Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Agenda Packet Tuesday, April 4, 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 PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS 1. PUBLIC HEARING - 2017 TRANSIT FARES AND ADVERTISEMENT RATES ANALYSIS (GRIGSBY/ANGUIANO – 20 MINUTES) Recommendation As recommended by Mass Transportation Committee (MTC): 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the fare and interior bus advertising rates for San Luis Obispo (SLO) Transit”; and 2. Set June 18th 2017 as the date for the new fares to be implemented. As recommended by Staff: 1. Adopt the recommendation of the MTC for the Regular 31-Day Monthly pass with a revision to limit the increase to $40 instead of $41; and 2. Adopt the recommendation of the MTC for the Senior 31-Day Monthly pass with a revision to limit the increase to $20 to be half the Regular 31-Day Monthly pass. Packet Pg. 1 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 2 STUDY SESSION 2. STUDY SESSION REGARDING INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION AND PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL PROGRAM (MATTINGLY/HIX/METZ/NANCE – 40 MINUTES) Recommendation Receive a presentation on inflow and infiltration reduction, including a Private Sewer Lateral Program, in a study session and provide feedback on reduction approaches. PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS 3. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES (IRONS/SUTTER – 15 MINUTES) Recommendation Adopt a resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City Of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding management compensation for appointed officials, department heads, and management employees and superseding previous resolutions in conflict,” with a one and one-half year term (January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) adjusting the compensation of the Unrepresented Management Employees. 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 LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9: No. of potential cases: One. ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 4, 2017 Packet Pg. 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 3 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Dan Rivoire CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PROCLAMATIONS 4. PROCLAMATION - MONTH OF THE CHILD AND CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH (HARMON – 5 MINUTES) Presentation of a proclamation proclaiming April 2017 as both the “Month of the Child” and “Child Abuse Prevention Month.” 5. PROCLAMATION - SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH (HARMON – 5 MINUTES) Presentation of a proclamation proclaiming April 2017 as "Sexual Assault Awareness Month" and April 29, 2017 as "Walk a Mile In Her Shoes Day" in San Luis Obispo. PRESENTATIONS 6. PRESENTATION - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY (WRRF) PROJECT ENERGY REBATE BY SEMPRA ENERGY (THE GAS COMPANY) (MATTINGLY/BREWEN/MATEO – 5 MINUTES) Packet Pg. 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 4 APPOINTMENTS 7. AMENDMENTS TO THE 2017 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS (GALLAGHER/GOODWIN – 5 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Upon formation, add the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to the Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments list for calendar year 2017; and 2. Appoint Council Member Carlyn Christianson to serve as a member of the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc. (CAPSLO) Board of Directors. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items. CONSENT AGENDA A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit. 8. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Recommendation Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. Packet Pg. 4 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 5 9. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, FEBRUARY 16, MARCH 7 AND MARCH 14, 2017 (GALLAGHER) Approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of February 7, February 16, March 7 and March 14, 2017. 10. REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGREEMENT FOR THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC MICHAEL C. HALPIN HOUSE (116 CHORRO STREET) (CODRON/OETZELL) Recommendation As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a historic property preservation agreement between the City and the owner of the Michael C. Halpin House at 116 Chorro Street,” under the terms described in the agreement. 11. VOLUNTARY PARTY REGISTRATION PILOT PROGRAM (CANTRELL/WALLACE) Recommendation Approve the creation of a voluntary party registration pilot program to be managed by the Police Department. 12. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DEDICATION FOR TRACTS 3063, 3066 AND 3095 (RIGHETTI RANCH, JONES, IMEL) (CODRON/WISEMAN) Recommendation 1. Approve an Affordable Housing Agreement to accept the dedication of land to meet to Inclusionary Housing Requirements of Tracts 3063, 3066, and 3095; and 2. Authorize the Community Development Director to approve minor modifications and to execute the approved Affordable Housing Agreement. Packet Pg. 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 6 13. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAINTAINING STATUS QUO BY EXPRESSLY CODIFYING AND AFFIRMING THE CITY’S AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE ITS CURRENT PERMISSIVE ZONING, LICENSING, PERMITTING AND REGULATORY POLICIES PROHIBITING MARIJUANA USES, ACTIVITIES, AND OPERATIONS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED UNDER THE COMPASSIONATE USE ACT, THE MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATORY AND SAFETY ACT, OR THE CONTROL, REGULATE, AND TAX ADULT USE OF MARIJUANA ACT PENDING COUNCIL DIRECTION AND CONSIDERATION OF PERMANENT REGULATIONS (CODRON/DIETRICK) Recommendation Adopt Ordinance No. 1633 (2017 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, codifying and reaffirmi ng current City law, policy and practice by expressly prohibiting all commercial and industrial recreational and medical marijuana uses, activities and operations and limiting outdoor cultivation of medical and recreational marijuana within the City,” maintaining status quo by expressly codifying and affirming the City’s authority to enforce its current permissive zoning, licensing, permitting and regulatory policies prohibiting marijuana uses, activities, and operations, except as otherwise permitted under the Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Cannabis Regulatory and Safety Act, or the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act pending Council direction and consideration of permanent regulations. 14. CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE AN INDEPENDENT CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL INVESTIGATION (DIETRICK) Recommendation 1. Authorize the City Attorney to execute the second amendment to the agreement with Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, with a not to exceed amount of $70,000; and 2. Authorize the use of non-departmental: contingency budget in the amount of $20,000 to complete an ongoing independent personnel investigation. 15. ADOPT A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE CITY COUNCIL’S MARCH 21, 2017 DECISION OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY STALWORK, INC.) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TREES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET. (GRIGSBY/HORN) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Denying in Part, and Upholding in Part, an Appeal of the Tree Committee’s Decision to Deny a Tree Removal Request at 2466 Augusta Street and Waiving and Levying Civil Penalties.” Packet Pg. 6 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 16. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY TERESA MATTHEWS AND LYDIA MOURENZA) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON 71 PALOMAR DRIVE, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CODRON/COHEN – 180 MINUTES) Recommendation Adopt a resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal filed by Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza and thereby approving the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, with a mitigated negative declaration of environmental review, as represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated April 4, 2017 (71 Palomar Avenue, APPL-0158-2017),” and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's approval of the project. 17. RESOLUTION FORMALLY SETTING FORTH THE CITY’S CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND DECLARING SAN LUIS OBISPO AS A WELCOMING CITY TO ALL PERSONS, IRRESPECTIVE OF IMMIGRATION STATUS (CANTRELL/DIETRICK/JOHNSON – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation Pursuant to Council direction, consider a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, formally setting forth the City’s current policies and practices relating to federal immigration enforcement cooperation and declaring San Luis Obispo as a welcoming city to all persons, irrespective of protected characteristics or immigration status.” Packet Pg. 7 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 8 18. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE 36 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE LOCATED AT 3175 VIOLET STREET (CODRON/WISEMAN – 10 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and 2. Adopt a resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo issuance of tax exempt debt obligations to finance 36 affordable housing units located at 3175 Violet Street.” LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2) ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on Monday, April 10, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 2:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conducting closed sessions to evaluate appointed officials. A subsequent Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to discuss zoning code updates. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Packet Pg. 8 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 9 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. 9 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 10 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager SUBJECT: 2017 TRANSIT FARES AND ADVERTISEMENT RATES ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC): 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the new transit fare and interior bus advertisement rates; and 2. Set June 18th 2017 as the date for the new fares to be implemented. As recommended by Staff: 1. Adopt the recommendation of the MTC for the Regular 31-Day Monthly pass with a revision to limit the increase to $40 instead of $41. 2. Adopt the recommendation of the MTC for the Senior 31-Day Monthly pass with a revision to limit the increase to $20 to be half the Regular 31-Day Monthly Pass. DISCUSSION Background The City of San Luis Obispo adopted the current Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) in August of 2016. This plan outlines the needs and growth for the SLO Transit system over the course of the next five to seven years. These recommendations are largely based on data analysis, needs assessments and public comments. Specifically, the top four feasible public comment request were for 1) longer academic schedules, 2) longer summer schedules, 3) longer weekend schedules, and 4) more frequency. Implementation of these recommendations will largely improve the current transit services, making the system more practical and functional by better meeting the needs of the current 1.2 million local transit riders. In addition, it is anticipated that the changes in service will attract more individuals to use the improved public transit system. The recommendations for expansion of service come with financial challenges. Most notably, the City must continue to meet the state mandated 20% Farebox Ration that is explained below. Implementation of changed routes extended to new and underserved areas, increase in frequencies along heavier transit-use corridors and the expansion of operating hours all come with an associated cost increase. The last general fare increase occurred eight years ago in 2009. As the new services come-on line, and more importantly, to ensure a solid transit funding source to match our necessary grants it is now time to consider changes to the transit fare for SLO Transit. Packet Pg. 11 1 Fare Revenues Though transit operating costs are largely subsidized by both the federal and state governments, there is a State requirement for locally generated funds that requires we capture minimum fare amounts for operations. California Public Utilities Code Section 99268.3 states, in part: (a) In the case of an operator which is serving an urbanized area, and which was eligible for (Transportation Development Act) funds under this article …, the operator shall be eligible for such funds in any fiscal year, …, if it maintains, for the fiscal year, a ratio of fare revenues to operating cost, as defined by subdivision (a) of Section 99247, at least equal to one-fifth [20%]… Failure to meet the set forth 20% farebox recovery ratio can jeopardize future state assistance for use of TDA funds which is a, significant funding source for SLO Transit. The City historically hovers near the 20% farebox recovery amount and sets its service levels in anticipation of both farebox and local match requirements for TDA funds. The Cal Poly subsidy agreement has helped the City meet these requirements. Annual increases in the subsidy agreement have helped offset the annual increases in the purchased transportation costs. The City is continuing to work with Cal Poly for a revised multi-year subsidy agreement that will continue to help meet the farebox requirements for the system and ensure services to the campus. Based on proposed implementation of the Short-Range Transit Plan and the contractual operating escalation costs of roughly 3% annually; SLO Transit operational costs for the next five fiscal years have been estimated and are shown in the table below: Table 1: Five Year Projection 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 New Operational Costs $3,851,522 $3,915,604 $4,013,887 $4,100,213 $4,223,220 New 20% FareBox Amount $770,304 $783,121 $802,777 $820,043 $844,644 Current Farebox w/o Change $710,251 $724,456 $738,945 $753,724 $768,799 Difference -$60,053 -$58,665 -$63,832 -$66,319 -$75,845 5 Year Projection As shown, there is a projected annual farebox recovery short fall ranging from $58k to $75k during the five-year period. There are only two ways to address this deficiency: 1) cut back service to meet the expected revenue amount, or 2) increase the base revenue to match expected funding for needed service. Due to the long period of time since the last fare changes, staff believes that adjusting fares at this time is most appropriate to meet the expectations of the community. The primary way to address these short falls is with a fare change in the transit system’s base fare, going from $1.25 to $1.50. This fare would now match the base fare for both the RTA and South County Area Transit services that have been in place for several years. Other fares would then be adjusted accordingly with strategic and subsequent changes to match each desired group or user need. Adjusting these fares will go a long way in addressing the annual projected Packet Pg. 12 1 shortfall and help secure continual state and federal support for our local transit system; producing roughly $55 to $75k in additional revenues. This estimate has been calculated using industry elasticity study metrics to account for potential initial loss of riders that could occur with the fare adjustments. Mass Transit Advisory Recommendations Staff initially presented the subject to City’s Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) on January 8th 2016, followed by an initial public outreach meeting regarding these potential fare changes which was held on January 31st. A Special MTC meeting was convened on February 8th to review the public comments captured over a 30-day period (see Attachment C - Public Comment). MTC discussed these issues in depth and debated the merits of staffs recommended changes to the rates. Final recommended rate structures as adopted by the MTC are (see Attachment D - 2/8/17 meeting minutes): 1. Supports the change to the cash base rate fare from $1.25 to $1.50 and the half fare discount for the Senior/Disabled Cash Fare from 60 to 75 cents 2. Supports the subsequent strategic changes to the lower tier passes (e.g. 1, 3, 5 and 7 day passes) 3. Supports an initial change in the Senior monthly pass from $12.50 to $14 in FY 2017-18 then followed by $1.50 to $2 increments, depending on the need, over the co urse of the next four years until the $22 threshold is met 4. Recommended that the Regular 31 Day Monthly pass increase by $1 increments for the next four years to a maximum of $41. 