rider to the Tract 3063-Phase 1 bond 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. 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. 8. Park-in-lieu fees will be paid at time of issuance of building permit per the fee schedule in effect at that time. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of Council Resolution 10620 (2015 Series) approving the tentative map. 12. The Subdivider has elected to pay a roadway maintenance fee to satisfy Condition #35. The fee of $__________ submitted with Tract 3063-Phase 1 also includes the cost to satisfy the requirements of Condition #35 for Tract 3066-Phase 2. Packet Pg. 100 6 9 EXHIBIT 2 TRACT 3066-Phase 2 - FEE AND BOND LIST 3761 Orcutt Page 1 of 2 Amount Form Date Received Bond Release Status Bonds and Guarantees: The following Faithful Performance bonds have been submitted in conjunction with Tract 3063-Phase 1, but are also required to satisfy conditions of Tract 3066-Phase 2. Rider to Tract 3063- Phase 1 bond 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 Tract 3063-Phase 1 (FMAP-3901-2016) $277,700 Tiburon Road Improvements (FMAP-2241-2015) $2,837,600 On-Site Tract 3063-Phase 1 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 Orcutt Frontage & Tank Farm/Orcutt Intersection (FMAP-1718-2015/FMAP-4096-2016) $3,991,000 Labor & Materials for above Tract 3063-Phase 1 improvements (50% of total cost of above improvements) Rider to Tract 3063-Phase 1 bond xxx Can be released 90 days after acceptance of improvements, if no claims. (Civil Code Section 8412) Faithful Performance to construct Tract 3066-Phase 2 On-Site Improvements (FMAP-0020-2017) $xx,xxx xxx xxx Labor & Materials (50% of cost of improvements) construct Tract 3066- Phase 2 On-Site Improvements $xx,xxx xxx xxx Faithful Performance to complete design of Tract 3066-Phase 2 On-Site Improvement Plans (FMAP-0020-2017) $xx,xxx CD xxx Faithful Performance to construct Affordable Housing frontage improvements (FMAP-xxxx-xxxx) $xx,xxx xxx xxx Labor & Materials (50% of cost of improvements) to construct Affordable Housing frontage improvements $xx,xxx xxx xxx Faithful Performance to complete design of the Affordable Housing frontage improvement plans (FMAP-xxxx-xxxx) $xx,xxx CD xxx Can be released upon City’s approval of the required subdivision improvement plans Packet Pg. 101 6 10 EXHIBIT 2 TRACT 3066-Phase 2 - FEE AND BOND LIST 3761 Orcutt Page 2 of 2 Amount Form Date Received Bond Release Status Bonds and Guarantees (continued) Total Faithful Performance to complete acquisition of off-site right-of-way to construct the above improvements Rider to Tract 3063-Phase 1 bond xxx See Exhibit 1 for when bond can be released. Faithful Performance for completion of traffic speed surveys and installation of additional traffic calming measures $25,000 xxx xxx See Exhibit 1 for when bond can be released. Faithful Performance of the Special Status Plant and Natural Community Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Rider to Tract 3063-Phase 1 bond xxx See Exhibit 1 for when bond can be released. 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 TBD TBD To be collected prior to release of FP Bond Can be released one-year after acceptance of improvements, if no defects. Fees: Map Check Fee $18,860 Check 11/3/15 Plan Check Fee Deposit $xx,xxx Check xxxx Remainder of fee due prior to plan approval Improvement Plan Inspection Deposit $xx,xxx Check xxxx Remainder of fee due prior to plan approval Roadway Maintenance Fee (Condition #35) Submitted with Tract 3063-Phase 1 Park In-Lieu Fee1 To be collected with building permit. 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. 102 6 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 3066-PHASE 2 (3761 ORCUTT ROAD, SBDV-0067-2014) WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning the vesting tentative map for Tract 3066, as prescribed in Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series); 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. 10620 (2015 Series) will be completed or appropriate securities will be in place prior to map recordation to guarantee their completion; and WHEREAS, the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. The Jones Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3066 (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). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Mayor is authorized to act on behalf of the City to approve a Biological Open Space Easement Agreement for Tract 3066-Phase 2 in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Natural Resources Manager. SECTION 2. The final map for Tract 3066-Phase 2 is found to be in substantial compliance with the tentative map. SECTION 3. The Subdivision Agreement for Tract 3066-Phase 2 is approved and the Mayor is authorized to approve minor revisions to the agreement and execute the document. SECTION 4. Approval of the final map for Tract 3066-Phase 2 is hereby granted. SECTION 5. The Mayor and City staff are authorized to take action necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. SECTION 6. Environmental Review. The 2010 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Packet Pg. 103 6 Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2 R _____ Tract Map 3066 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: 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. 104 6 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief Prepared By: Miguel Guardado, Network Services Supervisor SUBJECT: PUBLIC SAFETY SERVER REPLACEMENT RECOMMENDATION 1. Award a contract and authorize a purchase order for Solutions II, Inc. in the amount of $298,349 for the replacement and installation of the public safety computer-aided dispatch and records management system, two servers, and five years of 24/7 support; and 2. Waive formal bids and authorize use of Government Services Administration (GSA) contract#: GS-35F-0349S to sole source this project to Solutions II as allowed under 3.24.060 E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Muncipal Code. DISCUSSION Background Since January 1998, the Police and Fire departments have utilized software from Spillman Technologies (Spillman) to meet the City's public safety information management needs. The City originally started with two modules from Spillman: Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS). These modules process, store and manage all police and fire incident information within the City. Since the initial implementation, the City’s CAD/RMS system has grown to encompass over 22 modules including: personnel management, mobile communications, evidence management, mapping tools, quickest route and numerous reporting systems. Current Server Status The existing public safety servers for the Spillman system were purchased in 2011. The objective at that time was to design a system that would prevent the interruption of critical public safety systems should one of the server’s experience problems, require maintenance or fail. In order to achieve this goal, a system based on "clustering" was recommended which would provide server "uptime" 99.9% of the time. Clustering provides fault tolerance, whereby back-up elements are utilized to ensure continued system operation in the event of hardware failure. The Spillman servers had been scheduled for an upgrade in FY 2015-16; however, due to the stability of the servers at that time and IT workload, IT staff recommended postponing the replacement and extending hardware warranties. As a result, staff is recommending that the servers be replaced during this current FY 2016-17. Contract Award – Sole Source Justification Since 2011, the City has been using a Spillman recommended technical consultant, Solutions II, Inc. for maintenance and support of the Spillman CAD/RMS system. Spillman Technologies has maintained a strong working relationship with Solutions II, a provider of technology solutions to Packet Pg. 105 7 Spillman public safety agencies. Solutions II is very experienced with Spillman software and the company has managed and implemented clustered server projects for other Spillman sites utilizing Dell/VMware solutions, which is preferred by City IT staff. Because Solutions II works so closely with Spillman, the company understands the City's public safety software needs. Because of this experience, Solutions II is highly qualified to recommend and deliver an optimal server design for the City. It is important to note that Solutions II utilized the City’s Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) pricing Government Services Administration GSA contract#: GS-35F-0349S pricing standard for the purchasing of hardware and software and professional services was able to provide the City with a pricing discount ensuring that the City is getting the best price possible. CONCURRENCES The Police and Fire Chiefs and the Information Technology Steering Committee concur with the recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT As part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Information Technology Replacement projects; $250,000 was identified for Police CAD Server replacement. Other funding to help supplement the project to correctly reflect actual costs has also been identified by staff, as shown below. Contract costs include hardware replacement, 24x7 support, warranties on the hardware and software with bi- annual server health checks for the next five years. Spillman related costs below will be approved separately per the City’s Purchasing System Guidelines, and are th erefore not included in this request to Council. Project Funding Sources Amount FY 15-16 CIP Police CAD Server Replacement $250,000 Balance from IT and PD closed-out projects $100,000 Total Funding Available $350,000 CAD Replacement Project Costs Total Solutions II, Inc. - Hardware Replacement, Support & Warranties $298,349 Spillman - Unix to Linux Server Migration $23,800 Spillman - GeoValidation Conversion $10,000 Contingency $17,851 Total Project Cost $350,000 ALTERNATIVES 1. Defer or deny the project, Given the age of the existing servers, the mission critical nature of the Spillman applications, and the need to upgrade software in the near future, it is imperative the replacement occur this fiscal year in order to avoid risk of failure. Additionally, due to IT's project schedule, deferring the replacement of the servers may result in conflicts with other project timelines and therefore limit the resources available for this Packet Pg. 106 7 upgrade. 2. Initiate a formal bid process. Due to the nature of this application, the existing relationship between Spillman and Solutions II, and Solutions II's knowledge of the Spillman application and the City's needs, staff believes that Solutions II (in collaboration with Spillman) is uniquely qualified to recommend and implement the ideal server system. Staff does not recommend conducting an open bid process for the server replacement given the efficiencies to be gained by sole source contracting with Solutions II Attachments: a - City of SLO Solutions II Quote b - Solutions II - Spillman- Unix c - San Luis Obispo HW Refresh Implementation SOW d - Contract Award Solutions II - Public Safety Server Replacement Packet Pg. 107 7 Quote #:SLO24x7 - v5 Client:Date:2.28.17 Company:Account Rep.:Jeff Robbins Project:Phone:801.441.5982 Valid Until Fax: Email:jeff.robbins@soluions-ii.com Notes: Qty Part #Description Unit Price Extended Price Prod and DR Servers - Qty 3 3 210-ADBC PowerEdge R730xd Server 3 329-BCZK PE R730/xd Motherboard MLK 3 461-AADZ No Trusted Platform Module 3 350-BBEU Chassis with up to 12, 3.5" Hard Drives 3 340-AKPM PowerEdge R730xd Shipping 3 338-BJDO Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 2.4GHz,35M Cache,9.60GT/s QPI,Turbo,HT,14C/28T (120W) Max Mem 2400MHz 3 338-BJEE Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 2.4GHz,35M Cache,9.60GT/s QPI,Turbo,HT,14C/28T (120W) Max Mem 2400MHz 3 370-ABWE DIMM Blanks for System with 2 Processors 3 374-BBHM Standard Heatsink for PowerEdge R730/R730xd 3 374-BBHM Standard Heatsink for PowerEdge R730/R730xd 3 370-ACPH 2400MT/s RDIMMs 3 370-AAIP Performance Optimized 3 780-BBLJ RAID 1 for H330/H730/H730P (2 HDDs or SSDs) 3 405-AAEF PERC H330 Integrated RAID Controller 3 540-BBBW Broadcom 5720 QP 1Gb Network Daughter Card 3 385-BBHO iDRAC8 Enterprise, integrated Dell Remote Access Controller, Enterprise 3 350-BBEJ Bezel 3 770-BBBR ReadyRails Sliding Rails With Cable Management Arm 3 384-BBBL Performance BIOS Settings 3 450-ADWS Dual, Hot-plug, Redundant Power Supply (1+1), 750W 3 631-AAJG Electronic System Documentation and OpenManage DVD Kit, PowerEdge R730/xd 3 619-ABVR No Operating System 3 421-5736 No Media Required 3 332-1286 US Order 3 330-BBCO R730/xd PCIe Riser 2, Center 3 330-BBCR R730/xd PCIe Riser 1, Right 3 Pro Support Plus - 24 x 7 Support - 5 Year 24 370-ACNS 32GB RDIMM, 2400MT/s, Dual Rank, x4 Data Width 6 400-AFMW 120GB Solid State Drive SATA Boot 6Gbps 2.5in Hot-plug Drive,3.5in HYB CARR,13G 3 407-BBVK SFP+, SR, Optical Transceiver, Intel, 10Gb-1Gb 3 407-BBVK SFP+, SR, Optical Transceiver, Intel, 10Gb-1Gb 3 540-BBCT Intel X520 DP 10Gb DA/SFP+ Server Adapter 6 406-BBEB QLogic 2560, Single Port 8Gb Optical Fibre Channel HBA 6 450-AALV NEMA 5-15P to C13 Wall Plug, 125 Volt, 15 AMP, 10 Feet (3m), Power Cord, North America 6 492-BBDI C13 to C14, PDU Style, 12 AMP, 6.5 Feet (2m) Power Cord, North America Prod Storage - Qty 1 1 210-ACCT PowerVault MD3820f, 16G Fibre Channel, 2U-24 drive 1 340-AIOP SHIP,MD3820f 1 403-BBFH Controller, 16G FC, 2U MD38xxF, 8G Cache 1 403-BBFH Controller, 16G FC, 2U MD38xxF, 8G Cache 1 325-BBGL Bezel Assembly, MD3820f 1 421-3580 License Key, PowerVault MD3 High Performance Tier with SSD Cache 1 770-BBCL ReadyRails II Static Rails for 4-post Racks Price Quote Unix to Linux Refresh - 24x7 Support 1. Taxes are not included in this price quote and will be invoiced if applicable. 2. Any Shipping/Freight will show as estimated and will be invoiced accordingly. 3. This price quote, supporting configurations, and any associated contracts are confidential to the client specified and Solutions II. 4. Final configuration and prices subject to change based upon the final solutions assurance review and consultation with client. 5. A detailed services Scope of Work (SOW) & MSA Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of services. 6. Prices quoted assume standard terms and conditions, net 30. Spillman Infastructure San Luis Obispo Confidential Page 1 Packet Pg. 108 7 1 389-BDZU Power Supply Regulatory Label, 600W, AC 1 450-AASQ Power Supply, AC 600W, Redundant 1 450-ABLK 5-15P to C13, 10 amp, 6 feet wall plug Power Cord 1 450-ABLK 5-15P to C13, 10 amp, 6 feet wall plug Power Cord 1 492-BBDI C13 to C14, PDU Style, 12 AMP, 6.5 Feet (2m) Power Cord, North America 1 492-BBDI C13 to C14, PDU Style, 12 AMP, 6.5 Feet (2m) Power Cord, North America 1 332-1286 US Order 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 Pro Support Plus - 24 x 7 Support - 5 Year 9 400-ABSL Hard Drive Blank Filler 2.5 12 400-ALUT 1TB 7.2K RPM Near-Line SAS 2.5in Hot-plug Hard Drive 3 400-ALXZ 400GB Solid State Drive SAS Mix Use MLC 2.5in Hot-plug Drive, PX04SM DR Storage - Qty 1 1 210-ACCT PowerVault MD3820f, 16G Fibre Channel, 2U-24 drive 1 340-AIOP SHIP,MD3820f 1 403-BBFH Controller, 16G FC, 2U MD38xxF, 8G Cache 1 403-BBFH Controller, 16G FC, 2U MD38xxF, 8G Cache 1 325-BBGL Bezel Assembly, MD3820f 1 421-3580 License Key, PowerVault MD3 High Performance Tier with SSD Cache 1 770-BBCL ReadyRails II Static Rails for 4-post Racks 1 389-BDZU Power Supply Regulatory Label, 600W, AC 1 450-AASQ Power Supply, AC 600W, Redundant 1 450-ABLK 5-15P to C13, 10 amp, 6 feet wall plug Power Cord 1 450-ABLK 5-15P to C13, 10 amp, 6 feet wall plug Power Cord 1 492-BBDI C13 to C14, PDU Style, 12 AMP, 6.5 Feet (2m) Power Cord, North America 1 492-BBDI C13 to C14, PDU Style, 12 AMP, 6.5 Feet (2m) Power Cord, North America 1 332-1286 US Order 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 407-BBOF 2X SFP, FC16, 16GB 1 Pro Support Plus - 24 x 7 Support - 5 Year 9 400-ABSL Hard Drive Blank Filler 2.5 12 400-ALUT 1TB 7.2K RPM Near-Line SAS 2.5in Hot-plug Hard Drive 3 400-ALXZ 400GB Solid State Drive SAS Mix Use MLC 2.5in Hot-plug Drive, PX04SM Software 6 VS6-EPL-C-L2 VMWARE VSPHERE 6 ENTERPRISE PLUS FOR 1 PROCESSOR 30 VS6-EPL-P-SSS-C PRODUCTION SUPPORT/SUBSCRIPTION VMWARE VSPHERE 6 ENTERPRISE PLUS FOR 1 PROCESSOR FOR 1 YEAR 2 RH00003F3 RHEL SVR PREM PHYSICAL OR VIRTUAL N 4 P73-05758 OB WIN SVR STD SGL L/SA PK OLP NL 2 PROC 6 P-VASSTD-VS-P0000-00 VEEAM AVAIL-TY S-TE STD VMWARE LICS 12 V-VASSTD-VS-P02PP-00 2YR VEEAM AVAIL-TY S-TE STD MLIC 183,657.00$ 1 Installation and DR Integration Services For Services, Solutions II can leverage GSA#: GS-35F-0349S 38,600.00$ 8,592.00$ 230,849.00$ 5 Semi-annual Health Check and Failover Testing Services 13,500.00$ 67,500.00$ Includes up to one onsite visit per year Grand Total 298,349.00$ Health Check Services Sub Total Hardware/Softare Total Professional Services Professional Services Subtotal Tax Confidential Page 2 Packet Pg. 109 7 City of San Luis Obispo Vendor # 463292 PURCHASE ORDER:022817mmz PURCHASE ORDER FOR IT USE ONLY: Date Send copy to vendor with any attachments Do not send to vendor VENDOR Solutions II, Inc SHIP TO City of San Luis Obispo ORDER Attn: Jeff Robbins ADDRESS 990 Palm Street ADDRESS 8822 S. Ridgeline Blvd Ste 205 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Littleton, CO 80129 Attn: Miguel Guardado (801)441-5982 Bus: 805-781-7017 VENDOR Fax: 805-781-7401 INVOICE Public Safety Server Replacement ADDRESS Unix to Linux Conversion Quote General Ledger Account Capital Project Number Date Fund Program Acct Project Phase Description Amount 02/28/17 183,657.00 38,600.00 67,500.00 tax 8,592.00 TOTAL 298,349.00 Requesting Department Prepared By Dept Approval Finance/Administration Approval Finance & Info. Tech.M. McGee Instructions:ACCOUNTING USE ONLY Department: Complete form and obtain departmental approval. Attach quotes, bid summaries, or CAO report (as required by purchasing guidelines). Route to Finance or Admin for approval.Verified By Finance: After final approval, assign PO number and return copy to department. Process encumbrance. 3/13/2017 SLO24x7-v5 Spillman Unix to Linux Refresh - 24x7 Support - Software Spillman Unix to Linux Refresh - 24x7 Support - Professional Services Spillman Unix to Linux Refresh - 24x7 Support - Health Check Services Packet Pg. 110 7 CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF SOLUTIONS -II, INC. NOT TO BE USED, EMPLOYED, ALTERED, DUPLICATED, OR COPIED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. City of San Luis Obispo Professional Services Statement of Work (Schedule A) Master Services Agreement Number: SLO09.08.11-03 SOW Identifier: SLO-20170221-01-V1.2 SOW Title: Spillman Infrastructure Implementation January 23, 2017 Corporate Headquarters (303) 796-8393 TEL 8822 South Ridgeline Blvd. Suite 117 (303) 796-8399 FAX Littleton, CO 80129 www.Solutions-II.com Packet Pg. 111 7 Statement of Work: City of San Luis Obispo Spillman Infrastructure Implementation SOW Identifier: SLO-20170221-01-V1.2 P a g e | 2 of 5 _______ Client CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF SOLUTIONS-II, INC. NOT TO BE USED, EMPLOYED, ALTERED, DUPLICATED, OR COPIED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. _______ Solutions II Document No. SII.10.6.2016-2.0 Executive Summary: This Statement of Work (“SOW”) is agreed by and between the City of San Luis Obispo (“Client”) and Solutions-II, Inc. (“Solutions II”), and in accordance with the Master Services Agreement (“MSA”). Solutions II, under the guidance and participation of Client, will provide implementation services of the Spillman server infrastructure. This SOW is subject to the Agreement Terms set forth in the MSA. Any obligations by any party defined within this SOW are limited to this SOW and any subsequent Project Change Requests which further define this SOW. Unless executed, this SOW offer expires Unless executed, this SOW expires April 21st, 2017. Scope of Work: •••• Scope 1. Setup and configuration of all hardware and software purchased for the Spillman environment. a. Three (3) Dell R730 Rack mount servers i. Two in the production datacenter and one in the DR datacenter b. Two (2) Dell MD3820f Storage Arrays i. One in the production datacenter and one in the DR datacenter c. VMware vSphere 6 Enterprise d. Veeam Backup and Replication for application protection and disaster recovery e. Redhat Linux virtual machine creation f. Windows Server virtual machine creation 2. Services will be performed both onsite in San Luis Obispo’s two datacenters and remotely during normal business hours. •••• Out of Scope The following are not included in the scope of this SOW: 1. Remediation of the Client’s environment needed to meet the minimum requirements to support the services in scope. Solutions II Responsibilities: 1. Project Management a. Solutions II will provide a Project Manager to facilitate the project delivery from initiation through completion. Packet Pg. 112 7 Statement of Work: City of San Luis Obispo Spillman Infrastructure Implementation SOW Identifier: SLO-20170221-01-V1.2 P a g e | 3 of 5 _______ Client CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF SOLUTIONS-II, INC. NOT TO BE USED, EMPLOYED, ALTERED, DUPLICATED, OR COPIED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. _______ Solutions II Document No. SII.10.6.2016-2.0 2. Implementation a. Primary Location: i. Install and configure 2 Dell R730 Servers. ii. Install and configure 1 Dell MD3820f Storage Array. iii. Install ESXi on the 2 servers. iv. Install and configure vCenter. v. Configure networking on ESXi hosts as needed to support the environment. vi. Create 1 Red Hat Linux VM and up to 2 Windows Server VM's. b. Secondary Location: i. Install and configure 1 Dell R730 Server. ii. Install and configure 1 Dell MD3820f Storage Array. iii. Install ESXi on the server. iv. Install and configure vCenter. v. Configure networking on ESXi host as needed to support the environment. vi. Create up to 2 Windows Server VM’s. c. Veeam Backup and Replication: i. Installation and configuration of Veeam software. 1. Backup server and repository 2. Source and target hosts 3. Backup proxies 4. Backup repository ii. Creation of backup jobs for the Spillman environment. iii. Creation of backup schedule. iv. Creation of replication jobs v. Replicate VMs from Production to DR vi. Test of the backup plan. vii. Test recovery on DR server 3. Knowledge Transfer a. Solutions II will provide knowledge transfer during the installation and configuration of all in scope components. 4. Deliverables a. At the conclusion of this project, Solutions II will provide the following documentation: i. Cabling diagrams ii. Rack diagrams iii. Configuration documents iv. Passwords v. IP Addresses Packet Pg. 113 7 Statement of Work: City of San Luis Obispo Spillman Infrastructure Implementation SOW Identifier: SLO-20170221-01-V1.2 P a g e | 4 of 5 _______ Client CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF SOLUTIONS-II, INC. NOT TO BE USED, EMPLOYED, ALTERED, DUPLICATED, OR COPIED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. _______ Solutions II Document No. SII.10.6.2016-2.0 Client Responsibilities: 1. Facility Readiness - Client will provide the power, cooling, space, cabling, network infrastructure and access required for Solutions II to deliver the services in scope. 2. The Client will provide Solutions II technical resources with safe access, suitable office space, supplies, furniture, high-speed connectivity to the Internet, and other facilities for Solutions II’s personnel while working at the location(s) specified in this SOW. 3. The Client will provide appropriate technical and management resources to participate in the implementation, including an Authorized Contact who will obtain and provide applicable information, data, consents, decisions and approvals as required by Solutions II to perform the services. 4. The Client will provide maintenance windows as required to perform services. 5. The Client will ensure that current maintenance and license agreements are in place with applicable vendors for those products and services upon which Solutions II is relying to provide the services described herein. 6. Solutions II’s performance is dependent upon Client management and fulfillment of Client responsibilities, at no charge to Solutions II. Any delay in performance of Client responsibilities may result in additional charges and/or delay of the completion of the services. Such additional charges and/or delay will be handled in accordance with the Project Change Control Procedure. Project Change Control Procedure: In the event it is necessary to change this SOW, the following procedure will be used: 1. A Project Change Request document (“PCR”) will be executed by the parties describing the nature of the change, the reason for the change, and the effect the change will have on the scope of work, which may include changes to the work product. Parties will determine the additional/subtraction charges, if any, and they will be detailed in the PCR. 2. Either party may initiate a PCR. The requesting party will review the proposed change with the other party, and the appropriate authorized representatives of the parties will sign the PCR, indicating the acceptance of the changes by the parties. 3. Upon execution of the PCR, said PCR will be incorporated into and made a part of the applicable scope of work. Project Completion: Solutions II will have fulfilled its obligations for the services described in this SOW when the activities described in this SOW are complete, inclusive of any fully executed project change requests associated with this SOW. Packet Pg. 114 7 Statement of Work: City of San Luis Obispo Spillman Infrastructure Implementation SOW Identifier: SLO-20170221-01-V1.2 P a g e | 5 of 5 _______ Client CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF SOLUTIONS-II, INC. NOT TO BE USED, EMPLOYED, ALTERED, DUPLICATED, OR COPIED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. _______ Solutions II Document No. SII.10.6.2016-2.0 Payment: Fees for services rendered pursuant to this SOW shall be paid by Client as follows: 1. A total fee of Thirty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred dollars, ($38,600.00) will be paid by Client. a. $38,600.00 will be due upon execution of this SOW. 2. Travel Expenses: a. All travel expenses are inclusive in this project, with the estimation that one or more Solutions II employee(s) will need to travel to the Client’s location, or such location designated by Client one (1) times with multiple day duration during the contract period. All fees and costs incurred under the terms of this SOW shall be due 30 days after a statement has been sent to Client by Solutions II. Any late payment is subject to an interest charge of 1.5% per month (18% per annum) plus all costs of collection including attorney fees and costs. Client is responsible to pay all applicable state and local sales and use taxes related to professional services. City of San Luis Obispo Solutions-II, Inc. 1042 Walnut Street 8822 S. Ridgeline Blvd. Suite 117 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Littleton, CO 80129 Signature: Signature: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: Packet Pg. 115 7 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on March 21, 2017 by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City, and Solutions II, Inc. hereinafter referred to as Contractor. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on DATE City requested proposals for the replacement of the City’s Computer Aided Dispatch Public Safety Servers per Specification No 91401. WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of services. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91401 and Contractor's proposal dated 12/12/2014 are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing a Public Safety Server Replacement Systems and five years of 24/7 support as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed $298,349. Payment schedule will be as follows. $183,657 on contract initiation to procure hardware and software delivery, then $57,346 on installation and migration from old system, and the remaining $57,346 on a successful testing period of four weeks from final cut-over. 4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agr ees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council o f the City. Packet Pg. 116 7 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contractor Solutions II, Inc. 8822 S. Ridgeline BLVD, Suite 205 Littleton, CO 80129 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ________________________________ By:_____________________________________ City Clerk City Manager, Katie Lichtig APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR ________________________________ By: _____________________________________ City Attorney, Christine Dietrick Packet Pg. 117 7 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 118 7 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVIS ION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2353-1, TRACT 2353-2, PRADO SEGMENT D AND PRADO SEGMENT E (408 PRADO ROAD, TR 120-13) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution accepting the public improvements, certifying completion of the required private subdivision improvements, and authorizing release of securities for Tract 2353-1, Tract 2353-2, Prado Segment D and Prado Segment E at 408 Prado. DISCUSSION Background Tract 2353 (TR 120-13) is located at 408 Prado Road (Attachment A). A vesting tentative map for Tract 2353 was originally approved by the City Council on March 7, 2006, by Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series). A modified tentative map and revised conditions that superseded the previous map and conditions were approved by Council on April 15, 2014, by Resolution No. 10512 (2014 Series). The final map for the first phase of Tract 2353, Tract 2353-1, was approved by Council on July 1, 2014, by Resolution No. 10541 (2014 Series) (Attachment B). Tract 2353-1 created three business park lots, three common area lots, and 76 single family residential lots. The second and final phase of Tract 2353, Tract 2353-2, was approved by Council on May 5, 2015 by Resolution No. 10612 (2015 Series) (Attachment C). Tract 2353-2 created three business park lots, one common area lot, 47 single family residential lots, and one lot for affordable housing. Subdivision Improvements The public improvements for Tract 2353 include the improvements within the subdivision (public streets, curb, gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, curb ramps at the intersections, street lights, water and sewer mains in the public streets, storm drain lines in the public streets, water mains in the private alleys, fire hydrants, water services to the meter) and the Prado Road Segment D and E improvements. Prado Segment D is that portion of Prado Road that fronts Tract 2353-1. Segment E is that portion that fronts Tract 2353 -2. The public improvements also include off-site restriping of a southbound left turn lane and installation of pedestrian countdown heads at the South Higuera/Prado intersection. Private improvements for Tract 2353 include all of the private alleys serving the commercial and residential units, sewer mains in the private alleys, sewer laterals, water services beyond the meter, storm drain lines in the private alleys, the frontage landscaping along Prado Road and all the other lots, and the bike paths in the HOA-owned lots. Maintenance of the private facilities are set forth in the CC&R’s for the Homeowner’s Association, the Business Park Association, and the shared private maintenance agreements that were recorded for the subdivision. Packet Pg. 119 8 Accepting the Public Improvements and Certifying Completion of Private Improvements The subdivider has requested final acceptance of the Tract 2353 and Prado Road subdivision improvements by the City and release of the underlying securities for such improvements. The Subdivision Agreement authorizes release of the Faithful Performance and Labor & Materials securities upon Council’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements and receipt of a guarantee of ten percent of the cost of the subdivision improvements. The ten-percent guarantee is to insure that the subdivider will remedy any defects in the improvements arising from faulty workmanship or materials or defective construction of said improvements for a period of one year. The ten-percent security will also function as a faithful performance security to ensure that any remaining minor improvements are completed, such as a new irrigation controller for Prado Road, record drawings for all of the improvements are submitted and approved, and that the required documentation verifying construction costs of Prado Segments D and E is submitted and approved pursuant to the “Reimbursement and Impact Fee Credit Agreement for Prado Road Extension Costs” approved by Council on April 15, 2014. A draft resolution Accepting and Certifying Completion of the Subdivision Improvements is attached (Attachment D). This resolution authorizes the Public Works Director to release the faithful performance securities, and to release the warranty securities upon satisfactory completion of the one-year warranty period and submittal of the record drawings and Prado cost documentation. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department and Utilities Department concur with the recommended action. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The necessary findings and environmental review requirements related to the development of Tract 2353 and Prado Road were made with the tentative map approval. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. FISCAL IMPACT The public improvements constructed with Tract 2353 and Prado Road will result in an increase in maintenance costs for the streets improvements, street lights, water mains, sewer mains, water services, and public landscaping. At this time, the Public Works Department Streets Division and the Utilities Department Water and Wastewater Divisions will not need additional resources to maintain this new public infrastructure. However, cumulative increases in infrastructure eventually require additional resources to maintain. When required, these additional resources would be requested as part of the Financial Plan process, consistent with City policy. Nonetheless, a fiscal analysis of the Margarita Area Specific Plan area demonstrated that sufficient revenues would be provided on a per capita basis to fund the incremental increases in service costs to the City of San Luis Obispo. Although the City is responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the Prado Road median, the subdivider has elected to have a single water meter serve both the frontage landscaping along Packet Pg. 120 8 Prado Road, which is maintained by the Business Park Association, and the median landscaping. This option was proposed by the subdivider so they could avoid paying a water impact fee for an additional meter. The responsibility for the median irrigation is included in the CC&R’s for the Business Park Association, so the City has recourse if the median is not properly irrigated. If in the future the subdivider or another entity, such as the Business Park Association, provides the City with a separate water meter and makes the necessary connections, the City will be responsible for the irrigation costs for the Prado Road median. ALTERNATIVES Do not accept the public improvements or certify completion of the private improvements for Tract 2353 and Prado Road. If some of the required subdivision improvements for Tract 2353 and Prado Road have not been completed, then Council can continue this item until such time as the improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the City. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the subdivision improvements for Tract 2353 and Prado Road have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Attachments: a - Vicinity Map b - Recorded Final Map for Tract 2353-1 c - Recorded Final Map for Tract 2353-2 d - Draft Resolution Accepting Subdivision Improvements Packet Pg. 121 8 Packet Pg. 122 8 Packet Pg. 1238 Packet Pg. 1248 Packet Pg. 1258 Packet Pg. 1268 Packet Pg. 1278 Packet Pg. 1288 Packet Pg. 1298 Packet Pg. 1308 Packet Pg. 1318 Packet Pg. 1328 Packet Pg. 1338 Packet Pg. 1348 Packet Pg. 1358 Packet Pg. 1368 Packet Pg. 1378 R _____ RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, CERTIFYING COMPLETION OF THE PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE SECURITIES FOR TRACT 2353-1, TRACT 2353-2, PRADO ROAD SEGMENT D, AND PRADO ROAD SEGMENT E (408 PRADO ROAD, TR 120-13) WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning Tract 2353, as prescribed in Resolution No. 10512 (2014 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2353-1 per Resolution No. 10541 (2014 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2353-2 per Resolution No. 10612 (2014 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2560-Phase 2 per Resolution No. 10571 (2015 Series); and WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfactorily completed the public improvements for Tract 2353 and Prado Road, in accordance with City standards and specifications and has requested acceptance of the public improvements for maintenance and operation by the City; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfactorily completed the private improvements for Tract 2353, in accordance with City standards, specifications and the approved plans, and has requested that the City certify completion of these private improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby accepts the public improvements for Tract 2353-1, Tract 2353-2, Prado Road Segment D and Prado Road Segment E. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby certifies completion of the private improvements for Tract 2353-1 and Tract 2353-2. SECTION 4. The Public Works Director is authorized to release the securities once the requirements for release are met and to release the warranty/faithful performance security upon completion of any remaining minor improvements, satisfactory completion of the one-year warranty period, submittal of record drawings, and submittal of Prado Road cost documentation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Packet Pg. 138 8 Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ SECTION 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to take action necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2017. ________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney 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. 139 8 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 140 8 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police Prepared By: Melissa Ellsworth, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: FY 2017-18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for FY 2017-18 not to exceed $30,000; and 2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with the State if funding is awarded; and 3. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the award of the grant. DISCUSSION The purpose of the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) grant funding is to enable agencies to expand their present efforts in addressing alcohol related problems through a comprehensive ABC program that encompasses various strategies. The Police Department has been awarded grant funds from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in prior years to conduct education and compliance activities related to businesses that hold alcohol licenses. The City’s Grant Management Policy requires Council approval of all grant applications greater than $5,000. The goals of the ABC grant program include: 1. Achieving the goals and objectives of the local enforcement agency's grant agreements. 2. Establishing a close working relationship between ABC district offices and the grant agencies. 3. Prioritizing law enforcement efforts and targeting those licensed outlets that cause alcohol- related crimes. 4. Reduce the sales of alcoholic beverages to underage persons. 5. Assisting in the training of local law enforcement. Proposal for Funding Staff is seeking authorization to submit a grant application that focuses efforts on reducing underage access/consumption of alcohol at licensed establishments, reducing the sale of alcohol to the habitual and obviously intoxicated, and taking enforcement against businesses and individuals that violate the law. Packet Pg. 141 9 Grant activities, if approved, would include: 1. On-Sale Minor Decoy operations: Licensed on-sale establishments will be checked for compliance of lawful sales through the use of minor decoys. 2. Off-Sale Shoulder Tap operations: Licensed off-sale establishments shall be checked for compliance of refusing to sell alcohol to habitual and obviously intoxicated subjects. 3. Shoulder Tap operations: Officers will conduct operations of licensed establishments in order to discourage the purchase of alcohol for minors by adults. 4. Education: A key component of the grant and the department will coordinate and conduct IMPACT (Informed Merchants Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Tendencies) education and/or inspections with licensed establishments that tend to generate a high response for police service. The City’s application will seek funding for overtime reimbursement for existing officers to conduct the grant-related activities. The grant application requires the Council to adopt a resolution memorializing its action and authorizing the City Manager to execute the appropriate contract and other grant-related documents. The State requires that the grant funding be used for activities above and beyond those currently funded through the City budget. The grant application is due March 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City’s General Fund associated with this action. City matching funds are not required for this grant, and all grant related activities will be conducted using existing officers on overtime. Grant funding is not awarded up front; staff is responsible for submitting quarterly reimbursement requests based on overtime expended on grant activities during the reporting period. ALTERNATIVE Council may direct staff to not submit an application for ABC grant funding. Staff does not recommend this alternative as the funding will enhance the Police Department’s efforts in addressing alcohol-related problems and reducing under age and high-risk drinking. Attachments: a - Resolution Packet Pg. 142 9 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL TO INCREASE EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS FOCUSING ON REGULATING RETAIL ALCOHOL OUTLETS WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Police Department through the City of San Luis Obispo desires to undertake programs to increase education and enforcement to focus on regulating retail alcohol outlets in the community; and WHEREAS, grant funds are available through the Grant Assistance Program (GAP) administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Chief of Police or her designee is hereby authorized to submit grant applications consistent with program requirements to pursue a GAP grant administered by ABC. SECTION 2. The City Manager of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized to execute all grant related documents, including the State of California Standard Agreement, any extensions or amendments thereof, and any subsequent contract with the State in relation thereto. SECTION 3. The City agrees that any liability arising out of the performance of this contract, including civil court actions for damages, shall be the responsibility of the grant recipient and the authorizing agency and acknowledges that the State of California and ABC disclaim responsibility for any such liability. SECTION 4. Grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. Packet Pg. 143 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 144 9 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: LAGUNA LAKE ADA TRAIL RECOMMENDATION 1. As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, approve plans and specifications for the Laguna Lake ADA Trail, Specification No. 91388; and 2. Authorize staff to formally advertise for bids; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract including the Base Bid and Additive Alternates within the project construction budget of $220,000. DISCUSSION Background The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve is located along the northeastern edge of Laguna Lake, immediately north of Laguna Lake Park. As new hiking trails within the City open space network have been developed, the City has come to recognize the need for trails which are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The purpose of this project is to upgrade an existing Laguna Lake Natural Reserve trail to make it accessible to all users. The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve is located in a relatively flat area, adjacent to the northern portion of Laguna Lake Park, and is an ideal location for an ADA-compliant trail. Attachment #A depicts the site location and the proposed alignment of the ADA trail. Design Considerations A variety of options were considered for surfacing of the ADA-compliant trail including concrete, asphalt, and decomposed granite. Ultimately, both asphalt and concrete were not preferable for this project since these materials would negatively impact the appearance and natural setting of the open space. The most natural looking material, decomposed granite was selected as the preferred surfacing. Decomposed granite paths require considerable ongoing maintenance in order to maintain ADA compliance. This material deteriorates over time and develops areas of loose sand, weeds and other vegetation growth; and eventual rutting could render the path non-ADA accessible. However, decomposed granite when combined with a polymer resin has shown that it reduces maintenance efforts, is permeable, and provides the most aesthetic alternative to cement of asphalt. The polymer resin decomposed granite material is estimated to cost approximately 33% more than asphalt concrete, but considered preferable to reduce impacts to the natural setting of the open space. The polymer resin decomposed granite specification has been incorporated into the proposed project. CONCURRENCES Packet Pg. 145 10 This project is the result of a collaborative effort between Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and the Natural Resources Division of the Administrative Department. All three Departments are in agreement with the project scope and design. A grading permit application was submitted to the Community Development Department’s Building Division in December 2016. This permit was approved in February 2017, and will be issued to the contractor following the award of a construction contract. All comments and conditions associated with the Building and Safety review of the project have been incorporated into the design of the project. This project was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 6, 2016, who approved the project. Meeting minutes are included as Attachment #B to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The design was presented to the Community Development Department (CDD) for environmental review. It was determined by CDD staff to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (maintenance or replacement of an existing facility) and was issued a Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT The 2015-17 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-269 through 3-272 includes $250,000 for the design and construction of this project. The current available balance is $248,450. The project is structured with a Base Bid and three Additive Alternates. In order to maximize the length of trail constructed within the available funding. The strategy is to award the contract with the Base Bid and as many of the Additive Alternates as funding will allow, up to a construction contract amount of $220,000. The Base Bid portion is immediately adjacent to the edge of Laguna Lake Park, and each Additive Alternates extends the trail further north along the edge of Laguna Lake. Packet Pg. 146 10 The project’s construction budget is shown in the following table: Budget Construction Contract $220,000 Construction Contingencies $25,000 Total for Construction $245,000 Printing and other Misc. Costs $500 Materials Testing $2,500 Total for other costs:$3,000 Total Project Cost $248,000 Amount Available:$248,450 Once the project is advertised, and bids are received, the recommended action will allow the City Manager to award a construction contract if the Base Bid is less than $220,000. Additionally, the action also authorizes the City Manager to include Additive Alternatives in the contract if the total contract cost is under $220,000. Attachments: a - Site Map b - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes 07-06-16 c - Council Reading File - 91388 Plans d - Council Reading File - 91388 Special Provisions Packet Pg. 147 10 Packet Pg. 148 10 Minutes PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 6 July, 2016 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 6th day of July, 2016 at 5:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Whitener. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Susan Olson, Douglas Single and newly sworn-in Commissioners Greg Avakian and Keri Schwab, Vice Chair Susan Updegrove, and Chair Jeff Whitener Absent: None Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett, Fire Chief Garret Olson, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, GIS Technician Nicola Leyshon, Senior Civil Engineer Dan VanBeveren. PRESENTATIONS INTRODUCTIONS APPOINTMENTS 1. Oath of Office The City Clerk provided the Oath of Office for two new Parks and Recreation Commissioners; Greg Avakian and Keri Schwab PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2016 AS AMENDED BY VICE CHAIR UPDEGROVE, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER OLSON. 2. Consideration of Minutes CARRIED 6:0:0:0 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the meeting of 06/07/2016. Packet Pg. 149 10 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of July 6, 2016 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS BUSINESS ITEM 3. Presentation of Bishop Peak Preparedness Plan Fire Chief Garret Olson presented to the Commission an update of the preliminary assessment of emergency response access and citizen egress in the area around Bishop Peak trail. The Fire Chief Olson said that in response to concerns expressed by residents in the area of the Bishop Peak trail, the Fire Department and Information Technology (IT) Graphic Information Systems GIS) staff conducted a study to assess the risk in the region and in other wildland interface areas, the City Fire Department’s ability to access areas at risk, and the ability of residents and visitors to evacuate if so advised by emergency response personnel. He added that to fully assess the risk, city staff developed scientific modeling for several scenarios related to a fire started in this region and in other wildland interface areas of the City. Based on a preliminary assessment of the GIS modeling and the access and egress needs, the Fire Department determined the Bishop Peak area to be unique and developed a concept plan to discontinue all on street parking on both sides of Highland Drive starting at Oakridge Drive as well as on the west side of Oakridge Drive starting at Highland Drive. He added that there are currently no air craft available in San Luis County that could be used for an immediate mutual aid fire response. Staff is recommending a fuel reduction focus area at the top of Highland Drive (at trailhead access). Fire Chief Olson said that this initial concept to restrict parking along Highland and Oakridge drive is open to complete revision if more creative or different solutions come to light during the process which provides for the minimum necessary access and egress in the event of a fire in this region. Questions for the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider for this region include: a) What possible solutions to reduce fire risk would the Commissioners encourage City staff to consider, including such topics as street and parking design and vegetation management on City controlled property? b) In support of no parking recommendation, vegetation management and education awareness, landscape awareness c) What possible solutions to enhance Fire emergency response access and operations would the Commissioners encourage City staff to consider? Previous Commission public meetings to discuss alternate dirt road to allow fire access through open space there was neighbor opposition of this proposal. Director Stanwyck noted MTC studies where transportation could be improved to meet community needs. There is a bus stop on Highland and Patricia, bike racks at trailheads and weekend shuttles to trailheads. Commissioner Avakian consider closing the Highland Trailhead. Fire Chief Olson added that the City could explore policy amendments to allow private property assistance with fire mitigation efforts such as weed abatement Packet Pg. 150 10 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of July 6, 2016 Page 3 and/or modernization of building codes (new roof materials, spark arrestors, fire resistant exterior, fire sprinklers, etc.) c) What possible solutions to ensure sufficient resident and visitor evacuation needs would the Commissioners encourage City staff to consider? Discontinue parking and designated a walking path, with vehicle access to one side. Additional No smoking signs at trailheads. Flyers or pamphlets given to residents that live in high fire danger areas. City Staff anticipates presenting to the City Council with recommendations and funding options as part of the next Financial Planning process. Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Olson asked if the scenarios included a response from the Fire Department. Nicola responded yes, the modeling is based upon worst case scenario. Vice Chair Updegrove asked if fires have occurred here before. Chief Olson responded yes, typically cause by birds on electrical wires. Commissioner Schwab asked how many people would be displaced with the limiting parking. Director Stanwyck responded that this area is private property which the City not control. She added that the nearby school has significant parking which is available to the public for use. Director Stanwyck said that Patricia Lane can hold 30-40 parking spots – mostly adjacent to undeveloped property. Commissioner Single asked how to prevent fires in this region. Chief Olson responded that there are a multitude of factors that contribute to fire prevention and mitigation such as vegetation management, restriction of parking, defensible space among residential homes and community awareness and education about the risks of this area. Chair Whitener, modeling for mitigation activities. Chief Olson said they can remodel based on site -by- site assessments but unfortunately much of the fire risk is located on private property. Public Comments: Landy Fike, SLO Resident, asked if there are laws for private property vegetation clearance that confronts the streets. Chief Olson said that Public Works has provided the minimum standards for clearance for this area in public right-of-way. 4. Update for Laguna Lake Park Accessible Trail Project Senior Civil Engineer, Dan VanBeveren, presented a project update to the Commission with proposed recommendations for construction of the Laguna Lake Park ADA Accessible Trail. The Laguna Lake area has been identified as an ideal location for an accessible trial due to its flat topography. Staff VanBeveren added that the intent of the project was to upgrade an existing trail, which runs along the northeastern edge of Laguna Lake, and to add a new section of trail along a small peninsula near the southern end of the existing trail. He added that by utilizing decomposed granite as the surface type for this project, it would require considerable ongoing maintenance to maintain ADA compliance. In recognition of these challenges, staff is recommending utilizing a commercial product which uses Packet Pg. 151 10 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of July 6, 2016 Page 4 decomposed granite mixed with cement as a binding agent (resin-based binder) – a method which has worked well in maintaining the integrity of the pathway surface. Staff VanBeveren added that it is very unlikely that the entire length of the new trail can be installed with the total project budget of $250,000. Director Stanwyck added that the Sinsheimer Playground Project has recently received a grant which would now free up a portion of general funds which could be used for this project. Staff VanBeveren said the amount of the overall general fund savings of the Sinshiemer Playground Equipment Replacement project would be dependent upon the amount of level of project bids received. Staff will have more certainty of available funds once that project is awarded. Questions for the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider are: a) What surface type would be preferred by the Commissioners in the construction of the new ADA accessible trail at Laguna Lake Park? Resin aggregate flexible p and recommends a sight visit to a location that has used this material to observe how well it holds up. b) What surface color would be preferred by the Commissioners in the construction of the new ADA accessible trail at Laguna Lake Park? Natural Colors, tan aggregate resin surface with natural gray concrete. c) As a result of limited project budget it is unlikely that the accessible trail system can be constructed in its entirety (approximately 3100 feet of trail network). Staff is recommending construction of the shorter “ peninsula trail” loop be completed first, with the construction of the northern trail connections occurring in later phases as additional funding is made available. i. Is the Commission in support of staff’s recommendation to construct the peninsula trail loop first as part of the project’s “ base bid”? Yes ii. What other possible solutions to maximize trail construction would the Commission encourage City staff to consider? Exploring of other grant funds Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Avakian asked if the resin materials had a more rubberized feel. Staff VanBeveren marketed as a natural looking pavement surface. He added that there is a trail leading up to Golden Gate Park that uses this material. Vice Chair Updegrove asked how long this material has been in place. Staff VanBeveren utilized a local consultant to provide the materials research and provide recommendations for use in this application. Commissioner Avakian asked if there was enough current ADA parking spot at this trailhead location. Staff VanBeveren said there is currently one disability parking spot available. Director Stanwyck said additional parking spaces could be considered once the need for additional ADA parking has been exceed. Public Comments: None. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER OLSON, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR UPDEGROVE, to recommend City Council approval of the resin aggregate material with a Packet Pg. 152 10 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of July 6, 2016 Page 5 natural color gray concrete, with the construction of the peninsula trail a priority for construction. Recommend Council’s approval of additional funds from the Sinsheimer Playground Project be applied to this project for complete trail construction. Motion passed 6:0:0:0 on the following roll call vote: AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, SINGLE, SCHWAB, UPDEGROVE, WHITENER NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. Subcommittee Assignments Committee Liaison Adult and Senior Programming Doug Single Bicycle Advisory Susan Olson City Facilities (Damon, golf, pool, joint use) Greg Avakian Jack House Committee Susan Updegrove Tree Committee Rodney Thurman Youth Sports Association Keri Schwab 6. Director’s Report Director Stanwyck provided a brief overview of current Parks and Recreation programming. Box Art Policy additions to Council 7/19 SLO Triathlon 7/24 (825 registered so far) Summer Youth Camps in Full Swing (3rd Week) Jr. Giants (100 kids) Jack House (1,001 Visitors) Movies in the Mission, 8/6, 8/13, 8/20 Rangers: trail building continues, week-long Jr Ranger Camp in August, three kiosks constructed, Waddell Property Acquisition of 150 acres at Froom Ranch in process Family Overnight Camp Out in Laguna Lake Park will be held on August 13-14 Skate Park Ramp n’ Roll 8/20 (Fun & Educational Event) Volunteer Appreciation Dinner 9/22 (at Jack House) COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Olson asked if the School District had been approached about adding a dog park to the Sinsheimer Park Location. LIAISON REPORTS Adult and Senior Programming: No Report. Bicycle Advisory: No Report. City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): No Report. Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove reported that the Jack House had its 1,001 visitor. Art-After-Dark program continues with 67 visitors this past weekend. There are ice cream sundaes and Victorian Games on the odd numbered Sundays in the Packet Pg. 153 10 Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of July 6, 2016 Page 6 Garden from 1-4:00p.m. The Committee discovered mold in some of the furniture and books and are monitoring on how to address the mold issue. Photographs and paper collections are currently being assessed for integrity. A strategic planning event was held with the Jack House committee, Friends of the Jack House and Jack Family Estate. Tree Committee: Commissioner Olson said there was discussion of tree removals at 91 Palomar. The request to remove a fichus tree on Santa Rosa was denied. Youth Sports: No Report. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission is scheduled for 03, August, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 08/03/2016 Packet Pg. 154 10 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director Prepared By: Kristin Eriksson, Purchasing Analyst SUBJECT: AWARD OF AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to execute a new contract for auditing services to Glenn, Burdette, Phillips & Bryson, Certified Public Accountants (GBPB), for a term two fiscal years, beginning with the current fiscal year, to complete the term contemplated in the request for proposals (RFP) for such services. REPORT-IN-BRIEF An RFP for auditing services was previously issued on April 16, 2011 which requested proposals for a five fiscal-year contract with an option to renew for an additional three additional fiscal years, for a total of up to eight years which expires in June, 2018. The RFP resulted in five proposals from firms. GBPB, the vendor providing existing auditing services at the time, was selected by the review team and the Interim Finance Director recommended that the Council award a three fiscal-year contract with the option to renew for an additional two years. The Council voted to award the contract at its regular meeting on June 7, 2011. The contract, as amended, expired on June 30, 2016. However, GBPB has continued providing auditing services, beyond the time period originally approved by the Council, pursuant to “Engagement Letters” provided by GBPB. It is recommended that the City enter into a new contract with GBPB under the prior RFP to cover services through fiscal year 2017-2018, at which point the City will issue a new RFP for auditing services. DISCUSSION On April 5, 2011, the Council authorized issuing an RFP for auditing services. The RFP was posted on the City’s website, advertised in the local newspaper and forwarded directly to nine California firms with experience in local government auditing on April 16, 2011. Six firms participated in a pre-approval teleconference on April 20, 2011. The City received five proposals, as summarized in the attached Council Agenda Report dated June 7, 2011, and selected GBPB as the desired contractor. The evaluation team determined that changing audit firms at that time would require a significant amount of staff time from all departments during a time of increased workloads due to multiple software upgrades and work related to Major Cit y Goals. The team concluded that such a disruption would not be beneficial to the City at that time. However, the team also determined that maintaining stability should be balanced against the professional responsibility to act as stewards of the public trust and secure the best pricing and diligently evaluate auditing services to ensure the City’s needs are met. Therefore, they recommended that the Council approve a contract with a three fiscal-year initial term with an option to renew for two additional fiscal Packet Pg. 155 11 years, rather than the contract for five fiscal-years with an option to renew for three additional years originally contemplated in the RFP. The Council approved the contract award as recommended. GBPB provided auditing services throughout the initial term of the contract, which expired on June 30, 2014 without action to extend the term. However, on December 15, 2014, the City signed an amendment to add additional services to the original statement of work (financial statement compilation) and to extend the contract for an additional two fiscal years. That amendment expired on June 30, 2016. Despite the expiration of the contract, GBPB continued to perform the work in accordance with the original proposal without a formal agreement in place. A total of $56,450 has been paid to GBPB this fiscal year for work already performed. Because the original RFP requested proposals for a possible total of eight fiscal years, purchasing policy allows for cumulative contracts for that entire term, assuming Council approval is in place. As the auditing services are crucial services for the City, it is recommended that a new contract be awarded under the remaining term contemplated by the original RFP. Prior to expiration of the new contract, Finance will request permission to issue a new RFP for auditing services. FISCAL IMPACT The total estimated fees for the proposed two fiscal-years contract with GBPB are $138,800. Allowing for some additional fees as necessary, the recommended total not-to-exceed amount for the two fiscal-years contract will be $158,800. The fees proposed for GBPB’s services are set forth below: 2016-2017 2017-2018 City’s Basic Financial Statements/GAAN Appropriations Limit $40,700 $42,000 Compilation of CAFR $10,300 $10,600 TDA Financial Audit Report $5,250 $5,400 Single Audit Act Report $7,500 $7,725 Whale Rock Commission Audit Report $4,600 $4,725 Total $68,350 $70,450 ALTERNATIVES The Council could choose to require a new RFP for auditing services at this time. As ther e is no contract currently in place for such services, this action would either require cessation of auditing services pending the RFP process or continuation of services without a contract, in violation of City purchasing policy, and so is not recommended at this time. The Council could choose to award the contract for only one fiscal year to complete services in Packet Pg. 156 11 the current fiscal year (2016-2017) and require a new RFP for auditing services for fiscal year 2017-2018. Although the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practices recommends cities issue RFPs every five years, the policy also recognizes the value in continuity of services and minimization of start-up costs, so it does not require that cities change auditors every five years. Further, changing audit firms would require significant work for staff in several City departments, including Finance, and public Works and Utilities who interface with the auditors in preparing for the TDA and Whale Rock reports. City staff is already impacted by several other workload factors, including the pending due dates for the five-year budget forecast and two-year operating budgets, the Motion Project. Therefore, this action is not recommended at this time. Attachments: a - Auditor Agreement Spec 91067 b - Proposal for Auditing Services ("Engagement Letter") c - 2011 Proposal 91607 GBPB d - Award of Audit Services Contract 6-7-11 Packet Pg. 157 11 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on , by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and Glenn, Burdette, Phillips & Bryson, Certified Public Accountants, a Professional Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Contractor. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, City requested proposals for auditing services per Specification No. 91067. WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal which was accepted by City for said auditing services through 2018. WHEREAS, a prior agreement that was entered into between City and Contractor expired on December 13, 2016. WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue to contract for Contractor’s services through the remainder of the period contemplated in Specification No. 91067. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2016 until June 30, 2018. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91067 and Contractor's proposal dated April 27, 2011 are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. Additionally, Contractor’s Engagement Letter, dated February 24, 2017 and attached hereto is hereby incorporated and made part of this Agreement. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing auditing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall accept therefore compensation as stated in Contractor’s Engagement Letter, dated February 24, 2017, and in no event shall exceed $158,800. Packet Pg. 158 11 4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said Specification. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager of the City. 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contractor Al Eschenbach, CPA Glenn, Burdette, Phillips & Bryson Certified Public Accountants A Professional Corporation 1150 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Email: al.eschenbach@glennburdette.com // // // // // // // // // // Packet Pg. 159 11 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ____________________________________ By:____________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR _____________________________________ By: ___________________________________ City Attorney Packet Pg. 160 11 Packet Pg. 16111 Packet Pg. 16211 Packet Pg. 16311 Packet Pg. 16411 Packet Pg. 16511 Packet Pg. 16611 Packet Pg. 16711 Packet Pg. 16811 Packet Pg. 16911 Packet Pg. 17011 Packet Pg. 17111 Packet Pg. 17211 Packet Pg. 17311 Packet Pg. 17411 Packet Pg. 17511 Packet Pg. 17611 Packet Pg. 177 11 Packet Pg. 178 11 Packet Pg. 179 11 Packet Pg. 180 11 Packet Pg. 181 11 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 182 11 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anne Schneider, PE, Chief Building Official Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 7, 2017 TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OF TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 1632 (2017 Series) repealing Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing Inspection. DISCUSSION On March 7, 2017, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1632 (2017 Series), which repeals Chapter 15.10 Rental Housing Inspection. No language is proposed to be added. The meeting followed a comprehensive public workshop and discussion of the Rental Housing Inspection Program, which occurred on February 16, 2017. Ordinance No. 1632 is now ready for adoption and will become effective 30 days after its passage. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt Ordinance No 1632. The Council could decide not to move forward with the repeal of Chapter 15.10. This alternative is not recommended because the City Council was unanimous in its direction to staff to move forward with the repeal of the program, which has already begun. 2. Direct changes to Ordinance No. 1632. The City Council could direct staff to make changes to Ordinance No. 1632. This alternative is not recommended because the action directed by the City Council was to repeal the ordinance in its entirety. Council also directed staff to develop revised code enforcement priorities, which will return the Council for consideration in September 2017. Attachments: a - Ordinance - Repeal of RHIP Packet Pg. 183 12 O _____ ORDINANCE NO. 1632 (2017 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 1616 (2015 Series) establishing the Rental Housing Inspection Program (the “Program”) which became effective on June 18, 2015, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal the Program based on community feedback and changed values of the Council since the original adoption of the Program. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). SECTION 2. Chapter 15.10 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled Rental Housing Inspection, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any member of the public. Packet Pg. 184 12 Ordinance No. 1632 (2017 Series) Page 2 O _____ INTRODUCED on the 7th day of March 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of 20__, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 185 12 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 186 12 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director Prepared By: Vinay Jathanna, Technology Projects Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Contract with Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) in the amount of $65,970 to engage GFOA for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system implementation. DISCUSSION Council authorized one-time expenditure in 2016-17 with the Supplemental Budget as part of the Efficiency, Effectiveness & Transparency Initiative to allocate $65,000 for Government Officers Association (GFOA) to work with the City as an advisor to develop requirements and assist with selection of software for the Enterprise Resource Planning system implementation. The attached proposal from GFOA provides a breakdown of their consulting services and their cost to help the City design best practices for core business processes, document requirements that will be used in the preparation of an RFP to solicit bids from qualified ERP software vendors and help in the selection and contract negotiations. The proposal has seven task sections with costs broken down for each task: 1. Task 1: Project Planning 2. Task 2: Process Design and Requirements 3. Task 3: RFP Document 4. Task 4: System Selection Services 5. Task 5: Discovery 6. Task 6: Contract Negotiations 7. Task 7: Ongoing Advisory Services Background As part of the Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness & Transparency Initiative, the City contracted with the GFOA in 2015 to conduct an assessment of the Finance Department. In their key recommendations, GFOA identified “ripple effects” often negative impacts on other parts of the organization from issues in Finance. The “ripple” effect creates redundant process and additional work required in other departments. It identified the use of inadequate systems driving an over-reliance on manual or “side” systems, complicated business processes, and confusion around assignment of duties as responsibilities and expectations expanded without additional staff (e.g. new or additional work is given to a person because of availability not skill set or work flow) and a lack of processes and tools to effectively communicate with the public. Packet Pg. 187 13 Following recommendations were made by GFOA: 1) Immediately address the lack of a complete financial system, 2) Align a chart of accounts with business requirements and system capabilities, 3) Streamline ineffective business policy and process, 4) Clarify roles and responsibilities and implement service level agreements for all central functions. GFOA concluded that these core issues represent the most significant problems faced by the City’s Finance function and cause ripple effects throughout all City departments. An outdated financial system inhibits the department’s ability to improve efficiency and effectiveness with temporary resources. The GFOA report was presented to Council on April 19, 2016 with the above four recommendations. A Significant Operating Program Change that was approved with the 2016-17 Supplemental Budget for the ERP project includes an $80,000 for continued consulting services from GFOA to ensure implementation of their recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT The amount requested was approved with the 2016-17 Supplemental budget. There are no additional fiscal impacts. ALTERNATIVES If the request is not approved, the Motion project team will proceed without the GFOA’s expertise and knowledge of the methodology required for the to-be process design, RFP requirement gathering, identifying the best vendors who fit City’s ERP requirements. GFOA’s is a national organization with proven expertise. GFOA has experience in implementation of ERP systems and has worked with many jurisdictions on similar project. GFOA has implemented hundreds of ERP systems throughout North America. GFOA is an organization that develops best practices to advise governments across the nation. GFOA insight into the credibility and reputation of vendors and considerable experience is invaluable to ensure that the City selects a vendor who would make the Motion project successful and meet our community and organization needs. Attachments: a - GFOA Proposal SLO-ERP Assistance Packet Pg. 188 13 PROPOSAL TO: City of San Luis Obispo, CA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Research and Consulting Center Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) September 14, 2016 Note: This proposal and description of GFOA methodologies is for the entity listed above. All information herein is confidential and proprietary to GFOA. Packet Pg. 189 13 Government Finance Officers Association 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601-1210 312.977.9700 fax: 312.977.4806 Washington, DC Office 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,  Suite 309 Washington, DC 20004  202.393.8020 fax: 202.393.0780 www.gfoa.org September 14, 2016 Derek Johnson City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 EMAIL: djohnson@slocity.org Dear Derek, The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of San Luis Obispo for ongoing services to assist with the City’s ERP replacement project. This proposal follows GFOA’s recommendation during an earlier engagement where GFOA recommended that the City replace its ERP system. With this project we are excited about continuing GFOA’s relationship with the City and look forward to assisting the City with helping to establish the foundation for its financial, purchasing, human resource, and payroll processes. More than 450 governments, including many in California, have found value in our high level of expertise and our detailed approach to ERP projects. As one of the premier membership associations for public-sector professionals, GFOA can offer independent, objective, and best practice-focused consulting services consistent with our mission to improve government management. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the proposal, please let me know. Sincerely, Mike Mucha Director, Research and Consulting Government Finance Officers Association Packet Pg. 190 13 Page 3 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview of Proposal .................................................................................................................... 4 Task 1: Project Planning............................................................................................................... 5 Task 2: Process Design and Requirements ................................................................................. 5 Task 3: RFP Document ................................................................................................................. 7 Task 4: System Selection Services ................................................................................................ 8 Task 5: Discovery .......................................................................................................................... 9 Task 6: Contract Negotiations ...................................................................................................... 9 Task 7: Ongoing Advisory Services ........................................................................................... 10 Project Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 11 Price .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Project Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix: GFOA Profile ............................................................................................................ 14 Packet Pg. 191 13 Page 4 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Overview of Proposal ERP system implementations offer a great deal of promise for improving business processes, empowering employees with tools to become more effective, and ultimately transforming the entire organization. However, implementing these systems is a complex effort, and many organizations struggle to realize many of the promised benefits. Based on GFOA’s experience, one critical success factor is proper preparation and a structured approach to project readiness. GFOA has assisted numerous governments in planning for ERP projects and has developed an approach that embeds these important steps within other activities such as the procurement process. In addition, GFOA’s approach includes a number of sequential steps that build on each other, ultimately resulting in a detailed contract and statement of work that is centered on public- sector best practices for ERP contract management and detailed functional requirements. This proposal for ERP advisory services will focus on an important initial first step in ERP preparation, process design, project governance, definition of functional requirements, and support during the selection process.. GFOA has divided this proposal into the following tasks:  Task 1: Project Planning  Task 2: Process Design and Requirements  Task 3: RFP Draft  Task 4: System Selection Services  Task 5: Discovery  Task 6: Contract Negotiations  Task 7: Implementation Transition GFOA consultants assigned to this project include:  Barry McMeekin, Consulting Practice Manager (Project Manager/Project Lead)  Eva Olsaker, Senior Manager (Consultant)  Mike Mucha, Director, Research and Consulting (Engagement Manager) GFOA has selected these resources because of their knowledge of the City, knowledge of comparable organizations and experience with business process improvement and change management projects. GFOA staffs all projects with experienced and capable consultants who have a proven track record of managing projects independently as well as working effectively within a project team. As a result, the City can feel confident in turning to any consultant assigned to the project to provide quality guidance on issues related to any of the tasks included in this proposal. Packet Pg. 192 13 Page 5 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Task 1: Project Planning No project can succeed without proper planning and tools to manage the effort. Working together, GFOA and the City project manager will prepare the following tools, which will be essential to project coordination. We anticipate using the City’s long term schedule for its Motion project and adding in detail related specifically to the ERP procurement and ERP readiness portion of the project.  