5. Recommended continuance of the 15 and 16-day Punch Passes, with changes to the fare to be reflective of the changes in the base cash fare. Staff Final Recommendations The MTC recommendations varied slightly from staff’s suggested rate changes. Staff has reviewed the MTC recommendations and concurs with most. The following outlines staff’s review of these issues and final recommendation for Council. Continuation of the 15 and 16 Day Punch Passes Staff initially recommended their discontinuation of the 15 & 16 Day Punch passes because of low volume sales. MTC believes it is important to keep the passes for users that preferred a validation pass as opposed to a limited time pass. Staff concurs in continuing the 15 & 16 Day Punch Passes and recommends Council approved an increase in each proportional to the cash base fare (see table below). 31 Day Regular Monthly Pass Staff initially proposed no increase to the Regular 31 Monthly pass. The MTC felt it was important to increase the base pass to parallel the changes being requested of other users. The MTC recommended an increase of the base pass with an annual increase of $1 per year for the next four (4) years. This recommendation would result in a final approved cost of $41 for the pass in 2020. Staff supports the recommendation of the MTC but recommends increasing the pass cost by $1 only for three year (achieving a $40 base) and reviewing the needed increase Packet Pg. 13 1 thereafter. 31 Day Senior Monthly Pass The MTC concurred with staff’s recommendation to increase the Senior monthly pass ($1.50 increase in year 1) however they felt that each year change thereafter should be reviewed and established based upon need and should range between $1.50 and $2 up to the recommended $22.00. The current Senior pass is significantly discounted from the regular 31 Day pass (37%). Staff supports the recommendation of the MTC but recommends establishing the Senior changes to be consistent with the 31 Day Regular pass to reach alignment by 2020. Doing this will result in a $1.50 increase in each of the first two years (2017, 2018) and then $2.00 each year until 2020. This will result in the Senior pass being $20.00 and 50% of the Regular pass of $40. Combining the MTC and the slightly modified staff he proposed staff recommendation the proposed Fare structure changes for Council consideration would be as follows: Table 2: Fare Changes PASS TYPE CURRENT MTC STAFF Senior/Disabled Discount $0.60 $0.75 $0.75 Cash Fare $1.25 $1.50 $1.50 1 Day Pass $3.00 $3.25 $3.25 3 Day Pass $6.00 $7.00 $7.00 5 Day Pass $10.00 $12.00 $12.00 7 Day Pass $14.00 $15.00 $15.00 Senior/Disabled 31 Day $12.50 $22.00* $20.00* Student 31 Day $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Regular 31 Day $37.00 $41.00 $40.00 15 Ride Sen/Dis Punch Pass $9.00 $11.25 $11.25 16 Ride Reg Punch Pass $20.00 $24.00 $24.00 Effective June 18, 2017 *Annual incremental changes; $1.50 the first year and $2 after until reaching $20 Staff is proposing that these changes be noticed, per the City’s adopted Far e Change Notification Policy, and go into effect in tangent with the service enhancements which become effective June 18th, 2017. Advertising Rates Staff is also recommending other revenue enhancements to mitigate the impact of a fare change on the general public. City Resolution NO. 8885 (1998) allows for interior advertising on SLO Transit vehicles. To- date, interior advertisement rate revenues have been nominal and under promoted. With the addition of three replacement buses, outfitted with video infotainment system, there is the need to revisit current ad rates and further promote this as a potential local funds revenue generator to help offset fare increases. Historically non-profits have advertised for free on transit vehicles. Packet Pg. 14 1 The no cost use of the limited area on the vehicles has resulted in these ads taking up the clear majority of onboard ad space. While we are conscious of the need to promote our non-profit partners having the use of this area remain free cannot continue as it limits SLO Transit’s ability to seek higher revenue amounts from for profit sponsors. Staff is proposing to increase the For Profit rates for ad space and set the Non Profit amounts between 60% - 75% of the For Profit amounts for the various categories of advertising. Complementing the rate changes would be a new marketing campaign by the SLO Transit staff to promote the use of these ad areas by Profit and Non Profit agencies and companies. Table 3: Proposed Interior Transit Advertising Rates BUS ADVERTISING RATES Per MONTH 13 Fixed-Route Vehicles Current After Non-Profit Rates For Profit Rates Non-Profit Rates For Profit Rates (2) 11 x 17 car cards per bus $0 $350 $250 $400 (2) 11 x 28 car cards per bus $0 $450 $350 $500 (26) 5x2 ¾ Hand Holds $0 $150 $75 $150 (3) Video Infotainment System N/A N/A $300 $400 (1) Modesty Panel N/A N/A $250 $350 Package Discount N/A N/A $925 $1,500 Trolley (2) 11x17 car cards for 3 Months N/A N/A N/A $250 *No fee for advertising City Services, Events and Sponsored Events. It is anticipated that paired with the more active promotion, roughly $6,000 to $12,000 in annual advertisement revenue could be generated and used to help offset the need to increase fares to address the farebox issue. MTC unanimously supported this recommend advertisement rate changes. Ultimately, the Council has the discretion to set these rates at what it feels best for the community. Staff is not proposing to change other existing transit advertising policies at this time. Summary No fare increase or rate change is ever easy for public services. However, with the increased services being implemented this summer through the SRTP changes, and knowing that general public rates have been maintained for many years, it is time to adjust the fares to keep pace with increased costs of the system. SLO Transit has been fortunate that it has been able to maintain Packet Pg. 15 1 the base fare for so long and only propose this increase as it has become necessary. Public transit is viewed as a significant method by which to reduce traffic impacts, green-house gases and as a method to help the socio-economically challenged. The proposed fare changes ensure the local obligation in farebox is met in order to continue to deliver state and federal funding while enabling implementation of the SRTP which will improve local transit services community wide and benefit all users of the system. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund with these recommended changes. Transit fares have not changed in over seven years. Without any changes to current transit fares, there is an annual farebox recovery shortfall ranging from $58k to $75k compounding annually and jeopardizing further State funding assistance. Adjusting these fares, combined with new ad rates, will address the annual projected shortfall and help secure continual state and federal support for our local transit system. Staff will present a full Transit Fund analysis in June of this year. Should Council adopt any fare or other policy changes, any financial impacts will be incorporated into the Transit Fund analysis. ALTERNATIVES  Modify fare changes to other amounts with direction to staff. This however may have other unintended consequences which staff would need to review and which may delay full implementation of the SRTP.  Deny fare changes with direction to staff to maintain or cut back transit service to reflect the lower locally generated fare revenues. Attachments: a - 2017 Fare Increase Resolution - Draft b - Major Service Reduction & Fare Increase Public Notification Policy c - Fare Analysis - Public Comments d - 02-08-2017 MTC Minutes DRAFT Packet Pg. 16 1 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FARE AND INTERIOR BUS ADVERTISING RATES FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO (SLO) TRANSIT WHEREAS, cash and prepaid fares on SLO Transit have not changed since August 2005; and WHEREAS, the City’s most recently adopted Short Range Transit Plan calls for an expansion of transit service to better meet the needs of its riders; and WHEREAS, SLO Transit has a responsibility to meet locally generated funds obligations associated expenses with expansion of service WHEREAS, SLO Transit conducted an initial public outreach and meeting about proposed fare changes on January 31st 2017 collecting public comment; and WHEREAS, the Mass Transportation Committee recommended approval of the new fare and advertising rate structures; and WHEREAS, City Council approves and determines transit fare and advertising rates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the following fare and bus advertising rate structure for San Luis Obispo (SLO) Transit is hereby adopted: PASS TYPE CURRENT PROPOSED Senior/Disabled Discount $0.60 $0.75 Cash Fare $1.25 $1.50 1 Day Pass $3.00 $3.25 3 Day Pass $6.00 $7.00 5 Day Pass $10.00 $12.00 7 Day Pass $14.00 $15.00 Senior/Disabled 31 Day $12.50 TBD* Student 31 Day $25.00 $25.00 Regular 31 Day $37.00 TBD* 15 Ride Sen/Dis Punch Pass $9.00 $11.25 16 Ride Reg Punch Pass $20.00 $24.00 Effective June 18, 2017 *Pending Council Recommendation Packet Pg. 17 1 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ *No fee for advertising City Services, Events and Sponsored Events. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said fare and bus advertising rate structure shall go into effect starting Monday, June 19, 2017. 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 Non-Profit For Profit Non-Profit For Profit Two 11 x 17 $0.00 $350.00 $250 $400 Two 11 x 28 $0.00 $450.00 $350 $500 Thirteen 5 x 2 3/4 $0.00 $150.00 $75 $150 Infotainment S ystem N/A N/A $300 $400 One Modesty Panel N/A N/A $250 $350 Package Discount N/A N/A $925 $1,500 Bus Advertising Rates C urrent After Packet Pg. 18 1 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 19 1 City of San Luis Obispo Transit – SLO Transit Service Reduction & Fare Increase Policy I. Purpose 49 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307(d)(1)(I) provides that urban grant recipient shall have: “a locally developed process to solicit and consider public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a major reduction of transportation.” The City of San Luis Obispo’s fixed-route SLO Transit system is a recipient of Federal Transit funding and therefore must establish an acceptable public meeting procedure with respect to fare increase and major service reductions as required by Federal law. II. Definitions a. Major Service Reduction: i. An indefinite reduction of more than 15 percent of daily revenue miles or hours; or ii. A number of indefinite service reductions in any given fiscal year that add up to more than 15 percent of daily revenue miles or hours. b. Fare Increase: i. Any increase to a fare price per unit of service. c. Emergency Service Change: i. Service change that is to be in effect for fewer than thirty (30) days; and ii. Service change does not meet the criteria of Section II.A. Examples of emergency service changes include, but are not limited to; those due to power failure, severe weather, major construction, reconstruction, and improvement projects. III. Procedure Packet Pg. 20 1 a. If a Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase is determined to be necessary by SLO Transit staff, a recommendation and supporting materials will be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo City Council (Council) for consideration. b. If the Council determines that a Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase may be necessary based on staff’s recommendation and supporting documentation, staff will schedule and advertise a no less than two public meetings to be conducted in accordance with City’s most recently adopted Public Engagement Manual. One said meeting will be held during typical work day hours (before 5 p.m.) and the other after work day hours (after 5 p.m.). At a minimum, public notices for public meetings will be posted at or electronically sent to the following locations, in both English and Spanish: i. City Hall (990 Palm St.) ii. Transit Center iii. On board fixed-route vehicles iv. County/City Public Library v. Local Access TV Channel 21 vi. SLO Transit website with email link for comments vii. City of San Luis Obispo website with email link for comments viii. Social Media (e.g. Facebook) ix. Paid and legal notices in local print periodicals x. Press Releases to local media outlets c. A public meeting on the Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase will be held in a convenient, accessible and diverse location. i. The location selected will be along bus routes whenever possible; ii. The public meeting will be held under the supervision of SLO Transit Manager; iii. The public comments will be recorded and filed; and iv. The public meeting may be held at a regular Mass Transit Advisory Committee meeting. v. Spanish speaking assistance availability d. After the public meeting is closed, staff will give a recommendation for consideration by the Council e. If Council adopts a plan for a Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase, the SLO Transit Manager shall be authorized and directed to implement the action according to the approved transit schedule. The schedule shall provide a minimum of 45 (calendar) days public notice of the service or fare changes prior to their implementation. Packet Pg. 21 1 IV. Exemptions The following criteria establish certain instances which are exempt from the requirement to solicit public comment: a. Standard seasonal variations; b. Special Events (e.g. marathon, triathlon, etc.) c. Changes imposed and under the control of private organizations (e.g. CalPoly) d. An Emergency Service Change; e. Experimental service changes for a period of 180 days or less, unless the changes extend beyond 180 days and meet the criteria of a Major Service Reduction as defined in Section II.A; f. Any fare, ticket or pass rate changes that do not result in increased fares per unit of service; g. Increases in service; or h. Decreases in fares. Packet Pg. 22 1 Staff rechecked with FTA and the only requirement is for a half off fare on the base fare and does not apply to any other pass types. "Instead of increasing the Senior/Disabled Monthly pass by $2 starting this year and for the next four years, until meeting the $22 rate, could we only raise it only $1.50 this year and then two dollars the following years?" Staff supports this change to final recommendations to City Council "Does transit have to offer a half off discount for the Senior/Disabled on other pass types besides the base fare?" slotransit.org Public Comment - 2017 Fare Change Analysis Comment Staff Response Packet Pg. 23 1 Minutes - DRAFT MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 8, 2017 Special Meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee was called to order on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Thyne. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Elizabeth Thyne (Chair - Senior), John Osumi (Vice Chair – Business), Cheryl Andrus (Cal Poly), Denise Martinez (Disabled), James Thompson (Technical), Justin Frentzel (Student), David Figueroa (Alternate) Absent: Diego-Christopher Lopez (Alternate) Staff: Transit Manager Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Assistant Megan Cutler, Recording Secretary Lareina Gamboa PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. MINUTES None. ACTION ITEMS 1. Fare Changes Packet Pg. 24 1 DRAFT Minutes – Mass Transportation Committee Meeting of February 8, 2017 Page 2 Draft fare changes were presented to the committee at a previous meeting for discussion and recommendations, as well as presented to the public for comments. The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommends the following: 1.) Longer academic schedules 2.) Longer summer schedules 3.) Longer weekend schedules 4.) Core to core frequency The City currently operates with 10 vehicles during peak operation hours. SRTP improvements will allow the City to operate with 8 vehicles during peak operation hours. Transit Manager Anguiano responds to a comment regarding the elimination of day passes by informing the committee that the elimination of day passes would be a huge jump for a regular rider to make, going from just $3 to $37, so it is not a staff recommendation to eliminate any of the day passes. Committee Member Justice proposes raising the K-12 student pass so as not to put the fare increase burden on the senior/disabled pass. Transit Manager Anguiano states the senior/disabled pass increase is being caught up to the rest of the fares. The cost of the senior/disabled pass has not been raised in over seven years. Committee member Osumi states the K-12 student fare base was set to allow parents a more affordable alternative to the school bus. Committee Member Frentzel shares his concern that an increase may discourage young riders from becoming lifelong riders. Committee Member Justice shares her concern about the senior/disabled pass and proposes the increase be reduced to $1.50 per year instead of $2.00 increments. Committee Member Osumi raises the point that it is easier to present a larger fare initially and increase this fare with a smaller incremental fare increase, rather than start with a smaller fare and increase this fare with a more significant fare increase. Committee Member Justice proposes the elimination of certain day passes, making SLO Transit more comparable to other transit systems. Transit Manager Anguiano states this is not a staff recommendation. Since the pass type is determined by the farebox encoding the bar coding strip on the back, eliminating day pass types would not save money. Day passes, such as the 3-day and 7-day passes, were introduced for the purposes of encouraging visitors from conventions or special events to ride public transit during their stay in San Luis Obispo. Committee Member Andrus acknowledges the hassle of having to reload a pass more often. Advertising in buses will continue to generate revenue. Non-profit agencies may pay a small charge based on the ad. There will be no fees for City sponsored and special events ads. All fare changes are proposed to go into effect on June 19, 2017. Packet Pg. 25 1 DRAFT Minutes – Mass Transportation Committee Meeting of February 8, 2017 Page 3 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER FRENTZEL, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER JUSTICE, CARRIED 8-0, to support staff recommendation of moving the base fare to $1.50, with the exception that the senior pass only be changed to $1.50 for the first year, then reevaluated each year following to decide whether an increase is necessary or if it can remain the same each year after. The student pass will remain at $25.00 and the 31 -day pass will increase $1.00 per year for the next four years. 2. Title VI Plan Committee Member Justice brings to attention the following details:  Page 8, the senior age states 62 years old. 62 years old is based on the MTC bylaws and the advisory body process. The senior advisory body representative needs to be at least 62 years old. However, for transit purposes, such as the senior fare, the minimum age is 65 years old.  Replace “amongst these volunteer members” with “volunteer members consist of”  Page 14, replace “write me at this address” with “the address shown below” Committee Member Frentzel notes:  Page 8, replace “there is currently (1) Hispanic member” to “there are currently (3) non-white members” ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ANDRUS, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER FRENTZEL, CARRIED 8-0, to approve the amendments above. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. MTC Bylaw Revision a. MTC Bylaw revisions is to be placed on the next agenda for discussion after the committee familiarizes themselves with the bylaws in order to make suggestions. 4. Major City Goals Update a. Major City Goals were accepted by the City for multimodal transportation, as well as housing, and the Climate Action Plan. When Council begins shaping its budget, multimodal will receive some funding, and will be tied to the Climate Action Plan. 5. Transit Manager’s Report a. The double decker bus is back in route with limited usage. The new buses are in possession and are being fine tuned. On March 9, 2017 there will be a public unveiling of the new buses at 4:30 p.m. in Mission Plaza. These buses will be on display during Farmers’ Market until 9:00 p.m. Packet Pg. 26 1 DRAFT Minutes – Mass Transportation Committee Meeting of February 8, 2017 Page 4 Middle school ridership is increasing; however, overall ridership is still down. The double decker being out of service for a significant amount of time had a direct impact on ridership. The Amgen bike race and the SLO Marathon are approaching. Route detours are being finalized. Transit Manager Anguiano will keep the committee updates. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER JUSTICE, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER FIGUEROA, CARRIED 8-0 to adjourn the meeting at 3:47 p.m. until the Regular Meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee, March 8, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lareina Gamboa Recording Secretary Megan Cutler Transit Assistant APPROVED BY THE MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 27 1 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 28 1 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director Prepared By: David Hix, Utilities Deputy Director, Wastewater Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager Bud Nance, Wastewater Collection System Supervisor SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION AND PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation on inflow and infiltration reduction, including a Private Sewer Lateral Program, in a study session and provide feedback on reduction approaches. DISCUSSION Report-In Brief Inflow and infiltration (I/I) results from rainwater entering structurally deficient private sewer laterals, public sewer mains, and illegal connections. I/I flows in the City of San Luis Obispo are significant and impact all users of the wastewater system in one way or another. Effective I/I reduction is necessary to eliminate overflows and pipe surcharging, reduce the amount of I/I flow to the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), and free up pipe capacity to serve planned infill development. Achieving success will require both public and private investment. In July 2016, the City signed a settlement agreement with California River Watch related to alleged Clean Water Act violations. In alignment with the settlement agreement, this study session will be introducing programs for consideration, such as private sewer lateral inspections and offset programs. Staff is seeking direction on the scope of the program before finalizing it for Council approval. Background Since October 2016 when the City Council first received a presentation on wastewater collection system capacity constraints created by I/I (Attachment A), there has been a lot of rain. Flows at the WRRF have been extraordinary and several overflows happened in the collection system (see Table 1). For short periods of time during wet weather events, flows spike, as shown in Figure 1. Table 1: 2016 and 2017 Sanitary Sewer Overflows related to Inflow and Infiltration Overflow Date Overflow Location Overflow Quantity (in gallons) January 31, 2016 81 Broad 13,500 January 20, 2017 Broad and Murray 31,500 January 22, 2017 93 Broad 36,000 February 17, 2017 Ramona 3,500 February 21, 2017 Ramona 3,000 TOTAL: 87,500 Packet Pg. 29 2 Figure 1. Water Resource Recovery Facility, Average and Peak Flows NOTE: Flows in Figure 1 are in million gallons per day (MGD). These spikes define needed capacity improvements in the collection system and at the WRRF. The spikes also show the rapid movement of I/I entering poor condition pipes and creating overflows and treatment problems. In a perfect system, there would be no difference in capacity during wet weather events as the system would be entirely “closed loop.” A truly perfect system is not practically realistic however, efforts can be made to minimize the amount of I/I entering the City’s wastewater system. Sanitary sewer overflows are a public health risk and can result in NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit violations, fines from the Central Coast Water Board, beach closures by the San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, Clean Water Act third party lawsuits, or a long-term enforcement agreement referred to as a consent decree. The City completed its Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (Renewal Strategy) in 2016. The Renewal Strategy called attention to the fact that more than 18 miles (13 percent) of the collection system, along with most of the associated private Sewage spills reaching San Luis Obispo Creek may result in beach closures due to environmental health concerns. Source: KSBY.com January 2017 Packet Pg. 30 2 sewer laterals connecting to those pipes, is at least 75 years old. Private sewer laterals, those pipes that run from the building all the way to the publicly owned main sewer lines in the street, are the responsibility of the property owner, as shown in Figure 2. There are 172 miles of private sewer laterals that are rarely inspected prior to failure. Private sewer laterals are not the only source of I/I; however, with more miles of private sewer laterals than public sewer mains, holistically reducing I/I cannot be as effective unless leaky private sewer laterals are addressed in tandem with the efforts being made on the public sewer mains. Figure 2. Private Sewer Lateral Responsibility I/I Reduction Goals Reducing I/I has many benefits to the City including preventing overflows, reducing community health risks and meeting required regulatory conditions. Some additional goals of I/I reduction are: 1. Reclaim lost pipeline capacity in constrained areas that would allow new infill development. Every gallon per minute of I/I reduces serviceable population by approximately eight households. 2. Defer and/or reduce costly sewer main replacements needed to provide capacity for I/I. 3. Incrementally reduce the treatment capacity at the WRRF resulting in cost savings on everything from process equipment replacement to chemicals and energy (potentially millions of dollars) and operating costs. 4. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions created by pumping, chemicals and treatment needed for I/I. Table 2: Public and Private Sewer Infrastructure Public Sewer Mains (City responsibility) 136 miles Private Sewer Laterals (property owner responsibility) 172 miles* Total: 308 miles Note: The total miles of private sewer laterals is estimated based on 14,000 laterals at an average of 65 feet per lateral. Packet Pg. 31 2 California River Watch Settlement Agreement In July 2016, the City entered into a settlement agreement with California River Watch regarding alleged Clean Water Act violations. The City agreed to further consider two Supplemental Environment Programs intended to secure significant benefits to the local environment. The following programs are excerpted from that agreement: Lateral Inspection and Repair Program: Within one (1) year from the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City staff shall recommend to the City Council an ordinance establishing a program for the inspection, repair, and/or replacement of private sewer laterals. The program proposed will use the following events as a basis or “trigger” for inspection, repair, and/or replacement: 1. Transfer of ownership of the property if no inspection or replacement of the sewer lateral occurred within twenty (20) years prior to the transfer; 2. If two (2) or more sanitary sewer overflows are caused by the same private sewer lateral within the immediate past two (2) years; or 3. Where the application for a building permit indicated the expected addition of flow through the private lateral (e.g. addition of bathrooms, bedrooms, addition living space). Voluntary Private Lateral Replacement Rebate Program: The City staff shall recommend a Voluntary Private Lateral Replacement Rebate Program. For three (3) years from establishment, the Program will provide, on a first come, first served basis, one thousand ($1,000) dollars toward the total replacement costs of a residential private lateral, not to exceed a total of fifty thous and ($50,000) dollars annually. The settlement agreement with California River Watch does not mandate that the City adopt either of these programs; but it does mandate that the City Council consider an ordinance to establish such programs. Ordinance to Establish a Private Sewer Lateral Program To comply with the settlement agreement, staff will be bringing forward an ordinance for the City Council to consider establishing a Private Sewer Lateral Program. The ordinance will describe the three triggering events requiring a sewer lateral inspection (for laterals greater than 20 years old): 1. Transfer of Ownership; 2. Private Sewer Overflow; and 3. Application for a Building Permit. Packet Pg. 32 2 Some programs to address these triggering events are described at a high level below. Transfer of Ownership A seller of the real estate property would be required to demonstrate that their lateral does not contribute I/I to the City at the time of property sale/property transfer. To demonstrate to the City that a seller’s lateral will not contribute I/I the seller would provide either: • Evidence that the sewer lateral complies with existing City standards or was installed after January 1, 1997; or • A copy of a plumbing permit for 100 percent installation or replacement of the lateral after January 1, 1997. The January 1, 1997 date is proposed to comply with the 20-year timeframe in the Settlement Agreement. This timeframe corresponds to changes in City Engineering Standards that required the use of plastic pipe fused with heat or glue, which prevents I/I getting into the pipe. If the seller does not have the necessary documentation, they would have their sewer lateral inspected. A California state licensed plumbing contractor can perform the inspection. If no defects are found in the sewer lateral pipe, the City would confirm, provide the seller with confirmation and store the information in the City’s data base. If repair or replacement are necessary, the seller would complete them in accordance with a timeline, and then receive confirmation from the City before the property could be sold. Private Sewer Overflows A property owner with two sewer overflows over two years would be required to demonstrate that their lateral does not contribute to I/I. Multiple overflows suggest that the lateral is in poor condition and may be contributing to I/I. Staff would work with and educate the owner about the program. Timelines for repair and/or replacement of the lateral will be determined while working with the owner. Application for Building Permit A property owner would be required to demonstrate that their lateral does not contribute I/I to the City before receiving a building permit for the following: • Remodeling involving adding bedroom(s), plumbing fixtures including, but not limited to, drains, sinks, toilets or faucets; • A change in water service is requested (increase in meter size or adding a second meter); To demonstrate that their lateral does not contribute to I/I the same process as the transfer of ownership would be used. The timeline for repair or replacement, if required, would be determined as part of the building permit process. Based on annual property sales and permit activity, staff estimates that the lateral program would result in modifications and/or repairs to approximately 100-250 private sewer laterals to bring them into conformance with City standards. It is estimated 10,000 existing private sewer laterals Packet Pg. 33 2 do not meet current City standards or are older than 20 years. Sewer Lateral Repair or Replacement Requirements While repair and replacement criteria is still being developed; below are some conditions that will likely be considered to determine if a lateral does not contribute to I/I. • Private sewer lateral does not meet current City standards, but is water tight. No corrective measures are required. • Private sewer lateral must be repaired, rather than replaced, to be water tight due to isolated cracks, root intrusion, or similar minor pipe failure. • Private sewer lateral must be replaced to be water tight due to extensive cracks, root intrusion, or similar major pipe failure. Voluntary Private Lateral Replacement Rebate Program Approach Consistent with the settlement agreement, the City will be proposing a voluntary private lateral replacement rebate program as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan. Under this program, the City could offer the rebate Citywide, focus on rebates to capacity constrai ned areas, and/or offer larger rebates in capacity constrained areas. Funding collected from the offset program could be used to increase rebates local to the project or in capacity constrained areas to encourage lateral replacement. Rebates would be made available to those required to repair or replace sewer laterals as well as anyone voluntarily replacing one. Through staff’s outreach efforts rebates have been identified by stakeholders as critical to a successful lateral program. Should Council provide direction to proceed with a program, the 2017-2019 budget would include funding and staff would return with future guidelines for the use of the funds for any voluntary program. Other Non-Settlement Related I/I Programs Accelerated I/I Reduction Approach The Private Sewer Lateral Program will incrementally help the City make progress toward I/I reduction. However, unacceptable I/I will continue for many years. As an estimated 10,000 private laterals may require inspection, repair or replacement this approach would accelerate progress toward the I/I reduction goals. The cost to have a plumbing contractor inspect a private sewer lateral is approximately $250. The cost for full replacement of a lateral, including City permit fees described below, is approximately $8,000. To increase sewer lateral inspection, repair, and replacement beyond what can be achieved through change in ownership and permit activity per the programs discussed above, the City could develop a proactive program designed to achieve an accelerated reduction of inflow and infiltration. Currently, San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 13.08.390.D requires all sewer laterals to be “…in a safe and sanitary condition; and all devices or safeguards which are required for the operation thereof shall be maintained in a good working order.” However, absent a program such as those discussed above, knowledge of the condition of a lateral is usually unknown unless it fails. Staff could develop an ordinance for City Council consideration that a certain set of sewer laterals (i.e. all houses constructed before January 1, 1997, and/or all houses in a capacity Packet Pg. 34 2 constrained area of the City, etc.) be inspected to determine if the lateral contributes I/I. Based on set criteria, repairs and/or replacement would need to be made within an established timeframe. The City has had success with similar programs, such as the Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Program, where deadlines for inspection and repairs were identified. An accelerated I/I reduction program would likely require, at a minimum, additional funding for rebates should Council desire to offer them. Wastewater Flow Development Offset Program Wet weather capacity constraints were identified in the wastewater collection system in the Renewal Strategy presented to the City Council on January 19, 2016. The Renewal Strategy estimated the total cost to fix this problem at $30 million. Development projects and inquiries are taking place in areas that are the most impacted by I/I and staff has required wastewater flow offsets as a condition of development to allow the projects to move forward. Although I/I is widespread throughout the City, Attachment C shows areas most impacted by existing capacity deficiencies in the wastewater collection system during wet weather. The areas include: • Laguna Lake, • North and south of Foothill west of Santa Rosa Road, • North of South Street south of the downtown core, • South of Pismo Street east of Santa Barbara Road and north of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. These areas of the collection system experience “surcharging,” a condition where the sewer pipe is so full the wastewater flow starts backing up in the pipe and sometimes up into the manholes. To allow development to proceed in these areas, staff has utilized an offset mitigation strategy whereby private sewer laterals can be replaced to eliminate I/I and offset the new development’s additional wastewater flows. Staff will return and recommend a Wastewater Flow Offset Program to create wet weather capacity in a pipeline by rehabilitating private sewer laterals in the affected area. The wastewater flow offset would be required to achieve a flow rate reduction greater than the incremental increase generated by development. This offset program could be extended to miti gate I/I citywide anywhere wet weather flows cause problems in the system. Permit Cost Recovery The City’s permit cost for replacement of a private sewer lateral is about $1,500. These fees include the encroachment fee for working in the street, the plumbing permit for inspection of the lateral installation on private property and the installation of the “wye”, which connects the private lateral to the public main. Stakeholders have expressed support for a reduced fee and believe it would contribute to the success of the Private Sewer Lateral Program. These fees have been recently revised in the updated costs of services study and cover the costs of gen eral and sewer fund services. The City could consider less than 100 percent cost recovery for permit fee s associated with private sewer lateral replacement. Because of the net increase in lateral repairs and/or replacements and the collection of the related fees, anything less than 100 percent Packet Pg. 35 2 recovery could at a minimum, have a neutral fiscal impact on the wastewater fund. Outreach Efforts and Implementation In addition to this Study Session, staff has engaged the development community to discuss the scope of capacity constraints in the collection system and the Private Sewer Lateral Program at the Developer’s Roundtable. Staff has also met with Realtors related to the inspection requirement. Discussions with local plumbers about a lateral program and its important aspects are ongoing. Consideration of the Private Sewer Lateral Program is on the City Council’s agenda for May 16, 2017. Ongoing outreach and education will be critical to the successful implementation of the lateral program and staff has begun to schedule, brainstorm and engage to develop successful outreach. Discussion with other agencies that have similar programs or requirements and what they have learned will also help shape the outreach program. Because aspects of the programs will require some time to achieve meaningful outreach and discussion and ideas regarding inspection, repair and/or replacement are in the primary phases, a phased implementation approach is being considered. Below is a possible implementation schedule. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required for a study session. FISCAL IMPACT This is a study session and there is no fiscal impact associated with it. Fiscal impacts will be developed for consideration with the Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance for City Council consideration. 7/1/17 Begin wastewater flow offset program 8/15/17 Begin rebate program Packet Pg. 36 2 FOCUSED QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION Yes No 1. ACCELERATED REDUCTION APPROACH To reduce inflow and infiltration: Should the City develop an accelerated I/I reduction program? 2. WASTEWATER FLOW DEVELOPMENT OFFSET PROGRAM To reduce inflow and infiltration: a. Should the development offset program be Citywide? b. Should the development offset program be focused on capacity constrained areas? 3. LATERAL REBATE PROGRAM AND COST RECOVERY To reduce inflow and infiltration: a. Should program funding be available citywide? b. Should larger rebates be offered to the capacity constrained areas? c. Should there be restrictions on property types eligible for rebates? d. Should the City consider less than 100 percent cost recovery for permit fees associated with private sewer lateral replacement? Attachments: a - October 2016 Council Agenda Report b - California River Water Settlement Agreement, July 6, 2016 c - Capacity Constrained Areas Packet Pg. 37 2 Meeting Date: 10/4/2016 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director, Wastewater Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager SUBJECT: WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation on the impact of inflow and infiltration on the City’s wastewater collection system and current capacity constraints. DISCUSSION Wet weather capacity constraints were identified in the wastewater collection system during the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy presented to City Council on January 19, 2016. Currently development inquiries are taking place in areas that are impacted by these system capacity constraints. Measures which are being required by the City to create wet weather capacity in these problem areas are causing some confusion and concern. Raising general community awareness about these collection system capacity constraints and communicating, at a high level, what is being done to address the problem is the goal of this study session. Background Clean water is critical for sustaining life and the health of any community, yet people often take for granted the flow of used water (wastewater) out of their homes or businesses. Wastewater, once it disappears down sinks, toilets, floor drains or other outlets, flows through a network of underground sewer pipes (known as the wastewater collection system) making its way to water resource recovery facilities where it is cleaned and safely reused and/or released back to the environment. The City of San Luis Obispo’s wastewater collection system includes 137 miles of sewer lines and 2,900 manholes with the majority of the City’s collection system being six-inch clay pipe. Depending on the topography, wastewater flows to the water resource recovery facility either by gravity or with the assistance of lift stations. Like many older cities, portions (about 13%) of the City’s sewer pipe inventory pre-dates World War II. 18 miles of pipeline currently in service was installed prior to 1940. Some pipe installed in 1910 is still in service, well beyond its expected service life. In addition to the main lines, there are 14,000 private sewer laterals (approximately 172 miles in length) that connect individual properties within the City to the wastewater collection system. These private sewer laterals are the property owner’s responsibility and are not maintained or replaced by the City. Packet Pg. 38 2 Inflow and Infiltration With Council’s and the ratepayers’ support over the past 25 years, progress has been made in reducing sanitary sewer overflows and service interruptions. Between 2007 and 2015 the community has invested over $25 million in replacement and repair projects that benefit the wastewater collection system. Ongoing comprehensive maintenance activities continue to improve the function of the wastewater collection system. Despite these investments, the City’s collection system and the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) continue to experience problems associated with excessive wet weather inflow and infiltration. Flows into the City’s collection system and, ultimately, to the WRRF increase from an average of 3.5 million gallons to over 25 million gallons a day when it rains. While it may be of little comfort, this problem is not unique to San Luis Obispo as there are many communities in California, and across the country, dealing with similar inflow and infiltration issues. Additionally, the drought may be exacerbating the problem as tree roots searching for a water source can open up ever-larger cracks in pipes. Because of inflow and infiltration’s impact on the community’s ability to safely convey and adequately treat its wastewater, the City’s Water and Wastewater Element of the General Plan has policies and programs to address it. Inflow and infiltration, often referred to as I&I, describes two distinct mechanisms for how stormwater enters the sewer system. Inflow is water that enters the City’s wastewater collection system at points of direct connection and is usually induced by a rain event. Private residences may have roof, yard area, or foundation drains inappropriately and illegally connected to sanitary sewers. Any extra water flowing into wastewater collection systems from above- ground sources, either intentionally or unintentionally, is referred to as inflow. Infiltration is water that flows through the ground that can seep, trickle, or flow into the wastewater collection system through cracks in sewer mains and/or private sewer laterals. These cracks may be caused by age-related pipe deterioration, loose pipe joints, poor design, installation or maintenance errors, damage, or root infiltration. Water can enter these cracks wherever sewer lines lie beneath groundwater tables or the soil above the sewer system becomes Packet Pg. 39 2 saturated. High rates of I&I into sewer pipes exceed the capacity of the wastewater collection system which leads to system backups and/or overflows. Overflows occur at manholes and usually flow to nearby storm drains or creeks. Overflows can also occur at private homes or businesses resulting in property damage. Overflows are of considerable concern to the City and our regional regulatory partners. I&I impacts the efficiency of treatment at the City’s WRRF. Peak wet weather flows require treatment processes and equipment to be sized large enough to handle the peak flows. The biological treatment processes become less effective when these large amounts of water come through into the WRRF thereby increasing the chance of NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit effluent violations. Past Studies and Programs A study conducted by the City’s wastewater collection system operators in the early 1990s found that private sewer laterals connected to the City’s wastewater collection system contributed to significant I&I problems. The study’s findings indicated that failures were mostly due to poor installation and pipe construction materials including Orangeburg pipe (a coal tar impregnated wood fiber pipe) or joint failure in clay pipe. Due to I&I problems, the City’s lateral construction standard changed during the 1980s to no longer allow the use of Orangeburg pipe for