Project Plan –This document (typically created in Microsoft Project, although it can be developed in Excel if the City is not familiar with Microsoft Project) identifies all the detailed tasks for the project, the people who responsible for executing those tasks, the estimated time required to complete them, and any ways in which a given task may be dependent on other tasks.  Project Documentation Procedures – At the beginning of the project, GFOA and the City will identify procedures for communication and posting/sharing of documents. If the City uses a website for project and document management, GFOA consultants can post to that site. If desired, GFOA can also host a website with collaboration tools specifically for this project. Task 1: Project Planning Phase Duration:  2 weeks Cost  Included Deliverables  D0: Project Plan Task 2: Process Design and Requirements GFOA will work to document standard business processes and develop functional requirements representing the City’s needs for a new system. At each step in the business process, we will determine both the system requirements and implementation requirements, and document them using a Microsoft Excel template that will be included in the eventual request for proposals (RFP. Requirement development focuses on functional requirements that define what needs to be completed (such as tasks, outputs, interfaces, calculations, processing, etc.) rather than how the system or the organization handles tasks currently. This allows for future improvement and full utilization of the system tools and built-in processes to make the City more efficient. The expected scope of the project and scope of business process requirements is listed below. Included in this phase is assistance to help with the City’s chart of account re-design. GFOA strongly recommends that all organizations evaluate their chart of accounts prior to embarking on an ERP replacement project. Based on GFOA’s review of the City’s chart of accounts, GFOA feels that this will be an essential component of project success. Packet Pg. 193 13 Page 6 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Process List Process Task / Topics Accounting  Chart of Accounts  General Ledger Transactions  Grant / Project Tracking  Financial Reporting Budget  Operating Budget  Capital Budget  Budget Adjustments / Amendments Procure – Pay  Vendors  Purchase Requisitions  Purchase Orders  Contract Management  Change Order  Receiving  Accounts Payable Customer Billing  Customer File  Billing  Accounts Receivable Treasury  Cash Receipts / POS  Disbursements  Bank Reconciliation  Investments Asset Management  Asset Acquisition  Asset Lifecycle (Facilities, Fleet, Equipment)  Depreciation  Transfer / Disposal / Retirement Human Resources  Positions  Employee File  Benefit Enrollment  Personnel Evaluations  Disciplinary Actions / Grievance  Risk Management (Injury / Workers Comp)  Training / Certifications Personnel Actions  Recruitment  New Hire  Personnel Actions (Salary Adjustment / Position Change) Time Entry – Payroll  Time Entry  Time Approval  Payroll Calculations  Payroll Processing  Leave Management (FMLA) Task 2: Requirements Development Phase Duration:  1-2 months Cost  $ 20,250 Deliverables  D2: Process Design  D3: Requirements Packet Pg. 194 13 Page 7 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Task 3: RFP Document In parallel with Task 2, GFOA will work with the City to prepare an overall procurement strategy designed to accomplish the organization’s requirements and business goals, and mitigate risks during the project. The procurement strategy will define the scope of the RFP and the strategic choices for how the RFP is written, and identify a specific plan for moving forward into the procurement process. In this phase, GFOA will also develop a detailed RFP document. GFOA’s RFP format is designed to remove disparity between proposals and to provide as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible. In addition, GFOA develops all RFPs with the end goal in mind – a contract that mitigates risk and leads to a successful project. GFOA has a template RFP that was specifically designed for ERP procurements and has been continually updated, as required by changes in the ERP market. However, we are flexible and can either use this template or a City RFP template, and we can work with City staff to accommodate essential information, questions, and terms. When complete, the RFP document will include information to help communicate the following to potential ERP vendors: 1) Procurement terms and conditions. 2) Detailed vendor response templates. 3) Functional requirements. 4) To-be process definition. 5) Interface definition. 6) Technical documentation. 7) Key objectives / goals / critical success factors for the project. 8) Service-level expectations. 9) Other information necessary for vendors to prepare detailed response s that meet the City’s needs. Task 3: RFP Document Phase Duration:  1-2 months Cost  $4,700 Deliverables  D4: RFP Document Packet Pg. 195 13 Page 8 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Task 4: System Selection Services GFOA will provide ongoing project advisory services to help the County coordinate and manage its ERP selection project. GFOA consultants assigned to this project have managed many similar projects with other local governments and will bring that experience to the County’s project. Similarly, GFOA will pull examples from training seminars, other governments, and ongoing research, along with consulting templates that are regularly used in “more involved” GFOA projects. GFOA’s system selection and procurement methodology relies on principles of fairness, attention to detail, and competition, yet remains flexible enough to adapt to local procurement laws or other unique situations. In addition, the approach is continually enhanced by feedback from the hundreds of public-sector clients we work with, our own staff experience, and the vendor community. For this part of the project, GFOA will provide coaching, overall guidance, and planning assistance. The County will be responsible for facilitating the proposal assessment portion of the project. GFOA expects that the County use an approach similar to the one below. GFOA Approach GFOA’s methodology is based on a series of elevations that “promote” proposals to the next level of evaluation. Through defined steps, vendors will be evaluated and scored according to pre- defined criteria, with the top vendors moving on to compete at the next step. GFOA’s standard evaluation process includes four steps, shown in the table below. Written Proposals: The County will review all written proposals and identify three (3) proposals to elevate to software demonstrations. Vendors will be notified and scheduled for demos after the County’s elevation meeting. Software Demonstrations and Implementation Presentations Approximately two (2) weeks prior to each vendor’s scheduled software demonstration, the County will send the demo scripts to the vendor. Demos will be heavily scripted and require the vendor to go through system business processes. The focus of the software demos should be to evaluate system features and capabilities rather than to look at the “bells and whistles.” It is expected that demonstrations will last approximately three (3) days per vendor. At the conclusion of software demonstrations, the County will evaluate the demonstrations and elevate two (2) proposals for the Discovery phase. Software demonstrations will be a combination of vendor presentations on software features and a discussion of implementation issues. Step Vendors Written Proposals Unlimited Software Demonstrations 3 Discovery 2 Final Contract Negotiations 1 Packet Pg. 196 13 Page 9 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Task 4: Ongoing Advisory Services Phase Duration:  Duration of Engagement Cost*  $16,000 Deliverables  D5: High-Level Proposal Assessment  D6: Templates, Example Documents  D7: Demo Scripts  D8: Ongoing Project Management and Regular Check-In Meetings * Note: GFOA will invoice for this task upon completion of Task 6. GFOA can provide additional services such as performing a detailed proposal analysis of an proposals received by the City ($2,500 per proposal) or facilitate vendor demos and interviews ($4,500 per vendor). Task 5: Discovery During Discovery, the City will begin working with any remaining vendors to prepare a statement of work for the implementation. For many organizations, the Request for Clarification (RFC) and Discovery process acts as the final opportunity to clarify unresolved issues before making a final elevation decision. Before the Discovery phase, each vendor is asked to provide a written response to an RFC letter outlining any remaining issues (typically focused on implementation issues). Then, during Discovery, each remaining vendor is invited back onsite for one more day of presentation. During this presentation, any remaining issues with software functionality, implementation approach, data conversion, contract terms, or scope are clarified, and vendors are asked to make any necessary revisions to their proposals. At the conclusion of Discovery, the City will enter contract into negotiations with one vendor. Task 5: Discovery Phase Duration:  1-2 months Cost*  $ 9,300 Deliverables  D6: Clarification Documents  D7: Discovery Staffing * GFOA assumes that the City will go through a Discovery process with two (2) vendors. If additional vendors are included, additional costs will apply. If the City goes through Discovery with just one vendor, GFOA will reduce its Discovery fees by 40%. Task 6: Contract Negotiations One of the most valuable services that GFOA provides its clients is the negotiation of software contract and implementation service agreements. Too often, governments are pitted against software vendors that have negotiated contracts many times before. Understandably, software vendors and their implementation partners want to maximize profit and minimize risk. GFOA has developed a unique contracting methodology, using our membership network, to benchmark Packet Pg. 197 13 Page 10 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services prices and terms. We propose to use this methodology – which also ensures that GFOA’s best practices are included in the contract – for this engagement. GFOA will be involved with developing a software license contract, software maintenance agreement, and implementation services agreement. In addition, GFOA will take the lead in developing the statement of work, a critical document. The statement of work outlines responsibility for the implementation, and it is the primary reason GFOA consultants provide such a high level of detailed analysis throughout the procurement . GFOA will ensure that the City’s statement of work is defined to a fine level of detail in order to prevent any unnecessary issues or misunderstandings during implementation. Task 6: Contract Negotiations Phase Duration:  1 -2 months Cost  $15,720 Deliverables  D8: Contract Negotiations  D9: Statement of Work Development Task 7: Ongoing Advisory Services GFOA will provide ongoing project advisory services to help the City coordinate and manage its ERP selection project. GFOA consultants assigned to this project have managed many similar projects with other local governments and will bring that experience to the City’s project. For this part of the project, GFOA will provide coaching, overall guidance, and planning assistance. Task 7 Ongoing Advisory Services Phase Duration:  1-2 Months Cost  $225 per hour (other) Deliverables  As necessary GFOA also has provided additional implementation advisory services – focused on business process design (best practice implementation), quality assurance, and contract compliance through the duration of the implementation – for other clients. These services can be contracted at a rate of $225/hour or the approximate equivalent in fixed-fee deliverables. Packet Pg. 198 13 Page 11 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Project Schedule GFOA has proposed the following high-level schedule for completing all the work described in this proposal. Based on conversations with the City, GFOA believes that this schedule is consistent with the City’s plans, but we would modify our schedule to better sync with the City’s overall project schedule if necessary. GFOA would be prepared to begin work approximately one (1) month after contract signing. Proposed Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Task 1: Project Planning Task 2: Process Design / Requirements Task 3: RFP Task 4: Ongoing Advisory Services Task 5: Discovery Task 6: Contract Negotiations Task 7: Ongoing Implementation Advisory Services (optional) Packet Pg. 199 13 Page 12 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Price Unless noted, all pricing is provided as a fixed fee, inclusive of all travel costs incurred by GFOA staff. GFOA will invoice for project deliverables upon completion of project deliverables. Summary of Fees by Task Phase/Deliverable Milestone Price 1 Project Planning Included D1 Project Plan 2 Process Design and Requirements $20,250 D2 Process Design D3 Requirements 3 RFP $4,700 D4 RFP Document 4 System Selection Advisory Services $16,000 D8 Ongoing Project Management and Regular Check-In Meetings 5 Discovery $9,300 D9 Clarification Questions (RFC Letters) D10 Discovery Staffing 6 Contract Negotiation $15,720 D11 Contract Negotiations D12 Statement of Work Development 7 Implementation Transition Ongoing Advisory Services ($225/hour) TOTAL $65,970 Packet Pg. 200 13 Page 13 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Project Assumptions  GFOA assumes that City staff will be available to participate in meetings and provide information necessary to the project.  GFOA will complete tasks in this proposal with a combination of onsite and off-site work. Work performed off site will include review of project deliverables and the development of GFOA reports.  Each site visit will include one or two GFOA consultants and last approximately two to three days (depending on planned activities). GFOA site visits will be scheduled in advance with the City’s project manager. The City will be responsible for inviting appropriate stakeholders to meetings, based on agenda topics.  GFOA has proposed all services listed for a fixed fee, based on completion of deliverables (unless noted). The fixed fee amount and hourly rate includes all expenses including travel. GFOA will invoice monthly for the amount listed in this proposal for tasks/milestones completed within the previous month.  When performing work onsite, GFOA staff will be provided with appropriate office workspace.  If it becomes necessary for the City to request additional resources or expand scope beyond what is listed in this proposal, such additional work product will be secured as an amendment to the contract between the City and the GFOA, and the work will be performed at rates of $200 / hour.  As an educational, nonprofit, professional membership association, GFOA reserves the right to publish non-confidential documents describing the results of, or created during, the services described in this scope of work. GFOA will not publish any item that identifies the City without obtaining prior written consent of the government.  GFOA is a nonprofit membership association made up of members representing organizations like the City. GFOA’s liability and indemnification under any agreement reached with your organization will be limited to the extent of fees paid by insurance coverage currently in force. This limitation applies to all exposures under this engagement.  The City recognizes that GFOA’s role is to provide information, analysis, and advisory services. As such, GFOA bears no responsibility for the performance of the software, hardware, or implementation service suppliers. Packet Pg. 201 13 Page 14 of 14 GFOA Business Process Improvement and ERP Advisory Services Appendix: GFOA Profile Company Information Official Company Name: Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada Company Ownership: GFOA is a 501(c)3 nonprofit association governed by an 18-person executive board made up of public-sector professionals. Location of Company Offices 203 North LaSalle Street Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 309 Washington D.C. 20004 Location of Office Servicing CA Accounts: GFOA’s primary office is in Chicago. All research and consulting staff are located in the Chicago office. Number of Employees:: GFOA has approximately 60 employees. Location from which employees will be assigned: Chicago, IL Contact Information Mike Mucha Director, Research and Consulting 203 North LaSalle Street Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 Office: 312-977-9700 Direct: 312-578-2282 Email: mmucha@gfoa.org Packet Pg. 202 13 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk SUBJECT: VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES ON A CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION” AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED “NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING” RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive, and accept the City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition; and 2. Direct staff to prepare a report analyzing its impact and present the report the City Council on or before April 18, 2017. DISCUSSION On February 16, 2017, proponents of An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and to Adopt New Chapter 15.10 Entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing” submitted a signed petition with the City Clerk’s office. Pursuant to the California Elections Code 9211, the petition was examined for signature verification by the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder. Background On August 30, 2016, proponents Stewart D. Jenkins, Daniel J. Knight and Daniel L. Carpenter filed a Notice of Intention to Circulate a Petition, together with a request for preparation of the ballot title and summary by the City Attorney. (Attachment A) The City Attorney prepared the ballot title to read, “An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and to adopt new Chapter 15.10 entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing” (Attachment B) On February 16, 2017, an initiative petition was submitted for filing in the City Clerk’s Office. After prima facie review, the petition appeared to exceed the minimum requirement of 3,918 signatures, or fifteen percent (15%) of the City’s 26,122 registered voters (per the County Elections official’s last report of registration to the Secretary of State.) Pursuant to the California Elections Code 9115, the County Clerk-Recorder of Voters was contracted to verify the signatures using the random sample method with the following results: (Attachment C) Packet Pg. 203 14 Total number of signatures submitted: 7,112 Total number of signatures checked (random): 500 Total number of sufficient signatures (based on random): 381 Total number of insufficient signatures (based on random): 119 Total number of insufficient because of duplication: 2 Total Number of signatures required: 3,918 (15% x 26,122 voters) Total number of signatures valid based on random sampling signatures found sufficient and random sampling formula applied (7112 x 76.2%) 5,419 As the City’s election official, the City Clerk has determined that the initiative petition meets the following criteria: 1) the petition was timely filed; 2) the petition contains the requisite number of valid signatures; and 3) the format of the petition substantially complies with the technical requirements of the California Elections Code and qualifies to be submitted to the voters at a special municipal election. (Attachment D) Elections Code 1405(a) provides that the election shall be held not less than 88 nor more than 103 days after the date of the order of the election. Before ordering the election, the City Council may order a report on the initiative pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212 on any or all of the following: 1. Its fiscal impact. 2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. 3. Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs. 4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses. 5. Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment. 6. Its impact on the use of vacant parcels of land. 7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. 8. Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report. Packet Pg. 204 14 The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the City Clerk certifies sufficiency of the petition. If the City Council orders such report, the last regular meeting of the City Council within the prescribed 30 days is April 18, 2017. When the report is presented, the City Council must either adopt the ordinance within ten days or order an election. While the Election Code allows for 10 days to review the report before the Council is required to make a decision, the following projected preliminary milestones indicates that the report will be presented and the Council will make a decision at the same meeting. RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION ORDINANCE -INITITATIVE TIMELINE DATE E-MINUS (DAYS)DESCRIPTION 1 2/21/2017 -189 Petition Deemed Sufficient for Signature Verification 2 3/13/2017 -169 City Clerk Verifies Sufficiency 3 3/21/2017 -161 City Council Receives and Files Sufficiency Results and Orders Report 4 4/18/2017 -133 City Council Receives Impacts Report- Adopt Unaltered Ordinance or Call Special Election & Deisgnates Subcommitee or Process for Arguments 5 4/19/2017 -132 Post Notice of Deadline for Filing Arguments and Impartial Analyses 7 5/3/2017 -118 Last Day to File Arguments & Impartial Analyses/ 14 days after Council calls election 8 5/13/2017 -108 Last Day to File Rebuttal Arguments/ 10 Days After Arguments 8/29/2017 0 ELECTION DAY FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact for accepting the certification of the petitio n. Should the Council decide to submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters at a Special Election to be held on August 29, 2017, additional costs for conducting the election will be incurred. ALTERNATIVES If the City Council chooses an alternative to the staff recommendation it could take one of the following actions: a) Adopt the ordinance without alternation. This alternative is not recommended due to the measure’s inclusion of untested recitals and conclusions of law and fact that are prejudicial to the City and because there are potential impacts and adverse consequences of adopting the replacement provision that would benefit from further analysis and public consideration by the Council prior to any final actions being taken. b) Direct the City Clerk to return with the necessary resolution(s) to submit the ordinance without alteration to the voters at a Special Election to be held on August 29, 2017. Packet Pg. 205 14 Attachments: a - Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition b - Ballot Title and Summary c - Office of the County Clerk Recorder Petition Statistics d - Certificate of Sufficiency Signed Packet Pg. 206 14 Packet Pg. 207 14 Packet Pg. 208 14 Packet Pg. 209 14 Packet Pg. 210 14 Packet Pg. 211 14 Packet Pg. 212 14 Packet Pg. 213 14 Packet Pg. 214 14 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Ron Combs, Urban Forest Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY STALWORK INC.) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TWO TREES LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET AND REVIEW OF TREE REMOVAL FINES RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment E) denying the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to not allow the removal of two trees at 2466 Augusta Street; 2. Not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of Tree No. 2 and Tree No. 6 (as defined below); and 3. Levy civil penalties associated with the unpermitted removal of Tree No. 1 (also defined below). DISCUSSION Background Chapter 12.24 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s tree regulations. The City’s stated policy for this chapter is as follows: The city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant. Section 12.24.090.B of that chapter, entitled “Tree Removal,” provides certain criteria when trees may be removed. Generally, this section authorizes the Public Works Director to approve the removal of any tree when the tree is dead, dying, or damaged beyond reclamation. Other tree removal requests are required to be reviewed and approved by a City Advisory Body or the City Council. The appropriate body to consider the removal request is dependent on the underlying entitlement being sought. The property located at 2466 Augusta Street is zoned single family residential with one existing residence. The property owners are in the process of substantially remodeling the home with new landscaping in the front and rear yards. As part of the new landscape plan, the property owners are planting several new trees including two multi-trunk fruitless olive trees, a Jacaranda tree and a Japanese Maple. The contractor for the remodel work and landscaping is Stalwork, Inc., the Packet Pg. 215 15 appellant for this item. On January 23, 2017, the Tree Committee considered a request to remove six trees on the property. Figure 1 below shows the locations of these trees in relation to the remodel project. Municipal Code section 12.24.090.D.2 sets forth the Tree Committee’s purview for removal requests. Specifically, that section states: When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal,1 the request shall be reviewed by the tree committee, which may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The Tree Committee reviewed this request and authorized four trees in total to be removed (Tree Nos. 2, 4-6). Of those four authorized tree removals, two trees were authorized to be removed after the ten day appeals period was complete (Nos. 2 and 6) and two additional trees were authorized to be removed subject to the issuance of a building permit approval for a pool (Nos. 4 and 5). Two trees were denied approval to be removed (Nos. 1 and 3). The attached draft minutes of the Tree Committee discuss in some detail the basis for the approvals and denials for each tree. Pursuant to Section 12.24.090 (J) of the City’s Municipal Code, permits for tree removal are technically only issued after the ten-day appeals period has passed and trees are not to be removed until that permit has been issued. 