private sewer laterals. In 1996, to help combat I&I problems, Council approved the Voluntary Service Lateral Investigation and Rehabilitation Program. The program provided around 1,000 reimbursements Sewer Lateral Ownership. Packet Pg. 40 2 for lateral repair or replacement due to troublesome Orangeburg pipe, structural deficiencies, and root intrusion. The voluntary program provided free construction permits, free technical advice and a rebate of one-half the cost of replacement or repair up to a maximum of $1,000 per property. Funding for this program was discontinued in 2011 to focus resources on conducting a flow study of the collection system, identifying the areas most impacted by I&I, and completing a holistic strategy (including prioritized pipeline replacements) for the management of the City’s wastewater collection system’s infrastructure. Recent Studies The City concluded two years of flow monitoring and data collection with the completion of the Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in March 2012. This study identified base flows, peaking factors, and capacity issues, such as where surcharging (flow in the pipe is more than the pipe can accommodate) is evident and overflows are possible. Incorporating the flow monitoring data from the study and twenty years of maintenance and pipeline condition data collected in its asset management database, the City completed the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (Renewal Strategy) and hydraulic modeling in January 2016. The Renewal Strategy presents a fact-based strategy to guide policy, operations, and asset management planning decisions in an efficient and cost effective manner. The Renewal Strategy included the City’s first hydraulic model of the collection system to evaluate growth, based on growth level ‘realistic’ numbers, planned under the 2014 update to the Land Use Element. The hydraulic model is a useful tool to incorporate changes to the infrastructure and test the impacts of actual wastewater generation volumes proposed by new development as opposed to the planning numbers. The Renewal Strategy and the hydraulic model identified that in some areas of the community, I&I is limiting existing capacity in the collection system to safely accommodate additional “normal” wastewater flow that could otherwise be accommodated in the wastewater collection system. The Renewal Strategy estimated the total cost to upsize sewer mains to address peak wet weather capacity deficiencies at $30 million (Attachment A). The total cost to address all wastewater collection system pipeline deficiencies was estimated at over $47 million. So how does something like this I&I problem, that happens only when it rains, impact the ability to accommodate additional “normal” wastewater flows, especially given the reduced “normal” wastewater flows related to water conservation measures? The City’s wastewater system is highly regulated by state and federal agencies. The Ci ty is mandated by the State of California and regulated under a statewide General Waste Discharge Requirement to implement a Sewer System Management Plan that requires the collection system have adequate capacity to convey peak wet weather sewage flows. The City has been making that assurance through an aggressive maintenance, inspection, and capital program that has invested a In some areas of the community inflow and infiltration impacts may limit the ability for the wastewater collection system to safely accommodate additional “normal” wastewater flow. -based on 2016 Renewal Strategy data Packet Pg. 41 2 total of $37.8 million on wastewater collection system and WRRF capital improvements from 2007 to 2015 with another $19.5 million currently underway. These efforts have reduced the number of overflows resulting from stoppages and rainwater I&I in the past 25 years (with 53 stoppages in 1990 and 21 stoppages in 2015). Progress is being made, but evidence of significant I&I continues to be of concern and private sewer laterals are known major contributors to the I&I problem. In contrast to City sewer mains, privately owned laterals generally are not maintain ed until they fail. The City’s Municipal Code requires the following maintenance: D. Maintenance of House Sewer Connections. The property owner will be responsible for all construction, maintenance, improvements and repairs of the sewer lateral including all house connections, industrial sewers, private sewage disposal systems and appurtenances thereto, now existing or hereafter constructed. Laterals shall be maintained by the owner of the property in a safe and sanitary condition; and all devices or safeguards which are required for the operation thereof shall be maintained in a good working order. If a property owner fails to maintain the abovementioned wastewater facilities in a safe and sanitary condition, the director may order and require termination of water service to the parcel and all structures connected to the sewer outlet subject to these conditions. The water service shall not be reinstated until the maintenance or installation of appropriate wastewater disposal facilities has been approved by the director. (Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), 2014) Enforcement of private sewer lateral maintenance is difficult because they met the building code when installed, are primarily “out of sight, out of mind,” and while impacting the City with I/I, may result in no maniantence or service issues to the homeowner. Impacted Areas Although I/I is wide spread throughout the City, Attachment A shows areas most impacted by existing capacity deficiencies in the wastewater collection system during peak wet weather. They include the Laguna Lake area, the areas north and south of Foothill west of Santa Rosa Road, areas north of South Street south of the downtown core, areas south of Pismo Street east of Santa Barbara Road and north of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. These areas of the collection system experience “surcharging”, a condition where the gravity sewers are overloaded beyond its pipe full flow capacity. (See Attachment B) New development may be proposed in these areas of the City that are currently experiencing surcharging of the collection system due to I&I. In some of these cases, the City would not be able to permit the development unless additional capacity is created in the system. While the collection systems for these areas were designed to accept normal flows, the model shows that peak wet weather flows have the potential to overwhelm the system creating system overflows. When these situations occur, the City will work with developers to identify projects, such as sewer lateral replacements, that mitigate the impact of new wastewater flows. In addition, projects that the City may undertake, such as upsizing sewer mains or other capacity building projects, could accommodate wet weather flows and create additional capacity in these impacted areas. In any Packet Pg. 42 2 case, when new development is proposed, the City will evaluate that development to m ake sure that a given project’s anticipated “normal” wastewater generation will fit in the pipe during wet weather and not further exacerbate a known surcharge condition. Currently, the City is working on a variety of solutions, and is tracking the capacity created by new infrastructure projects so that information about capacity in the wastewater collection system can be shared with property owners and developers. If a project cannot reasonably offset its incremental impacts on the wastewater collection system, the City would not be able to issue permits to allow construction of the project as allowing such a connection would be in violation of the City’s State Waste Discharge Requirements. Next Steps There is no quick fix for I&I. This will be a long-term, multi-generational, work effort. The work done to-date provides the foundation for a successful path forward and provides tools that allow for adjusting the plan as more information becomes known. A method to efficiently track metrics that will show to what extent I&I is being impacted by efforts taken must be developed. Staff will be submitting CIP recommendations from the Renewal Strategy and its pipeline repair prioritization for consideration during the upcoming financial planning process. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, private lateral inspection and repair/replacement programs can be an effective way of addressing I&I. Several programs were reviewed as part of the Renewal Strategy. Through a settlement agreement with a third party, staff will be recommending an ordinance requiring inspections of private laterals which may lead to their repair or replacement. These inspections would be triggered by: 1. The sale or transfer of ownership of a property, 2. If two or more overflows within a year occur at a property, or 3. Where an applicant for a planning or building project indicates the addition of sewer flow such as a bedroom or bathroom addition. Staff will also be requesting a voluntary lateral replacement rebate program to assist homeowners with needed or required repairs or replacements for the 2017-19 Financial Plan. Once multiple options to reduce I&I from private laterals have been identified and developed to a point allowing for meaningful discussion, community stakeholder engagement will occur prior to bringing recommendations to Council. In the meantime, the Utilities Department will work with applicants proposing development in impacted areas to identify ways to create additional peak wet weather capacity in the collection system so projects can move forward. The following table provides the range of potential options that Staff will be evaluating to comprehensively address the I&I issue. Table 1: Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Measures Short-term Measures:  Work with developers to create peak wet weather capacity to accommodate new development in capacity constrained areas Packet Pg. 43 2  Continue to require inspection of private sewer laterals as condition of approval on discretionary projects that generate wastewater Moderate-term Measures:  Develop private sewer lateral rehabilitation program for Council consideration.  Develop ordinance identifying additional triggering events for private sewer lateral inspections for Council consideration.  Develop options or requirements for new development to mitigate new wastewater flows. Long-term Measures:  Sewer main replacement to address capacity constraints as part of Sewer Fund capital improvement program  Continued monitoring of wastewater flows FISCAL IMPACT This is a study session and there is no fiscal impact associated with it. Fiscal impacts will be developed in conjunction with any I&I program developed for Council consideration. Attachments: a - Pipes Over Capacity b - Capacity Constrained Areas Packet Pg. 44 2 Packet Pg. 45 2 Packet Pg. 46 2 Packet Pg. 47 2 Packet Pg. 48 2 Packet Pg. 49 2 Packet Pg. 50 2 Packet Pg. 51 2 Packet Pg. 52 2 Packet Pg. 53 2 Packet Pg. 54 2 Packet Pg. 55 2 Packet Pg. 56 2 Packet Pg. 57 2 Packet Pg. 58 2 EVANSPOLY CANYONLIM A MIOS SI SI E R R A ELM HANSEN OJAI DALY ETO T O N IN I DEER CLARIO N ZACA G U L F H U A S N A DLABIRAG ITIBURO NLOOMISROYALBOY S E N KINGOAK EPSEARAZNNOSREPSEJVENTURE ALDE R RAMONA DEL SUR NALLIMcMFEL-MAR ALBERT PINE RE D W O O D MAP L E WOODSIDEVI C E N T E IROH ZONHAZELGOLDENRODMUGUB A L B O A S E Q U O I A FEE D MI L L HARMON YVERDEDEL NORTE BRANCH A V A L O N SPIT F IR E MARLEN E RACHELDEL MAR HERMOS A PORT OLA CUYAMA VE GA TRUCKEE MISSIONRAFAEL WI LD IN GTULIPPIN E C O V E ADANAC ALPASEO BELLAMONTANANOITISOPXELLEM OBEDF ORDJANETHELMA HAYS GAILCRELDNAHERHT DAALTAACNUD N CACHUMA EMPL EOYAWHTAHPNEVAD RO EERC T K SE AW ARD HOPE LOOMIS TAFT S U N S E T CAUDILL PACIFICALRI T A RA NCHOEGNARONELLEEL CAPI TANEVORGNOTNEBQUAIL E L TIG R E MARIPOS A PER K IN S CORA L YAJ CEE L OBELI ASANTA LUCIACAVALIERPA CH EC O WAY PHILLIPS MIRA SO L CHUP ARROSA CONEJOARALIA LOS PALOSRO SESMITH VENABL E G R E T A WARREN RICARD OVIA ESTEBA NWARDYLIMELAWRENCE MAGNOLIA IRON B A R K GE ORG ESTENNE R CENTER P A R K MAS O N RUBI OTWAL NOGARCI A REBAYSEROMACS WEE N EYNAMNEP S W E E TB A YLE XINGTON BOND PMOL CO FONTANA VILLAGE VILLAGE GARNET TEENILYKSWEST NE WPORT SW YEZA CL E A RV I E W PIN N A C L E S CORD OVA TSAC IA C FE R N A N D EZ AU TO PA RK N ARAJASSATCREEKSIDE SNAPDR AGON HILLC RESTBROO KRAILRO ADAPRAMOLTISOR ASUELD O P A R K L A N D POPP Y McC OLLUM L EM O N IRRAH SAL MON DFR ANC I SFRAM BUESAWILSON LOS VERDESD E V A U L R A N C H WESTMONT SKYLARKBRESSI ABBO T T BIRC H CORRALITOSRICHARDCOLLE GE N EW P O R T MAC IRB A CARL A P E P P E R CEC EL IA LINDAGATHET A HOE FUNSTO N OLLLIMDNIW DBIANCHI F A R R I E R VILLAHUM BERTCOUR TRICH P ASAT I EMPO ROUGEOT DA HLI A VIS TA B R I S A IUQOJONSUN RO S E KL AMA TH VIA SAN BLAS HIDDEN SPRINGSAZ AL EA CY CL AMEN GARFIELDDE XTER CAMPU S W A Y GE RDA P E R EI R A WISTERIAACAC I AWE L SHJALISCO P E N N Y CY SSERPMO NT E V IS TA BOXWOODLA LU NABRI ZZOLAR A R U T H FRO OM RA NC HDE ANZASERCEIVT WPICO MARSHA M UTSUHI TOHOWARDRENRUT M A D RO N ECOUQSISCORONA FA IR VI E WCUESTA CIMADIRDAMH E L E N A TOLOSA NORT H PERIM E TE R CALLE LU P I T A FA I R WAYVELUOBRA LED DOPMACCHUMASH ANACAPA EEL ANNSOLA WA L K E R ALISALROSEMAR Y A LP H ON SO OLEALLENHSUBKOORBNETLA VINED ALA EN TRADA SERRSTHGIEH ONACARO LYNPERL A C A R P E N T E R H E N R Y BO MOTT WOOD DONNA CAZ A DER O EL CE NT R O CALL E DE L CAM IN O S SIN G L E T R E E EL PASE OBR ECK MORRISON SA N MA RC OS CA YUC O SLAKEVIE W CA M DE N KENTUC K Y ALLE Y MALIB U KENDRA MIGU E L I T OLIRIOESTELITACAMELLIAALICITABROOKPINECA S I TA S MOUNT AI N VIEW THREE SISTERS CEDAR BEECHHOLLEYCED ARCENTERSPRINGSYLVIA VALLECITO VIEWM ON T EL MIRADORJENNIFERMUST ANGCERROMO UN TA IN ENCAN TO GREGOR Y JAMI LEEDE L OR O CO NT E N T A CUMBREREDNES O LA V I R A D A MAR IN E R S REINACORNUSRODANAGFORTUNASAFETY WAYLOREDNABALOS FELIZLOS ALAMOSNOSREDNEHHATHWAY FLOR AECIRPRACHEL CLOVE R PATR IC I A NOEL A WOOD LANDVI A C A R TA NOSREDNEHCHUR CH VIS TA L A G O NOTTUHLUNETAEL M AIRP O R T WEST MIS S IO N B A L B O A WOODBRIDGE DE L RI O GNOL WEIVDR AKELAGUNAAT A SC A DE R O CORRIDA WESTMON T CR A I G SERRANO LF ECNERO FELT O N FIX L I N IIRIS IRISCROS S TURN REVI A CARTALAWR EN C E V I C TO R I A PHILLIPS GR AVESROTS Y H I L L UNIVERSITYCA MPU S AND R E W S B E A C H ESAIOUQAL-HILBU L L O C K G R O V E MI RA D A KINGMOUN T BI SHO P RAMONA LIZZIE ILEN E CHAPLI NYERFFEJUPHA M FULLERV I S T A CABALL OC ANYON CIRCLE LOMA B O NI TAELKSBU C KLE YEF ATNASHOOV ER PRADO LLEHCAVMEIS SNERHIGHLA ND D AN A CALL E JOAQUINAUGUSTAASACF L O R A LONGAEROD A LI D IO EL M E RC A D O ISLAYINDUST R IA L F IE R O AIRP ORTREKRAPHIND R OC K V I EW SA C R A M EN TO A ER O VI ST AELL A MURR A Y MURRAY TROHSO C E A N A IR E GR ANADAB EEBEE BUCH O N CA PITO LI O MEINECKE WA LNU TSTAFFORD SERPME A MITCHELLDESCANSOMOR R OMO R R OOS O S SAN LUISC A R ME L STONERIDGE A R C H E R G A R D E N SANDERCOCK MARGARI T A ROUNDHOUSEFOOTHILL DAEM OW T O R O SL A C K HIGH G A L L E O N CUES TAINIRREFS AT SSAJARA N I P OMO PALM BRIDGE BISHOPBUCKLE Y HATHWA Y FREDERICKS M ONTE R EYDAORBMA DO NNA PA CI FICOCEANAIRESOUTHW OOD B R O A D NLOCNILMILL PALMPEACH LEFFO LIV EAICIRTAPPATRIC IA SYDNEY DIABLOHIGHLAND OCEANAIRECALLE JOAQUINRAMONA SUBURBANYERFFEJCERRO ROMAULDO K E N TUCKYSPANISH O A KSBA H I ASAN MIGUELBUENA VISTABRITTANYLA LOM A MONTAL B A N SP OR TS C O M P LEX ACCE S S CERRO VIS T A BUENA VISTAPASO ROBLES SANTA MARIA BI N NS LA CITA ENC INO SAN C A R L O SSAN M A T E O PAULI N E EL CERRITOK N OLLTWIN RIDG E M O NT R OSE SAN J O SEPRI NC E T ONP O LY VUE S OUT H P E R IM ETERS A N T A Y NEZ L O O M I SST A NF OR DC U E S T ACOUP E ROAKRIDGE LOS CERROSSTENNER CREEKANDREWS L ADERABLUER O C KCALLE MALVACALLE JAZMINV IA L A PAZ VIA ENSENADABONETTI B O U G A I N V I L L EAH O L L Y HOCKC O L U M B I N E FELICIAMARIGOL D ALYSSUML A P O S A DAAMBR OS IA YARROWBLUEBELLMOR N I N G G L O R Y S U N FL O W ER LILYC H APARRAL M A N Z A NITA SU M A C WAVERTREEBUCKEYE PURPL E SAGEHUCK L EBERRYPO P UL USROBERTOKENTWOODBRIARW OOD LAWNWOODEL CASERIOCOLINABAR RANCAEDGEWOODCALLE C R O TA LOWILLOW ASHMORE S AWLEAF LARK S PURLYNNFOR E MANSPOO N E R CAPISTR A N O VISTA A R ROYOS A N ADR I A N OD E L RIO COR T E Z JEAN S T ERLINGESCUELAS O N R ISA CASTILLOISABELLA S A N SIMEON MONTECITO CARIS S ADEL SOLSHEFIELD VISTALOS VERDESLAS PR ADERAS KERRY MURLKARENJANIC EP A R TRIDGE C U C A R ACHA VISTA C OLLAD O SO' C O N NER T R EVORHIGH LAND AU G U S T A F ER N W O ODTANGL E WOO D MUIRFIELD PREFUMO CAN YON R OYAL LA ENTRADAFLORAPOI NS E TTIA WOODB R I D GETA N K F A RM B R O A D PRA D O L O S O SO S V A L L E Y GR A N DSANTA ROSAM ADON N A M ADONN A HIGUER ALAURELC A L I F O R N I ASAN TA ROSAPISMO FO OTHIL L MARS H C H OR R O S AN T A RO S A C H O R R OO R C U T T SOUTH G R A N D TA N K F A RM J O H N S O N C A L IF O R N I A BROADSOUTH HIGUERAO S O S ORCUTT HIGUE RA PISM O MARS H M ONT EREY L O S O SO S V A L L E Y B R O A D SOUTH HIGUER AORROHCJ O HN S O N HIGUERAB R OAD FOOTHILL JOHN S ONNOR TH C HOR R OTAN K FARM S AN LUISSANTA BARBARAORCUTT E F G H I J K L M N O P E F G H I J K L M N O P 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20© Copyright 2009 City of San Luis Obispo. All rights reserved. Basemap produced by the GIS Division, City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. N S W E MILES ½¾¼1 KILOMETERS ½1 CITY LIMITS Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department., Wastewater Collections, 2016. Wastewater Collection System Peak Wet Weather Capacity Constrained Areas Due to Inflow and Infiltration Packet Pg. 59 2 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 60 2 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources Prepared By: Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst II SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) with a one and one-half year term (January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) adjusting the compensation of the Unrepresented Management Employees. DISCUSSION Background The unrepresented management group includes 93 employees: two appointed officials, nine department heads, and 82 other management employees. These are professional-level employees, exempt from the overtime provisions of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including first-line supervisors, program managers, senior planners and engineers, analysts, and other professionals. The unrepresented management employees’ compensation and benefits is set by resolution adopted by Council and the Resolution expired on December 31, 2016. At the expiration of a resolution, the terms and conditions remain the same until a subsequent resolution is adopted. In September 2014, Council adopted Labor Relations Objectives (LROs) that provided guidance and high-level direction for negotiations with all employee groups including discussions with unrepresented employees. The LROs, outlined below, balance recruitment and retention of well- qualified employees with fiscal responsibility: 1. Maintain fiscal responsibility by ensuring that fair and responsible employee compensation expenditures are supported by on-going revenues. 2. Continue to make progress in the area of long-term systemic pension cost containment and reduction, including reversing the unfunded pension liability trend and other actions consistent with State law. 3. Continue to effectively manage escalating health benefit costs through balanced cost sharing and other means while maintaining comprehensive health care coverage for all eligible employees. 4. As necessary to attract and retain well-qualified employees at all levels of the organization, provide competitive compensation as articulated in the City’s Compensation Philosophy. Packet Pg. 61 3 Framing the Recommendation Management employees are unrepresented which means there are no formal negotiations, as there are for other regular employees. The group met in November and again in Januar y (due to holidays and schedules) to form a recommendation consistent with Council’s adopted Labor Relations Objectives, parity with compensation movement in other labor groups within the City during the same timeframe, cost of living, and available financial resources. The CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area has experienced an average increase of 2.7% per year over the past five years. Similarly, comparison agencies indicate negotiating COLAs in the range of 2% to 4% with 2.5% being the median COLA for 2016-17. All of the City’s represented groups have current agreements with an average of 2% COLA per year. The City’s typical approach in this context would be to make compensation recommendations that achieve parity of the Management group with the City’s represented employees. However, given the activation of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan in February, following preliminary analysis of the financial impacts of the CalPERS decision to reduce the discount rate or assumed rate of return, staff researched options consistent with the current and anticipated financial forecast. Options focused on minimizing long-term financial impacts that may be magnified by anticipated CalPERS increases, while addressing an inequity in the City health contribution between the management group and the employees they supervise, who are primarily represented by the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association (SLOCEA). The recommendation outlined below freezes the salary ranges of all management classifications and freezes the salary for almost half of the 93 employees in this group for the term of the resolution. Instead of providing a COLA that would increase salary and retirement costs, a one-time lump- sum payment is included to acknowledge and incentivize the hard work, leadership, and disparity in health contributions between unrepresented managers and SLOCEA employees. Discussions with the unrepresented management staff throughout the process were collaborative, cooperative, and supportive of Council objectives. Management Resolution The following is a summary of the key changes included in the Resolution: Term of Resolution- One and one-half year term (January 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018) to align with the 2018-19 fiscal year and with the expiration dates of the San Luis Obispo Employees Association (SLOCEA) and Police Officers Association (POA) Memorandum of Agreements. One-Time Lump Sum Payment- Provide a one-time lump sum payment of $2,000 (less applicable taxes) to the Unrepresented Management employees who are employed by the City as of the effective date of the Resolution (Attachment A). The lump sum payment is to offset the disparity between the City contribution to health insurance for the management group versus that of SLOCEA (which has been lower since January 2015). The lump sum will be provided in a manner that CalPERS does not consider special compensation and will avoid escalation in PERS costs. Packet Pg. 62 3 Health Contribution- Effective the first payroll following Council adoption, increase City healt h insurance contribution by approximately 5% to match contributions provided to SLOCEA. Maintain the current cost-sharing model that increases the City-contribution by 50% of the average percent increase in CalPERS medical premiums in December 2017 for 2018 premium increases. Discontinue cash back for employees electing coverage in the City’s health plan, ensuring compliance with the Affordable Care Act and consistency with SLOCEA and Fire. Life Insurance- Increase City provided term life insurance for management employees from $50,000 to $100,000, consistent with the benefit provided to appointed officials and department heads. Sick Leave- Allow accrued sick leave to be used to care for a family member when on a designated protected leave (i.e. Family Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act). The current cap for sick leave usage for a family member is 48 hours (or 56 hours if the family member is hospitalized and lives in the same household). Allowing employees to use more sick leave to care for a family member is not an additional cost for the City but may help with recruitment and retention and will potentially be a savings at retirement as employees can convert all accrued sick leave to service credit for retirement purposes. If an employee has used previously accrued sick leave to care for a family member, there will be less sick leave converted which will avoid additional retirement costs. The proposed adjustments to unrepresented management compensation recognize the continued leadership of this group and makes minor modifications to benefits that are low cost, but important to the unrepresented management group, especially in light of increasing workload volumes and this group’s exemption from overtime compensation. The health contribution becomes aligned with the contribution SLOCEA employees receive, meaning those employees who promote into management roles would no longer see a reduction in compensation. Further, increasing the life insurance and providing more flexibility to use sick leave addresses needs of this group to assist in balancing professional and personal needs. However, the proposed adjustments, specifically, not providing a COLA in line with COLAs provided to other represented employees groups, creates internal parity issues as management salaries remain unchanged, while salaries of the employees they supervise continue to rise during the next year. Future consideration will need to be given to potential succession planning, management workforce reliability and promotion disincentive impacts of this issue. FISCAL IMPACT There is a one-time cost in 2016-17 in the amount of $186,000. The cumulative annual ongoing total compensation cost after all items are implemented is approximately $65,000. Funding is available in the current 2015-17 Financial Plan for cost increases resulting during that timeframe and subsequent costs are modeled in the Five-Year Fiscal Forecast. Packet Pg. 63 3 ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not approve recommended changes to the resolution. Instead, adopt a resolution that continues unrepresented employee compensation without changes. This alternative is not recommended as the resolution is in line with previous Council direction. 2. Do not approve the one-time lump sum and instead adopt a resolution that includes a 2% COLA for all unrepresented managers. The cost in 2017-18 would be approximately $268,000 for the COLA and increasing into the future as PERS rates increase. This is not recommended as it is not in line with the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan. Attachments: a - Management Resolution 2017 b - Exhibit A-Management 2017 - Legislative draft Packet Pg. 64 3 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. (2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION FOR APPOINTED OFFICIALS, DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND SUPERSEDING PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT WHEREAS, the unrepresented management employees (Appointed Officials, Department Heads, and Management Employees) of the City of San Luis Obispo have remained committed to providing high quality service to the community and recognize the City’s commitment to fiscal responsibility; and WHEREAS, the unrepresented management employees have demonstrated sensitivity to the fiscal challenges facing the City and agree to no across the board salary increases (e.g. “cost of living” increases) for the term of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to providing competitive compensation as provided in the City’s adopted Compensation Philosophy. WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive authority to fix the salaries and compensation of local officials and employees pursuant San Luis Obispo Charter Section 711. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby revises unrepresented management compensation as follows: SECTION 1. The City agrees to provide a $2,000 one-time, lump sum payment to each unrepresented management employee employed with the City as of the effective date of this resolution as a means to recognize that management employees have received a lower health insurance contribution than other bargaining groups (specifically San Luis Obispo City Employees Association, the primary group supervised by management) since January 2015. SECTION 2. The City shall continue to provide employees certain fringe benefits as set forth in Exhibit “A”, fully incorporated by reference. SECTION 3. The Director of Finance shall adjust the appropriate accounts to reflect the compensation changes. SECTION 4. This resolution shall be in effect from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Packet Pg. 65 3 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ___________________, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 4th day of April, 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 ______________, 2017. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 66 3 EXHIBIT “A” Page 1 of 9 MANAGEMENT BENEFITS SUMMARY 2015 -– 20162017 - 2018 Section A Medical, Dental, Vision The City shall establish and maintain medical, dental and vision insurance plans for department head and management employees and their dependents. The City reserves the right to choose the method of insuring and plans to be offered. PERS Health Benefit Program The City has elected to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program. The City shall contribute an equal amount towards the cost of medical coverage under the Public Employee’s Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) for both active employees and retirees. The City’s contribution toward coverage under PEMHCA shall be the statutory minimum contribution amount established by CalPERS on an annual basis. The City's contribution will come out of that amount the City currently contributes to employees as part of the City’s Cafeteria Plan. The cost of the City's participation in PERS will not require the City to expend additional funds toward health insurance. In summary, this cost and any increases will be borne by the employees. Health Insurance Benefits for Domestic Partners The City has adopted a resolution electing to provide health insurance benefits to domestic partners (Section 22873 of the PEMHCA). The City has elected to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program pursuant to the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) at the PERS minimum contribution rates, currently $122.00 per month for active employees and retirees. Conditional Opt Out Employees who at initial enrollment or during the annual open enrollment period, complete an affidavit and provide proof of other minimum essential coverage for themselves and their qualified dependents (tax family) that is not a qualified health plan coverage under an exchange/marketplace or an individual plan, will be allowed to waive medical coverage for themselves and their qualified dependents (tax family). The monthly conditional opt-out incentives are: Opt Out $200 “Grandfathered” Opt Out $790 (hired before September 1, 2008) The conditional opt-out incentive shall be paid in cash (taxable income) to the employee. The employee must notify the City within 30 days of the loss of other minimum essential coverage. The conditional opt-out payment shall no longer be payable, if the employee and family members cease to be enrolled in other minimum essential coverage. Employees receiving the conditional opt-out amount will also be assessed $16.00 per month to be placed in the Retiree Health Insurance Account. This account will be used to fund the City's contribution toward retiree premiums and the City's costs for the Public Employee's Contingency Reserve Fund and the Administrative Costs. However, there is no requirement that these funds be used ex clusively Packet Pg. 67 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 2 of 9 for this purpose nor any guarantee that they will be sufficient to fund retiree