1 Per section 12.24.090.D.1, the City Arborist can approve a tree removal request if, among other reasons, “The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property…[or] the tree is dead or dying or da maged beyond reclamation.” Because the tree was in a healthy condition, the City Arborist could not make the necessary findings for removal. Packet Pg. 216 15 Figure 1 - Site Plan Showing Location of Requested Tree Removals Removal of the Trees On January 31, 2017, three trees were removed from the subject property in vio lation of City’s tree regulations. Two of the trees removed (Tree Nos. 2 and 6) were approved by the Tree Committee but should not have been removed until the appeals period was complete and a permit was issued. One tree (Tree No. 1) that was removed was denied by the Tree Committee and should not have been removed at all. A listing of all six trees, the Tree Committee’s determination and tree status are shown in Table 1. Because Tree No. 1 was removed, the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision regarding that tree is moot. In other words, requesting permission to remove the tree via appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision is unnecessary because that tree is no longer there. The only decision in front of the Council regarding that tree, is whether civil penalties are appropriate. Whether the tree should have been authorized for removal is relevant to the City Council’s decision in this regard. Packet Pg. 217 15 This public hearing is intended to: 1. Review the Tree Committee’s determination regarding the denial of the tree removal request for Tree No. 3; 2. Determine whether to levy civil penalties for the premature removal of Tree Nos. 2 and 6; and 3. Determine whether to levy civil penalties for the unpermitted removal of Tree No. 1. Tree Num. Tree Species Tree Dia. Tree Committee Decision Current Status Subject to Fine 1 California Pepper 24 Inches Removal Denied Removed Yes 2 Monterey Pine 24 Inches Removal Approved Removed Yes* 3 California Pepper 35 Inches Removal Denied Not Removed 4 Eucalyptus 20 Inches Removal Approved Pending Issuance of Building Permit for Pool Construction Not Removed 5 Black Acacia 15 Inches Removal Approved Pending Issuance of Building Permit for Pool Construction Not Removed 6 Black Acacia 14 Inches Removal Approved Removed Yes* * Tree removed prior to appeals period ending thus subject to fine Table 1 – Tree Request List, Determination and Status Public Hearing Items 1. Applicant’s Appeal of Tree Committee’s Determination (Tree Nos. 1 and 3) On February 1, 2017, the appellant submitted an appeal of the Tree Committee’s Determination on the Tree Removal Request for 2466 Augusta was received which was prepared by the project contractor. The appeal is specific to Trees Nos. 1 and 3 shown in previous site map. Tree No. 3 currently is onsite and has not been removed however, as stated above, Tree No. 1 has been removed in violation of the Tree Committee determination. The applicant’s appeal and rationale for this request are included as an attachment in this staff report. Tree No. 1 Tree No. 1 is a California Pepper located adjacent to the current driveway as shown above. The application for removal cited safety concerns as well as tree condition for the basis for removal. The Tree Committee considered these issues and had a split vote. Some committee members felt there was justification while others did not. Ultimately the committee denied removal on a vote of 5-2. The appeal now cites additional concerns regarding traffic safety and limited visibility of using Packet Pg. 218 15 the driveway to and from the property. The appeal also identifies a visibility restriction caused by a fence on adjacent property that contributes to unsafe conditions. Staff reviewed five years of collision information and could find no collision reports associated with the subject property or driveway. Public Works staff has reviewed the appeal concerns and does not concur that the tree location constitutes a hazard. Rather, in order to support the Tree Committees determination that the tree remain, a best first step would have been to trim the tree and perform follow up observations to determine the validity of the concerns. Now that the tree has been removed, this is no longer a possibility. Accordingly, the decision before you is not whether the tree can be removed, but whether the full amount of civil penalties should be levied. Section 12.24.170 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth a formula for the amount of civil penalties owed for the unpermitted removal of a regulated tree. Both the individual who removed the tree and the property owner are responsible for the civil penalties. For this tree, the appellant and the property owner would be responsible for the payment of $8,200 for a total civil penalty of $16,400. A breakdown of how this penalty is calculated is attached as Attachment F. The City Council has the discretion to levy a lesser civil penalty (including imposing no civil penalty) and/or accept mitigation planting so long as the total costs do not exceed the maximum civil penalty amounts prescribed by the City’s tree regulations. Photo of Tree #1 Before Removal Photo of Site with Tree #1 Removed Tree No. 3 The Appeal also requests the City Council approve the removal of Tree No. 3, which is another California Pepper tree on site. The initial application identified potential decay and issues associated with poor past pruning for rationale for removal. The Tree Committee felt the tree had good structure and felt it should be pruned and retained. The Committee voted unanimously to maintain this tree due to the inability to make a finding for its removal. The Committee offered the applicant the option of returning in the future if the pool was to be permitted and the tree conflicted with that improvement. The appeal of Tree No. 3 discusses most of the same issues as presented to the Tree Committee, just in more depth. The City Arborist has reviewed the appeal request and does not support the Packet Pg. 219 15 appeal based upon the condition of the tree. Trees Removed Prior To Completion of Appeals Period (Tree Nos. 2 and 6) As discussed above, the Tree Committee approved the removal of Tree Nos. 2 and 6, however, the appellant removed the trees two days prior to the expiration of the ten day appeals period close. Staff has reviewed this issue and considered its implications with other tree enforcement history as well as the appeal issue discussed above. In strict compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.170 both the property owner as well as the contractor can each be assessed civil penalties in the amount of $6,000 for the removal of Tree No. 2 (the Monterey Pine Tree) and $2,280 each for the removal of Tree No. 6 (a Black Acacia Tree). Neither of these trees are subject to the appeal because the Tree Committee approved their removal; however, the action of removing the trees prior to the expiration of the appeals period is technical violation of the City’s tree regulations and thus subject to the civil penalties. While the timing of the removal is a technical violation of the City’s Municipal Code, staff recommends the City Council not levy any civil penalties. First, the City never received any appeals from any neighbors regarding the approved removal of these trees. Second, the Tree Committee unanimously approved the removal of both trees because it was either infested and stressed or was not a good landscape tree. Third, the appellants removed the tree only two-days prior to the expiration of the appeals period. For these reasons staff is recommending that City Council not levy assessments related to the premature removal of these trees. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the approval or denial of the appeal. If City Council chooses to levy civil penalties, that penalty amount would be deposited into the City’s General Fund. ALTERNATIVES Uphold the appeal and adopt a resolution allowing Tree Removal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for tree removal, thereby allowing the homeowner to remove their trees. Waive or Implement Tree Removal Fines. The City Council could choose to direct staff to waive all tree removal fines or maintain all fines for this property. Packet Pg. 220 15 Attachments: a - Tree Removal Application b - Draft Tree Committee Meeting Minutes c - Appeal to the City Council d - Municipal Code Sections e - Resolution denying appeal f - Tree Appraisal Packet Pg. 221 15 Packet Pg. 22215 Packet Pg. 22315 Packet Pg. 22415 Packet Pg. 22515 Packet Pg. 22615 Packet Pg. 22715 Packet Pg. 22815 Packet Pg. 22915 Packet Pg. 23015 Packet Pg. 23115 Packet Pg. 23215 Packet Pg. 233 15 Packet Pg. 234 15 Packet Pg. 235 15 Packet Pg. 236 15 Packet Pg. 237 15 Packet Pg. 238 15 Packet Pg. 23915 Packet Pg. 24015 Packet Pg. 241 15 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 1/3 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1630, passed November 15, 2016. 12.24.090 Tree removal. A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant. B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal permit, except as othe rwise provided in this chapter. C. Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development. 1. Removing a tree in all zones except as otherwise provided in this chapter shall require a permit issued by the public works department. 2. An application for a tree removal permit issued by the public works department shall include: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information to the request, including documentation of property damage. D. Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation. 1. The city arborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application without the need for a permit from public works upon finding any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; b. The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation; c. The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage. 2. When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the request shall be reviewed by the tree committee, which may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application and approval process. All development applications which include tree removals shall include the following documents: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information required. Packet Pg. 242 15 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 2/3 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1630, passed November 15, 2016. 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; c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural r eview commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the city council shall review the matter for final action. F. Permit Not Required. Removing a tree in R-1 and R-2 zones only does not require a permit if all of the following conditions exist: 1. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten inches DSH (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; native trees) or when the tree is nonnative and the trunk is less than twenty inches DSH; and 2. The tree is more than twenty-five feet from the top of a creek bank; and 3. The tree is on a lot developed to the maximum allowed density; and 4. The tree is not a street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and 5. The tree was not a condition of development; or 6. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than twelve inches DSH. G. Tree Removal by the City. 1. Tree removal requests for any city project must follow the same procedures as any property owner. 2. After receiving approval to remove a tree, the city shall replace the tree as soon as feasible during the project. H. Notification of Tree Removal. 1. The city shall post a sign notifying the public of the date and description of a proposed tree removal. This sign shall be posted in a prominent location, visible from a public street, for a period not less than five days before either staff consideration of a tree removal permit or a public hearing on a related development. 2. The public works director may waive notification requirements for a tree removal when the director determines that a tree’s condition threatens public health, safety or welfare. I. Approval Conditions. In approving an application for tree removal, the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require plant ing of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. J. Expiration of Appeals. Decisions on tree removal by the director, the tree committee and the architectural review commission shall be subject to appeal according to the appeal provisions of this code, and no permit shall be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. K. City Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Program. Packet Pg. 243 15 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 3/3 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1630, passed November 15, 2016. 1. The city has a program whereby staff evaluates and repairs sidewalks and streets on a predetermined schedule. When the city determines a street tree must be removed to repair the sidewalk, the city will pay all costs to repair sidewalk, curb, and gutter, remove the tree and plant a new tree. 2. If a property owner wishes to remove a street tree and repair hardscape damage they may do so at their own expense, if the removal is approved by the tree committee. The property owner shall pay for the necessary hardscape repairs, and be required to plant and maintain a new tree as a condition of their approved tree removal permit unless tree replacement is waived by the tree committee. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) 12.24.170 Enforcement. The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. A. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 1. The civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times two, plus all staff costs related to the illegal tree removal or tree damage. The city arborist will compute the value of the tree using methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture. 2. The property owner shall also be held responsible for damaging or removing a tree on the owner’s property without a permit as described in this chapter and be liable for additional civil penalties to the city as described in subsection (A)(1) of this section. 3. If the tree removal or damaged tree is related to any development or subdivision then the civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times four, plus all related staff costs. 4. In addition to civil penalties the property owner will be required to plant up to three trees under the direction of the city arborist. The size of the tree shall be determined by the city arborist and may be up to a forty -eight- inch box tree. 5. For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to o btain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the tree and, if salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree. 6. The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be assessed against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing a tree without a permit. (Ord. 1589 § 2, 2013: Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) 12.24.180 Appeals. A. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.20, any person aggrieved by an act or dete rmination of the staff in exercising the authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal to the tree committee, whose decisions are appealable to the city council. B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of dete rmination or act shall cause the public works director to withhold tree removal permits and stop any construction or demolition activity affecting the subject tree until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) Packet Pg. 244 15 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET AND WAIVING AND LEVYING CIVIL PENALTIES WHEREAS, on January 23, 2017, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider a request to remove several trees from the property located at 2466 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo, California (the “Property”). The Tree Committee denied the removal of two California Pepper trees, authorized the removal of a Pine Tree and a Black Acacia tree and conditionally permitted the removal of a Eucalyptus tree and another Black Acacia tree; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2017, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny the removal of one of the California Pepper trees at the Property and to further consider civil penalties associated with the premature removal of the Pine Tree and Black Acacia tree and the unpermitted removal of the California Pepper tree. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council, after consideration of the Property owner’s appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings: Findings related to the requested removal of the California Pepper tree located next to the existing garage: a) The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Property. b) The removal of the tree will not promote good arboricultural practice. c) The removal of the tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Findings related to the levy of civil penalties associated with the premature removal of the Pine Tree located next to the house and the Black Acacia tree in the rear corner of the Property: a) The trees were unanimously approved for removal by the Tree Committee. b) The trees were infested and stressed or were not good landscape trees. c) The trees were removed only two days prior to the expiration of the appeals period for the decision and the City received no appeals within that period of time. d) The premature removal was more inadvertent than intentional. Findings related to the levy of civil penalties associated with the unpermitted removal of the California Pepper tree located next to the front driveway: Packet Pg. 245 15 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ a) The Tree Committee denied the removal of the tree, albeit in a split vote; b) The tree does not pose a hazard to public safety and could be “trimmed up” in order to minimize impacts to visibility. c) Removal of the tree was intentional in direct violation of the Tree Committee’s decision and City Municipal Code, specifically section 12.24.090.B. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby: a) Denies the appeal to remove the California Pepper tree located next the garage; b) Does not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of the Pine Tree located next to the house and the Black Acacia tree in the rear corner of the Property; c) Levies civil penalties in the amount of $__[Up to $8,200]__ against Stalwork, Inc. and $___[up to $8,200]___ against the owner or owners of the Property located at 2466 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Packet Pg. 246 15 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 247 15 Replacement Cost Appraisal Method – TREE 1 Address: 2466 Augusta Date: 02/1/17 Appraiser: Ron Combs Certified Arborist # WE-6343AM Field Observations 1. Species: Puruvian Pepper (schinus Molle) 2. Condition: 70% 3. Trunk size: 24 inches in Diameter 4. Location %: ((Site 70% + Contribution 70 % + Placement 70%) ÷ 3) = 70% 5. Staff Time for Appraisal or Cleanup Costs: (Labor Rate ($60 per hour X Number of Hours (2 hours)) = $120.00 Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species rating: 70% 7. Replacement Plant Size: (number of trees X diameter) = 1 X 24” = 24 inches 8. Replacement Plant Cost: (tree diameter X cost per inch) = (24 X $68.00) = $1632.00 9. Installation Cost: (Replacement Plant Cost X 2.44) = ($1632 X 2.44) = $3982.00 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 gallon 1” diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 11. Installed Plant Cost: (Plant Cost (#8) + Installation Cost (#9)) = ($1632.00 + $3982.00) = $5614.00 12. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost: (Installed Plant Cost (#11) X Species Rating (#6) X Condition (#2) X Location (#4) = ($5614.00 X 70% X 70% X 70%) = $1925.60 13. Staff Time Costs (#5): = $120.00 14. Appraised Value: (Adjusted Installed Plant Cost (#11) + Staff Time Costs (#13) = ($1925.60 + $120) = $2045.60 15. Appraised Value Rounded: ((#14) is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it is less, round to nearest $10) = $2050.00 16. Appraised Value (#15): $570.00 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170A(3) = $2050.00 X 4 = $8200.00 18. Replacement value = $8200.00 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. Packet Pg. 248 15 Replacement Cost Appraisal Method – TREE 2 Address: 2466 Augusta Date: 02/1/17 Appraiser: Ron Combs Certified Arborist # WE-6343AM Field Observations 1. Species: Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata) 2. Condition: 50% 3. Trunk size: 24 inches in diameter 4. Location %: ((Site 70% + Contribution 70 % + Placement 70%) ÷ 3) = 70% 6. Staff Time for Appraisal or Cleanup Costs: (Labor Rate ($60 per hour X Number of Hours (2 hours)) = $120.00 Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species rating: 50% 7. Replacement Plant Size: (number of trees X diameter) = 1 X 24” = 24 inches 8. Replacement Plant Cost: (tree diameter X cost per inch) = (24 X $68.00) = $1632.00 9. Installation Cost: (Replacement Plant Cost X 2.44) = ($1632 X 2.44) = $3982.00 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 gallon 1” diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 15. Installed Plant Cost: (Plant Cost (#8) + Installation Cost (#9)) = ($1632.00 + $3982.00) = $5614.00 16. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost: (Installed Plant Cost (#11) X Species Rating (#6) X Condition (#2) X Location (#4) = ($5614.00 X 50% X 70% X 70%) = $1375.43 17. Staff Time Costs (#5): = $120.00 18. Appraised Value: (Adjusted Installed Plant Cost (#11) + Staff Time Costs (#13) = ($1375.43 + $120) = $1495.43 16. Appraised Value Rounded: ((#14) is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it is less, round to nearest $10) = $1500.00 16. Appraised Value (#15): $1500.00 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170A(3) = $1500 X 4 = $6000.00 18. Replacement value = $6000.00 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. Packet Pg. 249 15 Replacement Cost Appraisal Method – TREE 6 Address: 2466 Augusta Date: 02/1/2017 Appraiser: Ron Combs Certified Arborist # WE-6343AM Field Observations 1. Species: Black acacia #6 (Acacia melanoxylon) 2. Condition: 70% 3. Trunk size: 14 inches in diameter 4. Location %: ((Site 60% + Contribution 75 % + Placement 60%) ÷ 3) = 65 % 7. Staff Time for Appraisal or Cleanup Costs: (Labor Rate ($60 per hour X Number of Hours (2 hours)) = $120.00 Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species rating: 30% 7. Replacement Plant Size: (number of trees X diameter) = 1 X 14” = 14 inches 8. Replacement Plant Cost: (tree diameter X cost per inch) = (14 X $68.00) = $952.00 9. Installation Cost: (Replacement Plant Cost X 2.44) = ($952.00 X 2.44) = $2322.88 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 gallon 1” diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 19. Installed Plant Cost: (Plant Cost (#8) + Installation Cost (#9)) = ($952.00 + $2322.88) = $3274.88 20. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost: (Installed Plant Cost (#11) X Species Rating (#6) X Condition (#2) X Location (#4) = ($3274.88 X 30% X 70% X 65%) = $446.90 21. Staff Time Costs (#5): = $120.00 22. Appraised Value: (Adjusted Installed Plant Cost (#11) + Staff Time Costs (#13) = ($446.90 + $120) = $566.90 17. Appraised Value Rounded: ((#14) is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it is less, round to nearest $10) = $570.00 16. Appraised Value (#15): $570.00 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170A(3) = $570.00 X 4 = $2280.00 18. Replacement value = $2280.00 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. Packet Pg. 250 15 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manger Mychal Boerman, Water Resources Program Manager SUBJECT: 2017 RECYCLED WATER MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.” 2. Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement for delivery of recycled water outside the city limits consistent with the policies and findings identified in the General Plan. DISCUSSION Background Modern water recycling technologies allow for the efficient treatment of wastewater to extremely high standards of quality. Recycling water is a proven method of improving local water supplies and is a key part of integrated water planning. Recycled water can help improve resilience to drought or other water supply reduction or emergency and serves as an opportunity for the City to address long-term sustainability goals. Utilizing recycled water to its highest and most beneficial use is consistent with a One Water approach (see Figure 1). The City is committed to sound and progressive planning for recycled water infrastructure. The City adopted its first Recycled Water Master Plan in 2004, originally called the Water Reuse Master Plan, and began delivering recycled water in 2006. Recycled water was the first new source of water to the City since Whale Rock Reservoir in 1961. The focus of the prior Master Plan was offsetting potable water used for landscape irrigation to extend the City’s potable water supplies. Since 2007, annual recycled water usage has increased from 77 acre feet to over 193 acre feet in 2016, offsetting four percent of the City’s total demand. The City Council approved funding for an update to the Recycled Water Master Plan (Master Plan) as part of the 2012-13 Figure 1. The One-Water approach considers the urban water cycle as a single integrated system. SOURCE: US Water Alliance. Packet Pg. 251 16 Mid-Year Budget. The City contracted with the Wallace Group for the preparation of the Master Plan in April 2013 concurrent with the work on the City’s Potable Water Distribution System Master Plan. Completion of the Master Plan was put aside while staff worked on the Potable Water Distribution System Master Plan, the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, and the update to the General Plan’s Water and Wastewater Management Element in 2016. During this time, the Utilities Department brought on a program and design team for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) project. One project objective is to maximize the production of recycled water in the plant. In February 2015, Council approved a resolution to submit a grant application for 50 percent funding to study maximizing production and distribution of recycled water. In November 2015, the City was notified the grant had been approved and work commenced on the Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study. Due to the necessary expansion of the Recycled Water Master Plan work scope, staff, incorporating the work done by Wallace Group, completed the Master Plan in-house. Master Plan Approach The Master Plan is part of the City’s comprehensive strategy to efficiently manage its water resources. Recognizing that regulations surrounding recycled water continue to evolve, the Master Plan addresses both current uses and future opportunities. The Master Plan is guided by the City’s General Plan including goals, policies, and programs in the Water and Wastewater Management Element, as well as development projections from the Land Use Element. The Master Plan presents a strategy to serve recycled water to developing areas of the City for use as landscape irrigation, presents opportunities to retrofit existing sites to offset potable water use, explores use of recycled water outside the City limits during periods where much of the City’s recycled water supply goes underutilized, and describes future opportunities consistent with a One Water approach. The Master Plan includes an updated storage analysis and a capital plan through 2035. The purpose and scope of the Master Plan is as follows: 1. Plan for the strategic and beneficial use of recycled water including the potential for future potable reuse. 2. Analyze recycled water production capability in the short- and long-term, ensuring the Master Plan reflects current wastewater generation rates. 3. Understand expected development patterns and recycled water demand. 4. Develop a hydraulic model for the recycled water distribution system that can be utilized for future infrastructure analysis. 5. Analyze the available recycled water supply, including surplus supplies. 6. Confirm the Master Plan service area. 7. Provide a plan for incremental expansion of the recycled water distribution system. 8. Prioritize future retrofit opportunities based on defined criteria. 