health costs, although they will be used for negotiated employee benefits. Employees with proof of medical insurance elsewhere are not required to participate in the medical insurance plan and may receive the unused portion of the City’s contribution (after dental and vision insurance is deducted) in cash in accordance with the City’s cafeteria plan. Those employees will be assessed $16.00 per month to be placed in the Retiree Health Insurance Account. This account will be used to fund the City’s contribution toward retiree premiums and the City’s costs for the Public Employees’ Contingency Reserve Fund and Administrative Costs. However, there is no requirement that these funds be used exclusively for this purpose, nor any guarantee that they will be sufficient to fund retiree health costs, although they will be used for employee benefits. Dental and Vision Insurance/Dependent Coverage Effective March 23, 2017, employee participation in the City's dental and vision plans is optional. Employees who elect coverage shall pay the dental and/or eye premium by payroll deductions on a pre-tax basis through the City’s Cafeteria Plan. Employees will be required to participate in the City’s dental and vision plans at the employee-only rate. Should they elect to cover dependents in the City’s dental and vision plans, they may do so, even if they do not have dependent coverage for medical insurance. Employees shall participate in term life insurance of $4,000 through payroll deduction as a part of the cafeteria plan. Section B Cafeteria Plan ContributionHealth Flex Allowance Employees electing medical coverage in the City’s plans shall receive a health flex allowance, as defined by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), and shall purchase such coverage through the City’s Cafeteria Plan. If the health flex allowance is less than the cost of the medical plan, the employee shall have the opportunity to pay the difference between the health flex allowance and the premium cost on a pre-tax basis through the City’s Cafeteria Plan. Effective December 2017 (for January 2018 premiums), iIf the premium cost for medical coverage is less than the health flex allowance, the employee shall not receive any unused health flex in the form of cash or purchase additional benefits under the Cafeteria Plan. Effective the first full pay period following the adoption of this resolution, the monthly health flex allowance amountThe City’s contribution to the Cafeteria Plan for regular, full-time employees are as followswill increase as outlined below: Level of Coverage *with no cash back option effective Dec 2017 Current Monthly Rates Monthly Rates Upon Council Adoption Employee Only $514 $539 Employee Only “Grandfathered” $790 $790 Employee Plus One $1,017 $1,066 Family $1,375 $1,442 Packet Pg. 68 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 3 of 9 Opt-Out $200 monthly Employee Only $469 monthly Employee + 1 $928 monthly Employee + Family $1255 monthly “Grandfathered” $790 monthly Employees hired prior to September 1, 2008 that are grandfathered in and elect employee only medical coverage will receive the health flex allowance listed above for employee only “grandfathered” coverage. As of January 1, 2015, if an employee that is receiving Employee Only or Opt Out “Grandfathered” coverage changes their level of coverage, they will be eligible to return to the grandfathered coverage in a future year. Effective December 2017 (for January 2018 premiums), if the premium cost for medical coverage is less than the health flex allowance, the employee shall no longer receive any unused health flex in the form of cash. Effective December 20175 (for the January 2016 premium) and effective December 2016 (for the January 20178 premium) the City’s total Cafeteria Planhealth flex allowance for group medical coverage contribution shall be modified by an amount equal to one-half of the average percentage increase for family coverage in the PERS health plans available in San Luis Obispo County. For example: if three plans were available and the year-to-year changes were +10%, +15%, and +20% respectively, the City’s contribution would be increased by 7.5% (10% + 15% + 20% ÷ 3 = 15% x 1/2). Employees hired on September 1, 2008 or thereafter who elect not to be covered and opt out of the City medical plan will be required to provide proof of medical insurance elsewhere and receive a $200 per month cafeteria contribution. Employees hired prior to September 1, 2008 who elected either employee only medical coverage or who elect to opt out of the City medical plan with proof of medical insurance elsewhere shall be “grandfathered” in at the $790 per month contribution amount. Less than full-time employees shall receive a prorated share of the City’s contribution. The City agrees to continue its contribution to the cafeteria planhealth flex allowance for two (2) pay periods in the event that an employee has exhausted all paid time off and leave approved under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) due to an employee's catastrophic illness. That is, the employee shall receive regular City health flex allowance for the first two (2) pay periods following the pay period in which the employee’s accrued leave balances reach zero (0) and FMLA/CFRA benefits have been exhausted. Section C Life and Disability Insurance The City shall provide the following special insurance benefits in recognition of management responsibilities: Packet Pg. 69 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 4 of 9 1. Long-term disability insurance providing 66 2/3% of gross salary (maximum benefit $11,250 per month) to age 65 for any sickness or accident, subject to the exclusions in the long-term disability policy, after a 30-day waiting period. 2. In addition to $4,000 term life insurance purchased by the emplo yee, the City provides through the cafeteria plan a $100,000 term life insurance for department heads and $50,000 term life insurance for management employees, including accidental death and dismemberment through the City’s Cafeteria Plan. Section D Retirement Employees hired before December 6, 2012 The City agrees to provide the Public Employees' Retirement System’s 2.7% at age 55 retirement plan to all non-sworn eligible employees and the 3% at 50 retirement plan to all sworn employees. The 2.7% at 55 plan includes the following amendments: 1959 Survivor’s Benefit – Level Four, conversion of unused sick leave to additional retirement credit, one-year final compensation, Military Service Credit, and Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit. including the amendments permitting conversion of unused sick leave to additional retirement credit, the 1959 survivor's benefit (4th level), one year final compensation, the Military Service Credit option, and the Pre-Retirement Option 2 Death Benefit. The 3% at age 50 plan includes the following amendments: Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance, conversion of unused sick leave credit to additional retirement credit, 1959 Survivor’s Benefit- Level Four, one-year final compensation, Military Service Credit, and Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit. Non-sworn employees pay the full eight percent (8%) and sworn employees pay the full nine (9%) member contribution to PERS. Effective the first full pay period in January 2012, employees covered by the 2.7% at 55 plan will pay the full eight percent member contribution to PERS. The employee pays to PERS their contribution; as allowed under Internal Revenue Service Code Section 414 (h) (2) the contribution is made on a pre-tax basis. “Classic Members” hired on or after December 6, 2012 CalPERS determines who is a “Classic Member” within the meaning of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). For non-sworn “Classic Members” hired on or after December 6, 2012, the City will provide the PERS 2% at 60 retirement plan for non-sworn employees using the highest three-year average as final compensation. The second tier formula for non-sworn employees will include the following amendments: 1959 Survivor’s Benefit – Level Four, conversion of unused sick leave to additional retirement credit, Military Service Credit, and Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit. conversion of unused sick leave to additional retirement credit, the 1959 survivor's benefit (4th level), the Military Service Credit option, and the Pre-Retirement Option 2 Death Benefit. Employees hired under this plan will pay the full member contribution required under the plan, presently seven percent (7%). Packet Pg. 70 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 5 of 9 For sworn “Classic Members” hired on or after December 6, 2012, the City will provide the PERS 3% at 55 retirement plan for sworn Fire employees and 2% at 50 retirement plan for sworn Police employees using the highest three-year average as final compensation. The second tier formula for sworn employees will include the following amendments: Post Retirement Survivor Allowance, conversion of unused sick leave to additional retirement credit, the 1959 Survivor’s Benefit – Level Four, Military Service Credit, and Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit. Employees hired under these plans will pay the full member contribution required under the plan, presently eight percent (8%). CalPERS determines who is a “classic member” within the meaning of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). The employee pays to PERS their contribution; as allowed under Internal Revenue Service Code Section 414 (h) (2) the contribution is made on a pre-tax basis. New Members For all employees who CalPERS determines are “new members” within the meaning of the PEPRA, the City will provide the PERS 2% at 62 retirement plan for non-sworn employees and 2.7% at 57 retirement plan for sworn employees, using the highest three- year average as final compensation. Effective upon their date of hire, new members will pay 50% of the total normal cost of the member contribution, as determined by CalPERS. The employee pays to PERS their contribution; as allowed under Internal Revenue Service Code Section 414 (h) (2) the contribution is made on a pre-tax basis. Section E Supplemental Retirement The City shall contribute 1% of salary for management employees and 2% of salary for department heads to a defined contribution supplemental retirement plan established in accordance with sections 401 (a) and 501 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and California Government Code sections 53215-53224. Section F Pay for Performance In 1996 the City Council established the Management Pay for Performance System for management employees. The system is designed to recognize and reward excellent performance by managers and to provide an incentive for continuous improvement and sustained high performance. Instead of step increases, the management employee moves through his/her salary range solely according to accomplishment of objectives and job-related behavior. Further information about the Management Pay for Performance System iscan be found in the Management Pay for Performance System Guide. Section G Vacation Packet Pg. 71 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 6 of 9 Vacation leave is governed by Ssection 2.36.440 of the Municipal Code, except that it may be taken after the completion of the sixth calendar month of service since the benefit date or earlier with department head authorization. Each management employee shall accrue vacation leave with the pay at the rate of 12 days (96 hours) per year for the first five years of continuous service, 15 days (120 hours) per year upon completion of five years, 18 days (144 hours) per year upon completion of ten years, and 20 days (160 hours) upon completion of twenty years. Department Heads accrue vacation leave with pay starting at 15 days (120 hours) per year for the first ten years of continuous service, and at the same accrual rate as provided for management employees beyond ten years of continuous service. Vacation leave shall be accrued as earned each payroll periodsemi-monthly provided that not more than twice the annual rate (not including floating holiday leave) may be carried over to a new calendar year. However, if the City Manager determines that a department head has been unable to take vacation due to the press of City business, the City Manager may approve up to a six-month extension of maximum vacation accrual. The City Manager may, within two years of appointing a department head, increase the rate of vacation accrual to a maximum of 120 hours per year. Vacation schedules for management employees shall be based upon the needs of the City and then, insofar as possible, upon the wishes of the employee. A department head may not deny a management employee’s vacation request if such denial will result in the loss of vacation accrual by the employee, except that, a department head may approve up to a six-month extension of maximum vacation accrual. However, in no event shall more than one such extension be granted in any calendar year. Department Head and management employees are eligible, once annually in December, to request payment for up to 40 hours of unused vacation leave provided that an employee’s overall performance and attendance practices are satisfactory. Section H Administrative Leave Department heads and appointed officials shall be granted 80 hours of administrative leave the first full pay period in Januaryper calendar year. Management employees shall be granted 48 hours of administrative leave per calendar yearthe first full pay period in January. Administrative leave hours shall be pro-rated on a monthly basis when a department head or management employee is appointed or leaves employment during the calendar year. The employee’s final check will be adjusted to reflect the pro-rated hours, however there is no provision to receive cash payment for unused administrative hours. Unused administration leave will not be carried over year to year but can be taken through the pay period that December 31st falls within. Packet Pg. 72 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 7 of 9 Department Heads and Management employeesrs are considered exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and not eligible for overtime payment. In general, management employees are expected to work the hours necessary to successfully carry out their duties and frequently must return to work or attend meetings and events outside their normal working hours. However, when specifically authorized by the department head due to extraordinary circumstances, a management employee may receive overtime payment of time and one-half for hours worked above and beyond what would be considered normal work requirements during an emergency event lasting at least eight (8) hours. Section I Holidays Department Heads and Management employees shall receive eleven (11) fixed plus two (2) floating holidays per year. The following days of each year are designated as paid holidays:  January 1 – New Year’s Day  Third Monday in January – Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday  Third Monday in February – Presidents’ Day  Last Monday in May – Memorial Day  July 4 – Independence Day  First Monday in September – Labor Day  November 11 – Veteran’s Day  Fourth Thursday in November – Thanksgiving Day  Friday after Thanksgiving  December 25 – Christmas  One half day before Christmas  One half day before New Year’s Day When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be observed. When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed. A holiday shall be defined as eight (8) hours of paid time off for regular full time employees. When Christmas or New Year’s Holiday falls on a Tuesday or Thursday, the City reserves the right to close non-essential City services and offices on Monday or Friday (the day adjacent to the observed holiday). Essential City services are determined at the discretion of the Department Head. Employees scheduled to work in non-essential