9. Identify future storage needs based on future peak day demand. Packet Pg. 252 16 10. Evaluate infrastructure improvements needed to reach new customers and a prioritized Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) list. 11. Provide recycled water infrastructure costs for inclusion in the update of the water capacity and connection fees The Master Plan includes a detailed analysis of the available recycled water supply, current and future recycled water demand, and irrigation system retrofit opportunities to offset potable water use. After meeting in-City demands, the Master Plan analyzes both short- and long-term opportunities to utilize the surplus recycled water supply. This evaluation of recycled water availability also takes the future opportunities for potable reuse into consideration. The Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (the product of the SWRCB 2015 grant), included as Appendix A in the Master Plan, examined several opportunities, in addition to in-City landscape irrigation, for maximizing the long-term beneficial use of recycled water within the City’s sphere of influence. The options studied include:  Provide direct potable reuse;  Provide groundwater recharge within the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin for indirect potable reuse; and  Deliver tertiary-treated recycled water to agricultural interests outside of the City. The Master Plan includes a Recycled Water Production Analysis, prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC), to determine current infrastructure production capability in the near- term, before the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project (WRRF Project) is complete . This analysis is provided in Appendix B. Recycled Water Storage Analysis, prepared by Wallace Group, is provided in Appendix C. This study reviews assumptions from the 2004 Master Plan, updates demand projections, analyzes potential future recycled water storage options, and includes recommendations on when additional storage should be added to the system. Recycled Water and Other City Goals Agricultural interests outside the City limits interested in the City’s surplus recycled water supply have approached staff to inquire about availability. Historically, the City has only delivered water to customers within the City, with a few exceptions consistent with Municipal Code section 13.04.04 (Limit of city’s responsibility to furnish water outside of the city). Generally, recycled water is used for landscape irrigation and demand is seasonal. Therefore, there is currently a surplus of recycled water available during the months when traditional irrigation is at its low point. Putting this water supply toward this beneficial use may have the potential to further other City goals related to securing a greenbelt around the City. The desired greenbelt, located beyond the City's Urban Reserve Line, includes some irrigated agricultural lands and associated agricultural uses shown below in Figure 5 of the General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element. Goal 8.1 from the Conservation and Open Space Element, describes the City’s desire to: Packet Pg. 253 16 Secure and maintain a healthy and attractive Greenbelt around the urban area, comprised of diverse and connected natural habitats, and productive agricultural land that reflects the City’s watershed and topographic boundaries. Contracts for transfer of non‐potable water are exempt from the findings required by Gov. Code §56133 (c)(1)-(2); however, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval is still required per Government Code §56133(e). In accordance with these requirements, policy clarification was added with the 2014 Land Use Element Update to distinguish the delivery of potable water from recycled water. Program A 7.3.4 from the General Plan’s Water and Wastewater Management Element states that the City will: Consider the potential to deliver available recycled water supplies to customers outside the city limits, including analysis of policy issues, technical concerns, and cost recovery, provided it is found to be consistent with the General Plan. With the update to the General Plan, Land Use Element in 2014 the following poli cy (1.13.2, Recycled Water) was added: Provision of recycled water outside of City limits may only be considered in compliance with Water and Wastewater Element Policy A 7.3.4 and the following Packet Pg. 254 16 findings: A. Non-potable/recycled water is necessary to support continued agricultural operations. B. Provision of non-potable/recycled water will not be used to increase development potential of property being served. C. Non-potable/recycled water will not be further treated to make it potable. D. Prior to provision of non-potable/recycled water, the property to be served will record a conservation, open space, Williamson Act, or other easement instrument to maintain the area being served in agriculture and open space while recycled water is being provided. Staff is recommending the Council authorize the negotiation of an agreement for delivery of surplus recycled water outside the city limits consistent with the policies and findings identified in the General Plan. Staff analyzed in-city recycled water demand and believes sufficicent supply exists to accomodate this delivery after meeting in-City demands and creek discharge requirements. This delivery would help to meet the City’s greenbelt goals and regional goals to augment the San Luis Obispo groundwater basin. Staff anticipates negotiations would include the schedule and term of recycled water delivery, cost, and cost recovery by the City for the recipient’s capital improvements to facilitate water delivery. Prior to executing any agreement, the City will need to modify Section 3.16 of the Municipal Code to allow for the delivery of such water outside the City’s boundaries. If negotiations are successful, staff will return to Council to with the aforementioned ordinance change and to receive authorization to execute the agreement. The terms of an agreement to provide recycled water outside the city limits would be consistent with the actions taken by Council on March 7, 2017 related to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the City’s long-term planning efforts for a One Water future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was prepared for the Master Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended action. Operating program costs associated with recycled water production and delivery are funded through water rates. Capital costs are funded by both water rates and water development impact fees. Funding to support expansion of system users and the distribution system will be identified in future budgets for Council consideration and approval. The Utilities Department will also continue to pursue grant funding for expansion of the recycled water distribution system. Packet Pg. 255 16 Attachments: a - Resolution for RW Master Plan Adoption b - RWMP Negative Declaration c - Council Reading File - RWMP Packet Pg. 256 16 R _____ RESOLUTION NO. (2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2017 RECYCLED WATER MASTER PLAN AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WHEREAS, the City has a multi-source water supply and has produced and delivered recycled water since 2006; and WHEREAS, the Recycled Water Master Plan is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Recycled Water Master Plan provides a roadmap for the City’s recycled water distribution system; and WHEREAS, the Recycled Water Master Plan describes future opportunities for the City to consider potable reuse consistent with a One-Water approach; and WHEREAS, the Recycled Water Master Plan, consisting of text, tables, and figures, was presented to the City Council in final form on March 21, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Action. The City Council does hereby adopt the Recycled Water Master Plan attached hereto as Attachment 1. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the approval of the Recycled Water Master Plan. SECTION 3. Effective Date. The Recycled Water Master Plan shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this Resolution. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon Packet Pg. 257 16 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R _____ 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. 258 16 Packet Pg. 259 16 Packet Pg. 260 16 Packet Pg. 261 16 Packet Pg. 262 16 Packet Pg. 263 16 Packet Pg. 264 16 Packet Pg. 265 16 Packet Pg. 266 16 Packet Pg. 267 16 Packet Pg. 268 16 Packet Pg. 269 16 Packet Pg. 270 16 Packet Pg. 271 16 Packet Pg. 272 16 Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION FOR OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and file the staff-prepared report, An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space (Attachment A); and, 2. Conduct a Study Session, receive public input and testimony regarding Open Space hours of use regulations, and provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION Background The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands that feature a publically-accessible trail network totaling over 50 miles. The City’s current Open Space Regulations allow for passive recreational use of these properties from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset. At the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of August 16, 2016, in response to public testimony regarding 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, August 16, 2016, 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. On February 21, 2017, the City Council voted 4-1 to receive and file the Project Plan for evaluation of the Open Space hours of use regulations as a Consent Agenda item. Numerous individuals and interested groups provided written public comments, as well as testimony at the hearing (Attachment B). The City Council provided parameters including eliminating from consideration any extended hours of use at the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and to consider winter hours up to a level commensurate with summer hours of use. (Agenda Action Update, February 21, 2017, pg. 2). Packet Pg. 273 17 Project Plan Overview and Implementation The overarching strategy contemplated in the Project Plan detailed in the February 21, 2017 Council Agenda Report 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 is utilizing 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 8. Provide Rationale for Recommendation To implement this strategy, staff has completed the first four out of the five phases indicated in the Project Plan: 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 with recommendations for Council action. The major findings of the evaluation, together with staff’s resulting recommendations for Council and the community’s consideration, are detailed in the attached report titled, An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space, and are summarized below. Report Summary Existing policy documents pertinent to the City’s Open Space express a clear priority for protection of natural resource values, as well as compatibility of trailheads located in neighborhood settings, while allowing passive recreation only when consistent with these primary goals. An additional consideration is the extent to which additional hours of use may result in increased safety risks to both trail users as well as emergency response personnel. Problem Definition Trail users are unable to lawfully utilize City of San Luis Obispo Open Space during winter months after normal work hours under current Open Space Regulations. However, expansion of hours of use for City Open Space appears to be in conflict with established City policies intended to protect natural resource values and neighborhoods proximate to trailheads, and may also pose increased safety risk to trail users and emergency response personnel. Packet Pg. 274 17 Alternatives Possible alternative courses of action include: 1.) let present trends continue; 2.) allow for increased hours of use; 3.) optimize hours of use through time-specific, seasonal hours of use; 4.) consider site-specific locations for changes to hours of use; and, 5.) consider docent-led outings as pilot programs. Combinations of the above alternatives are possible, and ongoing monitoring and subsequent re-evaluation is recommended with all of the alternatives. Evaluative Criteria Criteria for evaluating alternatives for Open Space hours of use issue may include: 1.) consistency with the City’s existing policy framework; 2.) environmental review and impact analysis; 3.) stakeholder and trail user preferences; 4.) fiscal impacts pertaining to staffing resources and equipment; and 5.) trail user and emergency response personnel safety. Projected Outcomes of Alternatives Open Space Hours of Use Decision Matrix Consistent with Policy Environmental Impact Stakeholders - Change Stakeholders - No Change Fiscal Impact Safety Impact 1. Present trends Yes No No Yes No No 2. Increased Hours No Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3. Optimized Hours Yes No Yes Maybe No Maybe 4. Site Specific Hours Maybe Maybe Yes Maybe Yes Maybe 5. Pilot Program Maybe No Maybe Maybe Yes No Findings and Recommendations The extent to which changes to the existing hours of use policy will create substantive new impacts to natural resource values, neighborhoods, and safety are unknown, nor have thresholds for evaluating these impacts been established. When setting policy in the face of such uncertainty, staff recommends a very cautious and conservative approach as adopted City policies prioritize natural resource protection over public access and passive recreation (e.g. Conservation and Open Space Element 7.3.3, 8.5.1, Appendix C). Should the City Council desire to make changes to the existing policy, staff recommends a combination of optimized hours of use, site specific locations, and docent -led outings as pilot programs with ongoing monitoring and subsequent re-evaluation. This set of recommendations appears to best address the evaluative criteria while still allowing an opportunity to address the problem statement. Next steps Following the Study Session, if Council provides direction to make changes to the existing ordinance, staff will then prepare the appropriate ordinance language in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office as part of the Natural Resources Program’s 2017-19 work plan and will return to Council for adoption. Packet Pg. 275 17 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 An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space and have provided their concurrence. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15306, no environmental review is required to conduct the Project Plan and Study Session 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 and Study Session. 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. Continue the Study Session if more information is necessary in order to provide direction to staff on preparing an ordinance. 2. Request clarification or revisions to An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space. 3. Discontinue further analysis to change hours of use in City Open Space. Attachments: a - An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space b - Written Comments Consolidated - Open Space Hours Packet Pg. 276 17 An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Prepared for: City Council Prepared by: Robert A. Hill Natural Resources Manager March 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 277 17 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands that feature a publically-accessible trail network totaling over 50 miles. The City’s current Open Space Regulations allow for passive recreational use of these properties from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset. Recently, trail users have approached City Council requesting that the Council consider allowing additional hours of use during the winter time in order to allow for trail use after normal work schedule hours. Existing policy documents pertinent to the City’s Open Space express a clear priority for protection of natural resource values, as well as compatibility of trailheads located in neighborhood settings, while allowing passive recreation only when consistent with these primary goals. An additional consideration is the extent to which additional hours of use may results in increased safety risks to both trail users as well as emergency response personnel. This report seeks to cast these issues into a formal public policy analysis framework to assist with defining the problem, understanding the background and facts pertinent to the matter, identifying possible alternative courses of action, and establishing evaluative criteria as a basis for making a recommendation for the City Council and community’s consideration. Problem Definition Trail users are unable to lawfully utilize City of San Luis Obispo Open Space during winter months after normal work hours under current Open Space Regulations. However, expansion of hours of use for City Open Space appears to be in conflict with established City policies intended to protect natural resource values and neighborhoods proximate to trailheads, and may also pose increased safety risk to trail users and emergency response personnel. Alternatives Possible alternative courses of action include: 1.) let present trends continue; 2.) allow for increased hours of use; 3.) optimize hours of use through time-specific, seasonal hours of use; 4.) consider site- specific locations for changes to hours of use; and, 5.) consider docent-led outings as pilot programs. Combinations of the above alternatives are possible, and ongoing monitoring and subsequent re- evaluation is recommended for all of the alternatives. Evaluative Criteria Criteria for evaluating alternatives for Open Space hours of use issue may include: 1.) consistency with the City’s existing policy framework; 2.) environmental review and impact analysis; 3.) stakeholder and trail user preferences; 4.) fiscal impacts pertaining to staffing resources and equipment; and 5.) trail user and emergency response personnel safety. Findings and Recommendations The extent to which changes to the existing hours of use policy will create substantive new impacts to natural resource values, neighborhoods, and safety are unknown, nor have thresholds for evaluating these impacts been established. When setting policy in the face of such uncertainty, staff recommends a very cautious and conservative approach. Should the City Council desire to make changes to the existing policy, staff recommends a combination of optimized hours of use, site specific locations, and docent-led outings as pilot programs with ongoing monitoring and subsequent re-evaluation. Packet Pg. 278 17 2 BACKGROUND Open Space Overview The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands comprised of fourteen major properties held in open space reserve, natural reserve, agricultural reserve, or ecological reserve status. These properties, collectively, feature a trail network of both single-use trails and multi- use trails totaling over 50 miles. The Natural Resources Protection Program works in close collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department’s Ranger Service to form the “Open Space Team” in order to ensure the highest care, long-term stewardship, and appropriate public use of the City’s Open Space network. 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 land acquisition funding in 1995, and the hiring of the first Natural Resources Manager in early 1996. A subsequent General Plan update resulted in the establishment of the Conservation and Open Space Element that was adopted in 2006. Other key policy and regulatory documents include the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo, property-specific Conservation Plans, as well as various sections of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code including the City’s Open Space Regulations (chapter 12.22) that were adopted in 1998. In 2015, the City adopted an Open Space Maintenance Plan that established formal maintenance standards and specifications for the first time. The City also conducted an Open Space Survey in 2015 in collaboration with Cal Poly’s City and Regional Planning Department that documented existing site conditions, levels of use at various Open Space properties, as well as trail user demographics and preferences. The foregoing planning and policy framework is listed and hyperlinked under the References section at the end of this report. The City’s current open space property inventory, as well as the land classifications and allowable trail uses identified in associated property-specific Conservation Plans, are as follows: Packet Pg. 279 17 3 A map of the Open Space properties owned by the City of San Luis Obispo is shown below: Packet Pg. 280 17 4 Prior Council Direction At the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of August 16, 2016, in response to public testimony regarding 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). On February 21, 2017, the City Council voted 4-1 to receive and file the Project Plan for evaluation of the Open Space hours of use regulations as a Consent Agenda item. Numerous individuals and interested groups provided written public comments, as well as testimony at the hearing. The City Council provided parameters for this report including eliminating from consideration any extended hours of use at Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and consideration of winter hours of use up to a level commensurate with summer hours of use. (Agenda Action Update, Tuesday February 21, 2017, Regular Meeting of the City Council, pg. 2). Project Plan Overview and Implementation The overarching strategy contemplated in the Project Plan detailed in the February 21, 2017 Council Agenda Report 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 is utilizing 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 8. Provide Rationale for Recommendation To carry out the Project Plan, the following strategy was identified: 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. INTERNAL AND COMPARATIVE EXTERNAL POLICY REVIEW Regulations – City of San Luis Obispo and Five Other Agencies The City’s current Open Space hours of use regulations, as codified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, as well as the current regulations of five other public agency parks / open space purveyors (Mid- Packet Pg. 281 17 5 Peninsula Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Parks District, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, San Luis Obispo County Parks, and California State Parks ) are as follows: City of San Luis Obispo 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. Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District 805.3 After Official Hours Use Prohibited. No person shall enter or remain on District Lands after “Official Hours,” which are defined as the period of one-half hour after official Sunset to one-half hour before official Sunrise the following day without a written permit. The times for Sunrise and Sunset shall be determined by the U.S. Naval Observatory’s official postings for Los Altos, California. East Bay Regional Parks District SECTION 906. CURFEW. No person other than the house guests of the concessionaire-resident or an employee renting a house from the District, persons fishing in parks designated for nighttime fishing, or person possessing valid written permission to camp, shall enter upon or otherwise remain within the District for any purpose whatsoever between the hours specifically posted as curfew hours at the entrance to the particular District parkland, or where no hours are posted, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Those persons possessing a valid permit shall be allowed to remain and use parklands and facilities as specified in their permit, after which time they shall leave the District without any appreciable delay. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority 4.01.02 Curfew. No person shall enter, use, occupy or park any vehicle on any Authority Land from sunset to sunrise, except when authorized by a permit. San Luis Obispo County Parks 11.04.030 - General use. (a.) Hours of Use—Closed Areas. The director or designee is authorized to promulgate opening and closing hours for all county parks and facilities, including the waters within such parks. No person shall enter, remain in, or camp in or on any county park or facility during the hours or any part of the hours said park or facility is closed without a permit issued from the director or designee, which shall be secured in advance. It is unlawful for any person to enter any county park area or facility which is posted against entry unless authorized in advance by the director or designee. Packet Pg. 282 17 6 (g). Curfew. A curfew is established between the hours of ten p.m. and six a.m. at all county parks and facilities, excluding county operated campgrounds. California State Parks (Montana de Oro) California Code of Regulations §4320 Peace and Quiet and §4458 Nighttime Closure. 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Policies - City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element The following programs, policies, and goals from the Conservation and Open Space Element appear pertinent to the evaluation of Open Space hours of use issue: 7.0. Background “Natural Communities” refers to the web of organisms, other than people, that live in the area. Many of the physical requirements for natural communities are provided by open space. Natural communities give open space much of its value for human enjoyment. Natural communities also have value in their own right, independent of their role as sustainers of the human community or as pleasant vistas. As urban uses expand into open space, the natural cycles and interrelationships upon which natural communities depend are altered. This results in the disturbance, displacement, loss of habitat or mobility and the loss of animal or plant populations. For example, each species requires a specific range of environmental conditions to survive and reproduce. Areas within this range constitute the species’ niche or more generally, habitat. Animals move within and through habitat areas to find water, food, shelter, and to reproduce. Such movements have evolved over time to fit animals’ needs within the natural landscape. Urban development and linear barriers such as major roadways change the landscape too quickly for many animals to adapt, thus interrupting and blocking such movement. As a result, wildlife populations are separated from their historic habitat and from other breeding populations of the same species. The result: a gradual reduction in the numbers and diversity of wildlife. As a steward for the natural resources of future generations, the City must preserve habitat and the species that it supports. 7.2. GOAL: Sustainable natural populations. The City will maintain and enhance conditions necessary to enable a species to become self- sustaining. Within the San Luis Obispo planning area, the City will seek to achieve self- sustaining populations of the plants, fish and wildlife that made up the natural communities in the area when urbanization began. 7.3.3. Wildlife habitat and corridors. Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors. 8.4.2. GOAL: Open spaces access and restoration. The City intends to allow public access to open space that fosters knowledge and appreciation of open space resources without harming them and without exposing the public to unacceptable Packet Pg. 283 17 7 risk. The main goal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal of providing passive recreation where it will not harm the environment. 8.5.1. Public access. Public access to open space resources, with interpretive information, should be provided when doing so is consistent with protection of the resources, and with the security and privacy of affected landowners and occupants. Access will generally be limited to non-vehicular movement, and may be visually or physically restricted in sensitive areas. …The City shall also designate open space areas that are not intended for human presence or activity. 8.5.5. Passive Recreation. The City will consider allowing passive recreation where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility impacts, in accordance with an approved open space conservation plan. Passive recreation activities may include: hiking, nature study, bicycle use, rock climbing, horseback riding or other passive recreational activities as permitted and regulated in the Open Space Ordinance. 8.5.6. Determination of appropriate uses for City-owned open space. Determination of the appropriate land management practices and the recreational uses of City- owned open space lands shall be made on an area-specific basis, based upon the policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the Open Space Ordinance (SLOMC 12.22), and the adopted “Conservation Guidelines for City-Owned Open Space Lands.” These policies will be applied through the public planning and review process specified in the Conservation Guidelines, and will guide the preparation and adoption of conservation plans for City-owned open space properties. Appendix C: Management of Open Space Lands. 1. The City will manage land that it owns, or controls through lease or easement, to implement the policies of this element… 2. The City’s Conservation Guidelines for Open Spaces, in conjunction with approved individual Open Space Conservation Plans and the City’s Open Space Ordinance, shall guide day-to-day management decisions and activities in open space areas. 3. On open space land that the City manages, the City may decide to permit more than one type of activity or use. Where different uses may not be compatible, the following priorities will guide decisions… Priority 1  Protection of existing wildlife and natural habitat generally.  Protection of existing listed species and their existing habitat, or re-establishment of such habitat where damaged.  Protection of public resources such as water quality (watershed runoff and groundwater recharge).  Avoidance of threats to public health and safety… Packet Pg. 284 17 8 Priority 2  Public access and passive recreation.  Protection of scenic resources. Priority 3  Scientific study.  Agricultural production. Summary of Regulatory and Policy Review The City of San Luis Obispo’s existing regulations for Open Space hours of use are generally consistent with other agencies that allow for day-use only of trails for passive recreation purposes. Those agencies that have camping facilities generally have hours of use that extend further into the evening until 10:00 PM. The City’s policy framework clearly expresses a preference for natural resource protection as a primary management goal while allowing passive recreation and other uses as secondary or tertiary priorities when compatible. Other agencies, even those with more restrictive hours, such as the Mid- Peninsula Regional Open Space District, state in their policy documents that natural resource protection and public recreation are considered co-equal and these goals are to be managed accordingly. One key difference between the City of San Luis Obispo and all of the other agencies reviewed is that the City’s total Open Space holdings are substantially smaller; thus, other agencies arguably are able to disperse use impacts over a much greater land area. LITERATURE REVIEW City of Boulder The City of Boulder, Colorado, served as a key case study for the City of San Luis Obispo when we were developing our Greenbelt Protection Program in the early to mid-1990s. Staff again returned to the City of Boulder as a reference and learned that their community has also studied and carefully considered its hours of use for access to Open Space. In 2012, the City of Boulder requisitioned a study prepared by ERO Resources Corporation titled, “Nighttime Access Management White Paper Analysis”. The City of Boulder study is the most directly comparable study that staff has located on this specific subject. Although there are many similarities, there are also important differences between our two cities and Open Space programs, including total protected land area and associated staffing and infrastructure, wildlife species and habitat composition, and landscape topography. This study analyzed the effects of trail use on natural resources, the effects of lighting upon wildlife, and the specific effects of nighttime trail use upon wildlife, while noting, “The likely impacts to natural resources of nighttime use that are distinct from the impacts of daytime use are largely focused on wildlife… However, the effects of temporary light exposure and nighttime trail use on wildlife are not well documented.” One of the key differences in recreational patterns and equipment between 1998 when the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space Regulations were adopted and today is that the quality and intensity of mobile lighting equipment (headlamps, bike lights) has improved dramatically. The City of Boulder study, following several other cited studies, found that this “spotlighting” effect can have immediate Packet Pg. 285 17 9 short-term effects on wildlife that disrupts “the natural patterns of movement and foraging” while speculating that such short-term effects can lead to long-term changes in behavior and vigor. The City of Boulder study also looked at changes in habituation related to trail use, in general, and temporal displacement. Many species become habituated and accustomed to human interaction, while others become more active at night in order to avoid human interactions and disturbance (temporal displacement). In the either case, extending hours of use further into the nighttime hours was noted to be deleterious to wildlife due to unpredictable visitor use such as “…travel along trails during unusual times (e.g. at night)” while “Displacement may carry survival costs for wildlife such as increased predation or decreased feeding efficiency at night for some species.” To reiterate, however, the landscape and wildlife composition of Boulder, Colorado is different from San Luis Obispo, California, and this study ultimately concludes that “The severity and scope of impact to individual animals or populations is uncertain.” Effects of Recreation on Animals Adequate review of academic, peer-reviewed literature for the purposes of informing this report proved challenging due to the differences in study design, statistical methods, or specificity of the study hypothesis. One paper that appears useful, however, “Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review” (Larson, Reed, Merenlender, Crooks, 2016) analyzed the findings and trends of 274 other articles: Outdoor recreation is typically assumed to be compatible with biodiversity conservation and is permitted in most protected areas worldwide. However, increasing numbers of studies are discovering negative effects of recreation on animals. We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature and analyzed 274 articles on the effects of non-consumptive recreation on animals, across all geographic areas, taxonomic groups, and recreation activities. From the articles reviewed in this study, a clear trend exists documenting negative effects of recreation on mammals such as coyote, lion, bobcat, or lion. Articles that evaluated impacts of hiking/running, wildlife viewing, biking, or dog walking also revealed clear trends showing negative impacts. It is very important to note that this study did not specifically look at the nighttime use issue, although it would stand to reason that if recreational impacts are clear, in general, that additional use could lead to additional impacts. What is perhaps most useful about this study is that it also summarized the management recommendations found in the articles it evaluated, where present. The most frequent management recommendation, found more than twice as often as any other recommendation, is the use of spatial restrictions to lessen or minimize recreational use impacts. Spatial restrictions imply management actions such as designated trail-free areas within protected areas. Indeed, across all of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space areas, 80% of the total land area has been designated “Habitat” through our Conservation Plan process (see summary table, page 2). Other prominent management recommendations include visitor education, capping total visitation, and temporal restrictions (i.e. seasonal closures). This study concludes, “The effects of recreation on animals is still a relatively unknown and low-profile topic in the conservation science literature, despite growing evidence that detrimental impacts can occur from a wide variety of recreational activities.” Packet Pg. 286 17 10 WILDLIFE SURVEY DATA REVIEW The City of San Luis Obispo has recently taken steps to better understand the extent and diversity of wildlife use in its Open Space network. Previously, biological resources inventories prepared for Conservation Plans have relied on observations of animal tracks, scat, hair and other evidence of wildlife use and occupation. These studies have also typically been conducted over a very short period, thus only representing a “snapshot” in time. Anecdotal evidence and occasional sightings have also helped enrich our understanding of wildlife use of City Open Space. In the past few years, however, the City has begun to deploy wildlife game cameras that can be positioned at various locations within a given Open Space property to detect and document wildlife use. In 2014, a Cal Poly student, Ms. Jessica Engdahl, prepared a study of wildlife use titled Wildlife Survey and Identification of Game Trails: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve for her Senior Project under the guidance of advisor Dr. John Perrine and City Biologist Freddy Otte (see References). Ms. Engdahl’s study revealed a wide variety of wildlife using Bishop Peak, especially during the evening hours. Since then, City staff have continued to collect wildlife data using the same methodology at both Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Collectively, these data reveal a variety of different animals using these areas, including animals such as skunk, possum, squirrel and raccoon, as well as coyote, fox, deer, bobcat, and mountain lion (see photos, below). It is clear that these animals are often active at dawn and dusk and throughout the night, although there are also numerous data points during daylight hours. While these studies and data collection efforts are increasing our understanding of wildlife use in City Open Space, it is premature to make definitive determinations about trends and patterns of use and the potential effects of human use during evening hours. Packet Pg. 287 17 11 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW The following stakeholders were identified in the Project Plan that is underpinning this report: Residents Neighbors Property Owners Passive Recreation Users Emergency Response Personnel Academia Regional partners, natural resources agencies & NGOs Native plant communities and wildlife Future generations In order to better understand stakeholder concerns and preferences, informal interviews and communications were conducted in February 2017 with the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers, SLO Trail Runners, as well as various individuals. Staff from the City’s Fire Department and Ranger Service were also consulted. A prominent trend that emerged across all stakeholder communications is that there is a high value placed on local land conservation and protection. No one suggested that broad, sweeping changes and unfettered use is needed or appropriate. It is also clear that City Open Space is a topic of considerable interest, and many individuals have deeply held, passionate feelings about both wildlife and natural resources protection, as well as the ability to access open space for physical and mental fitness and overall well-being. Those expressing a preference for keeping Open Space hours of use as they are cited existing City policies and the importance of upholding the General Plan. It was also mentioned that changes to environmental quality and integrity are often insidious, occurring slowly over longer periods of time. Another important discussion point was the idea of giving a voice to plants and animals, as well as future generations. Neighbors and nearby property owners note that nighttime use is already prolific and problematic due to noise, and additional hours of use would likely exacerbate these problems. An additional consideration is that numerous City Open Space properties are encumbered with protective deed restrictions or easements, or were acquired with grant funding with restrictive grant agreements. Those expressing a preference for allowing additional use of Open Space during evening hours brought forward many thoughtful ideas to explore. These included docent-led outings for full moon or star- gazing, extended hours one night per week, a permit or quota system, allowance of extended hours at Open Space properties that are not situated near trailheads, and a site-specific pilot program. It was noted that nighttime use is occurring unlawfully now, and that the problem uses such as partying, campfires, and camping could be curbed by allowing positive uses with more “eyes on the prize”. A key consideration arising from one interview was that any decisions that might be reached on this topic should be data-driven and factually-based. Fire Department personnel were clear that emergency response is substantially more complicated in the dark, and nighttime use exposes staff to increased risk of slips, trips, and falls, as well as environmental hazards such as poison oak. Ranger Service personnel indicated their willingness to accommodate additional hours of use, noting that some staff would enjoy flexible schedules / shifts, although ultimately additional hours of use requiring Ranger patrol will spread limited staff resources out further. Packet Pg. 288 17 12 POLICY ANALYSIS Problem Definition Trail users are unable to lawfully utilize City of San Luis Obispo Open Space during winter months after normal work hours under current Open Space Regulations. However, expansion of hours of use for City Open Space appears to be in conflict with established City policies intended to protect natural resource values and neighborhoods proximate to trailheads, and may also pose increased safety risk to trail users and emergency response personnel. Alternatives Possible alternative courses of action may include: 1.) Let present trends continue. This alternative would keep Open Space hours of use as they are now, while Natural Resources Program and Ranger Service staff continue to survey and collect wildlife data to better inform future management decisions. 2.) Allow for increased hours of use. This alternative would increase hours of use during winter hours to match available hours of use during summer months. 3.) Optimize hours of use through time-specific, seasonal hours of use. This alternative would seek to optimize total hours of use throughout the year by setting time-specific hours of use by season. For example, at present on the earliest sunset of the year Open Space closes at 5:50 PM and on the latest sunset of year Open Space closes at 9:21 PM. Daylight saving time is not in effect between November and March, a period of just over three months. Optimizing total hours of use so that Open Space closes at 7:00 PM when daylight saving time is not in effect during the winter and 9:00 PM when it is in effect during the summer would allow additional availability during the winter, but Open Space would close somewhat earlier in the summer. The total number of hours of use throughout the course of the year would be approximately the same. 4.) Consider site-specific locations for changes to hours of use. This alternative would allow either increased hours or optimized hours at site specific locations only. Such a location would ideally avoid Open Space properties where wildlife use is thought to be most prolific, avoid neighborhood, and would have relatively straightforward emergency response access. Johnson Ranch Open Space and Irish Hills Natural Reserve are part of a much larger wildlife habitat that is ecologically connected to the larger Irish Hills landscape, while Stenner Springs Natural Reserve and Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve are similarly connected to the Los Padres National Forest. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, Terrace Hill Open Space, South Hills Natural Reserve, and Islay Hill Open Space are all very proximate to existing neighborhoods. This leaves Laguna Lake Natural Reserve and Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve as possible candidates for site-specific hours of use; both properties are located away from neighborhoods, feature designated parking areas, and have emergency vehicle access. Wildlife use and species composition at these properties, compared to those connected to larger landscapes, is not known although both properties are tangent to urbanized areas and disturbances such as Highway 101. Packet Pg. 289 17 13 5.) Consider docent-led outings as pilot programs. This alternative was suggested in several stakeholder discussions, and is a fairly common practice among other agencies with Open Space properties. Opportunities for full moon outings or star-gazing outings provide a valuable outdoor education experience in a controlled setting. No matter what alternative or combinations of the alternatives are selected, staff recommends ongoing monitoring and subsequent re-evaluation given the uncertainty of the effects of nighttime use on City Open Space and surrounding areas. This report also recognizes and acknowledges that the City Council precluded from consideration increased hours of use at Bishop Peak Natural Reserve at its meeting of February 21, 2017. Evaluative Criteria Criteria for evaluating alternatives for Open Space hours of use issue may include: 1.) consistency with the City’s existing policy framework; 2.) environmental review and impact analysis; 3.) stakeholder and trail user preferences; 4.) fiscal impacts pertaining to staffing resources and equipment; and 5.) trail user and emergency response personnel safety. Projected Outcomes of Alternatives Open Space Hours of Use Decision Matrix Consistent with Policy Environmental Impact Stakeholders - Change Stakeholders - No Change Fiscal Impact Safety Impact 1. Present trends Yes No No Yes No No 2. Increased Hours No Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3. Optimized Hours Yes No Yes Maybe No Maybe 4. Site Specific Hours Maybe Maybe Yes Maybe Yes Maybe 5. Pilot Program Maybe No Maybe Maybe Yes No Findings and Recommendations The extent to which changes to the existing hours of use policy will create substantive new impacts to natural resource values, neighborhoods, and safety are unknown, nor have thresholds for evaluating these impacts been established. When setting policy in the face of such uncertainty, staff recommends a very cautious and conservative approach. Should the City Council desire to make changes to the existing policy, staff recommends a combination of optimized hours of use, site specific locations, and docent-led outings as pilot programs with ongoing monitoring and subsequent re-evaluation. This set of recommendations appears to best address the evaluative criteria while still allowing an opportunity to address the problem statement. With acknowledgment of the uncertainties associated with wildlife management and complex ecological systems, this approach also appears to be appropriately cautious. An additional benefit of the set, optimized hours of use strategy is that it may lead to increased user compliance because the allowed hours of use are less ambiguous compared to the existing policy, which, in turn, may lead to less enforcement burden on Ranger Service personnel. Packet Pg. 290 17 14 REFERENCES Adopted Policy Documents: 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: 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: 1. Open Space Maintenance Plan (2015) Literature Review: 1. City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey (Riggs et. al., 2015) 2. Wildlife Survey and Identification of Game Trails: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve (Engdahl, 2013) Note: This document is included as Appendix B to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. 3. Nighttime Access Management White Paper Analysis (City of Boulder, 2012) 4. Effects of Recreation on Animals (Larson, Reed, Merenlender, Crooks, 2016) PHOTOS AND MAP CREDIT Cover photo – Judith Hildinger Wildlife game camera photos – Jessica Engdahl and City staff Open Space Map – City staff Packet Pg. 291 17 From:Johnson, Derek To:Gary Felsman General Cc:Hill, Robert; Department Heads Subject:RE: San Luis Obispo Open Space Update and Usage Request Date:Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:47:05 PM Attachments:image001.png Good Evening Gary, Thank you for the email to the City Council. We appreciate your support and the volunteer hours and dedication to the City’s open space. As you may know, the City Council directed staff to explore opportunities to provide access to open space during evening hours after public comment on August 16, 2016. We intend to return to the City Council with a project plan to outline our approach and anticipate returning to the City Council in Spring 2017 in a study session format to receive specific direction. This email copies Bob Hill who will be leading the effort and will certainly be in touch with the broad base of residents and stakeholders on the process ahead of us. Please expect to hear from Bob soon and thank you for reaching out to the City. All the best, Derek Johnson Assistant City Manager City Administrations 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E djohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7112 slocity.org BCC: Mayor and Council From: Gary Felsman General [mailto:backpackingary1@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: San Luis Obispo Open Space Update and Usage Request September 7, 2016 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Packet Pg. 292 17 Subject: Open Space Update and Usage Request Dear Mayor and Council Members; I am writing this letter as it has been almost a year since the City hired additional Rangers, approved a Maintenance Plan for City Open Space Areas and having served on the Open Space Round Table that concluded in June of 2016 with Bob Hill looking at what we want the City’s Open Space Program to look like over the next 20 years. My wife and I are now regular volunteers working with City Rangers every week and maintaining other trails as needed such as Islay Hill. I can say the Ranger Staff and Bob hill really care about the City’s Open Space Areas and go above and beyond to make sure everyone has a good experience while enjoy the Open Space Areas. First and foremost I want to thank the City Council for having the foresight to hire additional Rangers and enforcing many of the rules concerning Dogs on leash and Open Space hour usage. The City of SLO should be proud of what has been accomplished in the last year. I have seen a significant increase in compliance with leashed dogs and fewer problems with late night outings on many of the Open Space Areas such as the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. Unfortunately, as changes are made, there are sometimes unintended consequences as a result of such changes. In particular, the closure of Open Space Areas one hour after dusk during winter hours has forced some individuals to find other ways to access places like San Luis Mountain and the Irish Hills. For San Luis Mountain, many people are now using Serrano Drive, Hill Street, or the Madonna Inn to access San Luis Mountain. Others are using the Costco Parking Lot to access the Irish Hills. These areas provide direct access across private lands where the City really cannot enforce these rules. I cannot say how much this is affecting these areas, but it is sure to increase as the word spreads. Many of the Informal hiking groups and Meet Up Groups are now using these other entry points. These unintended consequences were also brought up in the Open Space Round Table with Bob Hill and Doug Carscaden. One of the comments made was; “How can we balance the desire of recreating in the evenings while at the same time protecting the wildlife, habitat and the neighbors surrounding many of the Open Space Areas.” To potentially address this I have been looking at how we could possibly allow some Open Space Areas to remain open longer during winter months giving an individual the opportunity to take a hike/ride to the top of San Luis Mountain, using the Maino Open Space Area after work for a couple of hours, or take evening walk/ride on Johnson Ranch. I would like to suggest that the City work with the Parks and Recreation Department, Rangers and Bob Hill to look at creating a pilot program to explore this avenue at either San Luis Mountain and/or Johnson Ranch, thereby continuing to protect impacted neighborhoods, such as Bishop Peak from night usage and limit the impacts on other neighborhoods such as Serrano Drive. Below is an example of what I might suggest the Pilot Program look like: · On Sunday, November 6th, 2016, the Sun sets at approximately 5 p.m. due to Daylight Saving Time Change allowing users to only access San Luis Mountain until 6 p.m. with the current Open Space Regulations. (One hour before sunrise and one hour before sunset) · I would propose to the City to extend the hours of use on one or more of the Open Space Areas allowing users to stay on the Open Space Area(s) of choice until 7 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. · If 7 p.m. is chosen; the start date would be November 6th, 2016. (Sunset on November 5th is 6 p.m. DST) · If 7:30 p.m. is chosen; the Start Date would be October 15th, 2016. (Sunset is 6:30 p.m.) th Packet Pg. 293 17 · If the hours are changed, these hours would stay in place until March 11 , 2017. This is when Daylight Saving Starts again. At this point, the Open Space Hours would revert back to normal operation one hour before sunrise and one hour before sunset. · The actual hours of usage, when it begins and other details should be determined by the City of SLO, Rangers and Bob Hill. The ultimate goal here is to continue to protect the neighborhoods of the City, not impact the other neighborhoods that may become more impacted as time goes on with the continued enforcement of night time hiking/riding, while at the same time providing sufficient hours for wildlife movement and habitat protection. It is my belief, that if we do expand some areas for extended use the city will have the opportunity to educate those that choose to still violate the Dawn to Dusk Rule in areas like Bishop Peak and redirect them to an Open Space Area that has extended hours of use. I hope the City Council finds this information useful as we strive to create a balance between public use, neighborhood protection and the protection of wildlife and habitat on the City of SLO’s Open Space Areas. If there are any questions, or would like to discuss this further please contact me. Sincerely, Gary Felsman 1266 Sumac Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. (805)473-3694 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com Packet Pg. 294 17 Packet Pg. 295 17 1 Hill, Robert From:Johnson, Derek Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:38 PM To:Diane Behn Cc:Hill, Robert Subject:RE: Opening Bishop's Peak to night use Dear Ms. Behn: Thank you for your email and City staff will be presenting a plan to analyze any changes in allowed night time activities in open space. This plan and the associated process to consider changes to allow for nighttime uses in open space will be considered by the City Council on the consent calendar at the 02/21/17 meeting. Public Comments are taken on consent items and the item is only discussed by the City Council should the Mayor or individual Council Members elect to pull the item for discussion. The agenda packet that will include the project plan will be available to the public at the City’s website on 02/14/17. Thank you and please be in touch with Bob Hill should you have any particular questions about the proposed approach. Derek Johnson Assistant City Manager City Administrations 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E djohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7112 slocity.org BCC: Mayor and Council From: Diane Behn [mailto:slocpm@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 3:07 PM To: E‐mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Opening Bishop's Peak to night use Councilmembers: Word has it that the Council is considering permitting the Bishop's Peak preserve to be used by the public after dusk. Even on a trial basis, that use could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in rescue and evacuation expenses. I sure hope you have your part of those expenses accounted for! Packet Pg. 296 17 2 Each year there are at least a few necessary rescues of people who have injured themselves. Most of these are during daylight hours. In darkness it is logical to assume there are likely to be more accidents. I have been up to the top many times, yet the trail remains challenging to maneuver in many places. Aside from the expenses related to rescues, people are already making use of the preserve as a place to go and have a few drinks and/or to smoke marijuana after nightfall. I know this to be the case because I live in the neighborhood and I walk up Highland Drive early almost every morning. I see the evidence (empty bottles and cans, blunts, once even a baggie of marijuana) all the time. If you officially declare the preserve to be opened at night, you can expect that use to increase dramatically. People using the preserve after dark now do so because they know City does not patrol after dark. If you knowingly opening the preserve for the use of recreational drugs and alcohol, you will need to put something in your budget to cover the cost of nighttime patrols. You might need to impose some type of fines for smoking in the preserve. You might also need to patrol it more extensively for use by the homeless. That will inevitably occur, and probably not near or on the trails, but in less seen, more remote areas. Oh yes, and look forward to increased ranger service. Your employees will need to spend more time at the trailheads to pick up the greater amount of litter left by the increased party activity night use invites. Please do not inflict upon the residents of the neighborhood a much bigger burden by expecting them to let you know how well night use is working (or not), or expect them to pick up exponentially more trash. The people who reside on upper Highland Drive have already been picking up the trash left behind by day hikers on a daily basis for years. You have properly acknowledged the fire concerns the preserve represents. If you are serious about the fire risk, and If you do not have a budget dedicated for many more rescues as well as for night patrol services and trash removal, you will not open the preserve to use by the public after dark. Diane Behn 939 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Packet Pg. 297 17 COUNCIL MEETING:? :, _ RECEIVED ITEM NO.: I - FEB 2 2 2017 SLO CITY CLERK From: Kathy apRoberts Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:05 AM To: E-mail Council Website «mailcoundl@slocity,org> Cc: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject: 2/21 City Council Meeting Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members, I addressed you last night on behalf of the natural inhabitants of all our designated Open Spaces. They have no voice, and as a community we have committed to protect and preserve their habitats. (COSE 2oo6). All land use decisions are governed by the General Plan and must be consistent with the Plan's direction. NATURAL COMMUNITIES (COSE 2006) As urban uses expand into open space, the natural cycles and interrelationships upon which natural communities depend are altered. This results in the disturbance, displacement, loss of habitat or mobility and the loss of animal or plant populations. For example, each species requires a specific range of environmental conditions to survive and reproduce. Areas within this range constitute the species' niche or more generally, habitat. Animals move within and through habitat areas to find water, food, shelter, and to reproduce. Such movements have evolved over time to fit animals' needs within the natural landscape. Urban development and linear barriers such as major roadways change the landscape too quickly for many animals to adapt, thus interrupting and blocking such movement. As a result, wildlife populations are separated from their historic habitat and from other breeding populations of the some species. The result: a gradual reduction in the numbers and diversity of wildlife. As a steward far the natural resources of future -generations, the City must preserve habitat and the species that it supports. I am so disappointed that four of you are in support of considering night hiking. It appears that you are only listening to "the loudest voices in the room", who are not content to enjoy our Open Spaces during current established hours. While your motion excluded Bishop Peak Natural Preserve, you are opening up all other open spaces for consideration of night hiking. This is absolutely not unacceptable. Kathy apRoberts Packet Pg. 298 17 COUNCIL MEETING: -21-11 ITEM NO.: 5! FEB 2 2 2017 CITY CLE From: Richard J. Krejsa [ Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:39 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcounci! slocit .or > Cc: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocitv.crg>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org> Subject: NIGHT HIKING IN CITY OPEN SPACES To: City Council <emailcounciWslocity.yr > cc: Heidi Harmon <hharmon@slocity.or>; Andy Pease <apease@slocity.or >; Aaron Gomez agom ez @ sl ocity. o r >; Dan Rivoire <drivoire@slocity.or >; Carlyn Christianson <cchristianson@slocity.org> From: Dr. Richard J. Krejsa < Subject: Night Hiking in City Open Spaces Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, My name is Dr. Richard J. Krejsa. In 1971, 1 became Co -Founder and Frist Chairman of ECOSLO. In 1994, after 35 years of teaching fisheries biology, resource conservation, and comparative anatomy at a total of 5 well- known institutions of higher education, I retired from Cal Poly's Biological Sciences Department as Emeritus Professor. During 1994 and 1995, 1 was one of two biologists that served on the City of San Luis Obispo's Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF). At that time I also contributed to and helped review our first Open Space Element. Our goal on the EQTF was to understand the diversity of organisms, plant and animals, that lived within the planned borders of the City of SLO and to plan the preservation of Open Spaces that would be saved, not developed, to protect those organisms in our greenbelt. If you have not yet read the EQTF's final report, I heartily recommend that you do so. Packet Pg. 299 17 City Parks were to exist for People. The Open Spaces were to be protected spaces for the natural organisms living therein or upon: They were NOT to become parks! Aside from erosion and plant damage, one major potential widespread ecological damage of night hiking would be the role of lighting on behavioral activities, e.g., feeding, mating, nesting, etc., on local terrestrial vertebrate fauna, i.e., amphibians, reptiles, birds, & mammals. Lots of life histories! Over those past years as professor, my job was to profess to my students whatever I believed, on the basis of scholarship and experience, to be the current biological truths as I understood them. I now profess to you that I am vigorously opposed to allowing any form of night -hiking in any of our City's Open Spaces and/or Greenbelt. Asking city residents to allow night -hiking will definitely degrade the precious open space ecology that some of us have spent thousands of hours trying to preserve over the last 20+ years. Recently, a Cal Poly student, hiking illegally on Bishop Peak after dark, fell off a cliff and was severely injured. Peakside neighbors and those from adjoining neighborhoods were subject to: the chopping noise from three rescue helicopters; beams of powerful searchlights scanning the peak and surrounding areas; hillside disturbances of rescuers climbing up and down the mountain; and sheriff's sirens. No one likes to hear of anyone being accidentally injured but this accident happened while the hiker was illegally hiking on the mountain after dark. It should and could have been avoided. As a final thought, I don't know what the civic fine is for night-time hiking on Bishop Peak but I doubt if it comes anywhere close to paying for the costs of such a rescue all of which, I presume, are borne by city/county taxpayers. Please increase, but don't repeal existing fines for night-time hiking. Dr. Richard J. Krejsa Packet Pg. 300 17 v uCOUNCILMEETING: ITEM NO.: FEB 21 2017 CITY CLERK{ From: cc me lean [ Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:21 AM To: E-mail Council Website <ema_ilcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Harmon, Heidi <h_harmo9 slocity.orp>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.orp; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <i),Rivoire slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@siocity.org> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 8 NIGHT HIKING 2/21/ 17 Please place in Agenda Correspondence. Thank you. Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Please consider the following regarding night hiking: 1. As cited in our city's Municipal code, Open Space is set aside primarily for conservation. 2. A secondary use is recreation, such as hiking. 3. Conservation includes the land, animals and plants of the Open Space. 4. Wildlife is very active at dusk and dawn; it's necessary for their survival. 5. Our General Plan & COSE support the preservation of wildlife corridors. As our city has expanded, we have maintained our responsibility as stewards of the land and wildlife. Please help our city continue in the direction of these environmental values and limit hiking and other non-destructive recreational uses of our Open Space to the time after sunrise and one hour before sunset. This would also help cut back on the frequent, expensive rescues and injuries that mostly occur during non -daylight hours. Who shoulders this expense? Wild animals need to be able to leave their homes to obtain food and water. To be forced into human encounters would be unsafe for both the stressed animals and humans. We have moved into their territory and have a moral responsibility to allow them to survive and live in what remains of their habitats. Please do not endorse night hiking. Thank you for your consideration of this opportunity to support our city's Open Space, wildlife, land, trees and other plants. Sincerely, Cheryl McLean San Luis Obispo Packet Pg. 301 17 COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: . II FEB 21 2017 LO CITY CLERK From: Christine Mulholland [ Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:59 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: c-8 - night hikeing Dear Mayor and Council members, I am in full support of maintaining the prohibition on night time hiking in our Open Space. I stand with the Sierra Club's letter to you, and those of others who have shared the purpose of Open Space and the reasons for its creation. Please make quick work of this by directing staff to discontinue any efforts to further this proposal. Thank you, Christine Mulholland Packet Pg. 302 17 COUNCIL MEETING: , - 2.1-J Z ITEM NO.: 13• _-- _-- _ FEB 21 2017 From: Tom Neumann Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:26 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emaiicouncilC&slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocitv.org>; Pease, Andy apease_@)slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <QRivoire@slocity.or&>; Christianson, Carlyn cchristianson @slocity.or> Subject: No Night Hiking Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Please consider the following regarding night hiking: 1. As cited in our city's Municipal code, Open Space is set aside primarily for conservation. 2. A secondary use is recreation, such as hiking. 3. Conservation includes the land, animals and plants of the Open Space. 4. Wildlife is very active at dusk and dawn; it's necessary for their survival. 5. Our General Plan & COSE support the preservation of wildlife corridors. As our city has expanded, we have maintained our responsibility as stewards of the land and wildlife. Please help our city continue in the direction of these environmental values and limit hiking and other non-destructive recreational uses of our Open Space to the time after sunrise and one hour before sunset. This would also help cut back on the frequent, expensive rescues and injuries that mostly occur during non -daylight hours. Who shoulders this expense? Wild animals need to be able to leave their homes to obtain food and water. To be forced into human encounters would be unsafe for both the stressed animals and humans. We have moved into their territory and have a moral responsibility to allow them to survive and live in what remains of their habitats. Please do not endorse night hiking. Thank you for your consideration of this opportunity to support our city's Open Space, wildlife, land, trees and other plants. Thank you, Tom and Ann Neumann SLO. Packet Pg. 303 17 OUNCI L MEETING: ITEM NO,: _ 5 „ FEB 21 2017 5LO CITY From: Pam[ Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:37 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.or > Subject: FW: No night hiking From: Pam [ Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 201711:35 AM To: 'apease@slocity.org'; 'Aaron Gomez'; 'Dan Rivoire'; 'Carlyn Christianson' Subject: No night hiking Dear City Council Members, Night hiking is dangerous, and it is a time for the animals to not be burdened with the presence of humans. Because of this I urge you to not allow night hiking. Thank you, Pam Racouillat This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. Packet Pg. 304 17 COUNCIL MEETING: R COVED ITEM NO.: FEB 21 2017 SLQ CITY From: Ruggles Joanne [ Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 2:46 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncii@slocity.org> Subject: Concerns About Night Hiking on Bishop Peak Madame Mayor and City Council members, My husband and I have had the privilege of living on the slope of Bishop Peak for 25 years. We designed our home with the assistance of two on my former architecture students that I taught years before at Cal Poly. That home (heavily scrutinized because it was in the city's viewshed) won an Obispo Beautiful award the year after it was completed. Because of our desire to use native plantings including over two dozen oak trees, many birds and animals now reside on or visit our 2 1/2 acre site that directly borders the open space on Bishop Peak. During the time we have been here, we have never considered fencing our property because it is clear that these wild animals consider this land their own, and that our occupancy is temporary. We have just been advised that the city council is once again considering whether night-time use of this open space should be allowed. For that reason we are writing to ask that you please be aware that the city's consideration of night-time hiking on Bishop's Peak poses serious problems for our existing neighborhood, as well as for the animals that reside in this wild area at the city's edge. Nighttime use puts the homes, property and citizens in our Bishop Peak neighborhood at increased jeopardy of fire. While our daytime temperatures are generally mild, nighttime hikers (or overnight campers) who Packet Pg. 305 17 experience our region's cold night weather are more likely to consider a camp fire as a good idea to keep warm. Unfortunately a wildfire that starts at night on the mountain could likely prove to be disastrous to a sleeping neighborhood. Nighttime users are less likely to read existing signs providing the regulations that inform their use of the trail and open space. Hiking after dark increases the likelihood of individuals leaving the trails, and getting lost or injured. If rescue activities increased as a result, our city would face additional cost and liability exposure for those efforts. Furthermore residents of the existing neighborhood who have a reasonable expectation of the quiet necessary for sleep can similarly be compromised by nighttime use and the associated rescue activities occurring on the mountain. Nighttime use will compromise the health and vitality of the animal and bird populations that exist within this open space area. Most animals come out under the protection of darkness to hunt and feed. Only when water or food supplies are low, do you see these animals in daylight. After living on this property for 25 years we know that many songbirds, owls, hawks, turkeys, wild cats, coyotes, foxes, deer, and other wild animals share this beautiful place with us. While it is not often that we see them out in the daytime, we have see them enough (or find evidence of them) to know they are living here with us. We are sharing a few photos of the animals we have observed on our property. Packet Pg. 306 17 k 01 JiK.,;- r F.-. My husband took these rare telephoto shots last summer of a bobcat who was crossing on the side of our property next to the hiking trail.) 3 Packet Pg. 307 17 w; lam• . ' vi To Vii- _ c.:•+-.} . _. vo Ar tiho lopit / '''.• ` +fie r ; - •+. , ' ^ i % - ' .. Packet Pg. 308 17 Packet Pg. 309 17 Packet Pg. 310 17 These wild creatures should not be denied their natural habitat. Because their primary time to hunt and feed is at night, we have an ethical duty to help them survive and our grandchildren deserve to find them still thriving in the wild. For these many reasons, we do not believe allowing nighttime access to Bishop Peak is wise. Thanks for listening to our concerns. Joanne and Philip Ruggles San Luis Obispo, CA Packet Pg. 311 17 COUNCIL MEETING: + " C16CJ Vcv ITEM NO.: f FED 2 2 2M) SLS CITY CL E_ R From: Sara von Schwind [ E Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:21 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Thank you and Agenda available Dear Bob, I was glad to see the City Council recommending moving forward tonight with the amended Project Plan for Item #8. 1 was also glad to see Bishop Peak removed from consideration as well as limiting the hours to mirror the summer hours. I am very interested, as you know, in some ability to hike after work all year round as we have discussed and I have relayed to the city council through letters and testimony. If there is anything that I can do to facilitate, coordinate, participate, or engage in the process please let me know. Thank you, Sara Sara von Schwind San Luis Obispo, CA Feb 15, 2017 9:40 AM, "Hill, Robert" <rhillfcr,slocity.org> wrote: Dear Ms. Von Schwind: Thank you so much for your thoughtful dialogue this past summer pertaining to City open space, and the hours of use issue, in particular. As you will recall from the prior meeting, we were to prepare a Project Plan and return to City Council. The Project Plan is on the City Council's meeting agenda for 2/21 that posted yesterday afternoon; please see item C8: http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=14917 If the Project Plan moves forward, we anticipate returning to Council on 3/21 for the Study Session. Best regards, Packet Pg. 312 17 Robert Hill Natural Resources Manager City Administration Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org Packet Pg. 313 17 COUNCIL MEETING: 12 -.R I 1 .. . %- ow V `j ITEM NO,:_____ _ _ FEB 21 2017 From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club [ Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 5:09 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 2/21/17 Agenda Item C8: Project Plan for Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA TO: San Luis Obispo City Council RE: 2/21/17 Agenda Item C8: Project Plan for Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation Dear Mayor Harmon and Councilmembers, As the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization, the Sierra Club is all about exploring, enjoying and protecting the wild places of the earth. We practice and promote the responsible use of ecosystems and resources. So as much as we might enjoy hiking at night in San Luis Obispo's natural open spaces, or how convenient this might be for the schedules of some residents, we must advocate for responsible use. Please retain the Open Space Ordinance's proscription against night hiking intact and unmodified. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. This — not providing a place to go hiking — is the primary goal of the ordinance and the City's open space program. Most wildlife is most active after sunset, and will be severely disrupted by an influx of humans bearing flashlights and headlamps. The money to hire the rangers you would need to supervise and oversee the locations where you might decide to relax or suspend the ordinance is money you don't have and/or an indefensible expense compared to simple enforcement. It is also the first step down a path where the next question will be: "What else can we allow in natural open space that is not currently allowed, but somebody asked us to in the name of convenience?" The language of the open space ordinance is was put in place for a good reason. Please receive and file the staff report and proceed no further down this path. Thank you for your attention to this issue, Andrew Christie, Director Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club Packet Pg. 314 17 COUNCIL MEETING: grUrMff ITEM NO.: FEB 2 Y 2017 From: Camille Small[ Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:56 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emaiicouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Night Hlking on Council Agenda Dear Mayor and City Council, As a Community, we have to look for the good of all. It isn't about a small group interested in the personal experience of hiking at night. It is about the animals. It is about safety. It is also about drawing people into neighborhoods in the dark who cause problems. The good people who hike must consider the negative elements. Each issue is about standing up for the part of the community personally aware of and/or experiencing a negative impact. We are a community of residents who believe in stepping up for one another and we respect and support those with a legitimate cause. We know the differences in right and wrong whether the situation affects us personally or not. We respect those that have put time and effort into an issue --and do not need to express personal opinions to the contrary on some lofty (unrealistic) and/or political bent. Just as importantly, we have a history that deserves recognition. What we are facing on many levels in several locations is some with the "final say" are new to many issues; therefore, do not have a full understanding of what neighborhoods (and in this case, also nature) deserve. It is never about one section of town against another. It is not one age group vs. another. It is about what is fundamentally right for the largest number of people. As a matter of inquiry, may I learn how night hiking got onto the Council Agenda? I add this final question for a reason because I know there are many items that have not been addressed on our behalf. Let me give you two quick examples. 1 *We know that a large number of residents do not want tall buildings (surveys show). We asked if it could be placed on the ballot (as there was time before the general election). Jan asked Katie if this were possible and Katie said Staff was too busy ('plate full' was the term). It would have taken a short ballot -worthy wording. A savvy volunteer could have done it for Staff approval. 2 *We know that Cal Poly is responsible to build more housing on campus at a faster pace private -public partnerships do not cost the CSU). A group participated in wording a petition along with great statistics provided by the lead writer. Council would not agendize this item and none individually signed it. We know (most have seen) the impact of housing 12, 000 Cal Poly students in the City. We are fully aware how investors have caused rents and sales prices to rise affecting everyone. Packet Pg. 315 17 Thank You, Camille Small May REASON reign! Packet Pg. 316 17 COUNCIL MEETING: Z -2_I -) 7 INC'"=' V V_" Gardner, Erica ITEM NO.: FEB 21 2017 CITY CLERK From: Noni Smyth [mailto:no_knee@charter.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 6:38 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Noni <no_knee@charter.net> Subject: Staff Recommendation on Night Hikes/Open Use Space I will be unable to attend tomorrow night's session regarding the deliberation on night hiking in San Luis Obispo due to other commitments. However, I would like to log my voice AGAINST this proposal. I live on Anacapa Circle. The back of my property butts up against the open space and trail. Make no mistake, I realized when I moved here that there would be hiking and people using the trail. I've always been a huge fan of people utilizing our open space and spending more time with nature. However, the City of San Luis Obispo did not take under consideration the volume of hikers that would be using this trail when they started advertising it on the tourism site. Personally, I feel that it is overused and I fear for the erosion, especially after a heavy rain, on this trail. I see pp using the trail all the time after hours and early in the morning. I am deaf, so the noise is not a factor; they often yell at one another going up and down the trail. My concern is with 1) the safety of the hikers in the dark and 2) the fact that the animals should be given a time of day for their own --to hunt and to rest. It's just not fair that people use the trail when the animals should have a fair chance at using it without our interruption. Please take this under consideration as you deliberate. Thank you for your time. Noni (Winona) Smyth 171 Anacapa Cir. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-543-6955 Packet Pg. 317 17 Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 3:22 PM To: E-mail Council Website <ennailcouncil@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon_@a slocity.or >; Rivoire, Dan DRivoire@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn cc h ri stia nso n @ sl oc4ty.o rg> Subject: Night Hiking - Not in favor! February 21, 2017 Mayor Harmon and City Council Members City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members, As a lover of sports, the outdoors, and our City, I am writing to you about the prospects for night hiking in our community. I am, for the most part, opposed to any night hiking on the basis of safety and preserving our environment. In brief, the reasons include: 1. As cited in our city's Municipal code, Open Space is set aside primarily for conservation. 2. A secondary use is indeed recreation, such as hiking. 3. Conservation includes the land, animals, and plants of the Open Space. 4. Wildlife is very active at dusk and dawn; it's necessary for their survival. 5. Our General Plan supports the preservation of wildlife corridors. 6. The safety of the hikers and residents. We bear the collective responsibility to be stewards of the land and protect wildlife. Residents continue to advocate for the protection of our open space. As a resident of the Bishop Peak neighborhood, I have seen multiple rescues after dark. These rescues are costly and preventable. In the event that night hiking is permitted, I believe that there would be an increase in crime. Night hiking would create fire hazards. Over time these areas would be utilized by our homeless population. In addition, there are wild animals who need to be able to safely access food and water. Night hiking would force them into human encounters that would be unsafe for both parties. Please do not endorse night hiking. Please limit hiking and other non-destructive recreational uses of our Open Space to the time after sunrise and one hour before sunset. Thank you for your consideration of this opportunity to support our city's Open Space, wildlife, land, trees, and other plants. Thank you. Packet Pg. 318 17 Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre Mila Vujovich-La Barre San Luis Obispo, California Packet Pg. 319 17 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 320 17