functions on the days adjacent to the paid holidays would be required to use appropriate personal leave. The City would notify employees of closure of non-essential City services and offices no later than October 31st of the same year in order to provide employees with ample time to plan accordingly. Department heads and management employees shall receive 11 fixed plus 2 floating holidays per year. The two (2) floating holidays shall be accrued on a semi-monthly basis and added to the vacation accrual. Section J Sick Leave Packet Pg. 73 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 8 of 9 Sick leave is governed by Ssection 2.36.420 of the Municipal Code. An employee shall accrue sick leave with pay at the rate of twelve (12) days or the prorated shift equivalent per year of continuous service since the benefit date. An employee may take up to 48 hours per calendar year of sick leave if required to be away from the job to personally care for a member of his/her immediate family as defined in Section 2.36.420, Labor Code 233 and/or Assembly Bill 1522. This may be extended to 56 hours if a household family member is hospitalized and the employee submits written verification of such hospitalization. In conjunction with existing leave benefits, department head and management employees with one year of City service who have worked at least 1,250 hours in the previous year may be eligible for up to 12 weeks of Family/Medical Leave in accordance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). In the event an employee is caring for a family member and is covered under FMLA/CFRA, they will be able to use all accrued sick leave to care for a family member. Sick leave may be used to be absent from duty due to the death of a member of the employee’s immediate family as defined in Section 2.36.420, provided such leave shall not exceed forty working hours for each incident. The employee may be required to submit proof of relative’s death before being granted sick leave pay. False information concerning the death or relationship shall be cause for discharge. According to the following scheduleUpon termination of employment by death or retirement, a percentage of the dollar value of the employee’s accumulated sick leave will may be paid to the employee if the employee requests upon termination by retirement, or and will be paid to the designated beneficiary or beneficiaries upon termination by death of the employee according to the following schedule: (A) Death – 25% (B) Retirement and actual commencement of CalPERS benefits: (1) After ten years of continuous employment – 10% (2) After twenty years of continuous employment – 15% Section K Workers’ Compensation Leave An employee who is absent from duty because of on-the-job injury in accordance with State workers’ compensation law and is not eligible for disability payments under Labor Code Section 4850 shall be paid the difference between his/her base salary and the amount provided by workers’ compensation law during the first ninety (90) business days of such temporary disability absence. Eligibility for workers’ compensation leave requires an open workers’ compensation claim. Section L Work Out-of-Classification An out-of-class assignment is the full-time performance of all the significant duties of an available, funded position in one classification by an individual in a position of another classification. An employee assigned in writing by management to work out -of-class in a position that is assigned a higher pay range which is vacant pending an examination or is vacant Packet Pg. 74 3 Resolution No. (20175 Series) EXHIBIT “A” Management Fringe Benefits 2015 – 20162017 - 2018 Page 9 of 9 due to an extended sick or disability leave, shall receive no less than five percent (5%), but in no case more than the top salary of the higher range, in addition to their regular base rate commencing on the eleventh consecutive workday of the out-of-class assignment. Section M L Vehicle Assignment For those department heads requiring the use of an automobile on a regular 24-hour basis to perform their normal duties, the City will, at City option, provide a City vehicle or an appropriate allowance for the employee’s use of a personal automobile. Department heads who are not provided a City vehicle shall receive a car allowance of $236 per month. The use of a personal automobile for City business will be eligible for mileage reimbursement in accordance with standard City policy. Section NM Uniform Allowance For employees Employees required to wear a uniform, including the Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal and Police Chief, shall receive the same uniform allowance as those they directly supervise. For “Classic Members” as defined by PERS, uniform allowance shall be reported to PERS as special compensation. Uniform allowance will not be pro-rated upon separation from employment. Section ON Appointed Officials The benefits outlined in this exhibit for department heads apply to appointed officials, except where they have been modified by council resolution. Packet Pg. 75 3 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 76 3 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk Prepared By: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE 2017 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS RECOMMENDATION 1. Upon formation, add the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to the Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments list for calendar year 2017; and 2. Appoint Council Member Carlyn Christianson to serve as a member of the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc. (CAPSLO) Board of Directors. DISCUSSION Background At the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting, Council Member Pease volunteered to serve as the Council Member representative on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). By consensus, Council agreed and included her appointment in the recommended motion. Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly was appointed to serve as the alternate representative. The appointments will become effective upon the formation of the GSA. After careful consideration, Council Member Pease determined that she is unable to serve as a member to the CAPSLO Board of Directors due to the additional workload with the new GSA assignment. Council Member Christianson has offered to add an additional Council Liaison assignment to her schedule and serve as the member to the CAPSLO Board of Directors. This will allow Council Member Pease additional time for the GSA. Attachments: a - 2016/2017 Council Liaison Subcommittee Assignments Packet Pg. 77 7 Revised 3/21/17 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2016-2017 CITY ADVISORY BODIES  Interviews & makes recommendations for appointments to the full Council.  Facilitates communication between Council and committees. 2016 CHAIR MEMBER 2017 CHAIR MEMBER Administrative Review Board Christianson Carpenter Gomez Christianson Architectural Review Commission Rivoire Ashbaugh Christianson Pease Bicycle Committee Rivoire Ashbaugh Pease Gomez Construction Board of Appeals Ashbaugh Christianson Christianson Pease Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Ashbaugh Christianson Pease Christianson Cultural Heritage Committee Ashbaugh Carpenter Gomez Pease Housing Authority (Mayor by state mandate) Marx N/A Harmon N/A Human Relations Commission Carpenter Rivoire Harmon Rivoire Investment Oversight Committee (This is not an advisory committee) Marx N/A Harmon N/A Jack House Committee Christianson Ashbaugh Pease Rivoire Mass Transportation Committee Rivoire Christianson Pease Gomez Parks & Recreation Commission Rivoire Marx Gomez Rivoire Personnel Board Carpenter Rivoire Harmon Gomez Planning Commission Christianson Rivoire Christianson Rivoire Promotional Coordinating Committee Ashbaugh Rivoire Christianson Rivoire Tourism Business Improvement District Board Carpenter Rivoire Gomez Rivoire Tree Committee Ashbaugh Christianson Christianson Rivoire SPECIAL PURPOSE SUBCOMMITTEES Serves as liaison representative. 2016 CHAIR MEMBER 2017 CHAIR MEMBER Cal Poly Campus Planning Committee (Master Plan) (Quarterly) Marx N/A Rivoire N/A City/University (Mayor/Rotation) (Quarterly) Marx Rotation Harmon Rotation Downtown Association Board (Monthly) Carpenter Rivoire Gomez Harmon Economic Vitality Corporation (Monthly) (Liaison only) Carpenter Ashbaugh Pease Gomez Mayor’s Advisory Body Quarterly Meeting Marx Rotation Harmon Rotation Student Community Liaison Committee (Mayor/Rotation) (Monthly) Marx Rotation Harmon Rotation Packet Pg. 78 7 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2016-2017 COUNTY/REGIONAL Serves as voting representative. 2016 CHAIR MEMBER 2017 CHAIR MEMBER Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (Quarterly) Marx Rivoire Harmon Christianson City Selection Committee (1-2 times per year) Marx Carpenter Harmon Rivoire CMC Citizens Advisory Committee (Monthly) (* 2 year term) Rivoire Ashbaugh Harmon Pease Community Action Partnership (Monthly) Christianson Ashbaugh Christianson Harmon County Water Resources Advisory Committee (County Supervisors) (Monthly) Ashbaugh Carpenter Pease Gomez County Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) N/A N/A Pease Gomez Homeless Services Oversight Committee Ashbaugh Marx Harmon Gomez Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) (Monthly) Ashbaugh Rivoire Gomez Christianson Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (Liaison Only) (Monthly) Christianson Carpenter Christianson Gomez Nacimiento Water Project Christianson Carpenter Christianson Pease Performing Arts Center Commission (Mayor/Vice Mayor as alternate) (Quarterly) Marx Lichtig Carpenter Johnson Harmon Lichtig Rivoire Johnson Performing Arts Center Facilities Standing Committee (Quarterly) Ashbaugh Principal Analyst Gomez Principal Analyst San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) (Monthly) Marx Christianson Rivoire Christianson San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) (Monthly) Marx Christianson Rivoire Christianson San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) N/A N/A Pease Mattingly Visit SLO County Advisory Committee Marx Lichtig Carpenter Johnson Harmon Lichtig Rivoire Johnson Whale Rock Commission (Mayor/Vice Mayor serves as alternate) (June & as needed) Marx Carpenter Harmon Rivoire Zone 9 Advisory Committee (Monthly) Ashbaugh Christianson Pease Gomez AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE 2016 CHAIR MEMBER 2017 CHAIR MEMBER Airport Land Use Marx Christianson Christianson Rivoire Community Choice Aggregation Exploration Advisory Committee Rivoire Christianson Harmon Pease Packet Pg. 79 7 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 80 7 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, February 7, 2017 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. STUDY SESSION 1. STUDY SESSION REGARDING WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEES Utilities Director Mattingly, Utilities Project Manager Metz and Shawn Koorn of HDR Engineering Inc. provided an in-depth report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Eric Veium, San Luis Obispo, noted that 60 % of residents are renters and they are the ones that are ultimately responsible for the impact fee for the development and not the owners. Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding lift station fees and questioned sewer capacity. ---End of Public Comment--- Packet Pg. 81 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 7, 2017 Page 2 By Council consensus, staff received and filed the presentation on the development of a Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee Study; staff will return at a future meeting to provide feedback on the direction provided by Council this evening. RECESSED AT 5:33 P.M TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, 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 Aaron Gomez led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding globalism. Bill Ostrander, representing Integrity in Our Elections spoke in support of democracy vouchers. Sean Shealy, spoke in support for democracy vouchers. Dean Arrighi, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the safety hazard of tree stumps near school zones. Bailey Dreschler, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding developments within the City and requested that staff hold an informal conversation with residents to discuss their concerns. Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding conversion of commercial to residential zones within the City. Packet Pg. 82 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 7, 2017 Page 3 Mike Latner, spoke in support of democracy vouchers. John Ashbaugh, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of democracy vouchers. Eric Veium, representing Integrity in Our Elections, spoke in support of democracy vouchers. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the removal and replacement of trees within the City. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, requested video recording of all City meetings including Advisory Bodies. Mila Vuyovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of democracy vouchers. ---End of Public Comment--- Council Member Pease requested consideration of adding video recording of all City meetings including Commission to a future agenda, request failed for a lack of consensus. Mayor Harmon inquired regarding previous findings by staff on the democracy voucher program study; Council Members Gomez and Pease showed support for the program; support for agandizing the item failed but decision was made to possibly consider the program and bring it back to Council in the future. CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 2 thru 4. ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Item 5. 2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 3. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 13, 2016 CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of December 13, 2016 4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND REQUEST FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (HASLO) AND TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION (TMHA) TO DEVELOP BISHOP STREET STUDIOS. CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution No. 10770 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving an Affordable Housing Fund Award to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo and Transitions Mental Health Association for Bishop Street Studios in the amount of $850,000” for the development of 34 affordable rental units. Packet Pg. 83 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 7, 2017 Page 4 Public Comments: Mila Vuyovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, noted support for the Transition Mental Health Association project. ---End of Public Comment--- Item 5 pulled by Council Member Pease for separate discussion and consideration. 5. AVILA RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) FORMATION CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $54,825 with Economic Planning Systems (EPS) to assist the City with the financial analysis and related tasks necessary for the formation of a Communities Facilities District (CFD) for the Avila Ranch Project. Public Comments: Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, requested item 5 be pulled for further discussion; she noted that buyers of Mello Roos projects are responsible for the additional expenses. Paul Rys , San Luis Obispo requested item 5 be pulled for further discussion. Mila Vuyovich – La Barre, requested item 5 be pulled for further discussion noting water and road concerns. ---End of Public Comment--- PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 6. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY LYDIA MOURENZA & RICHARD RACOUILLAT) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 27 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS (22 CHORRO STREET) Council Member Pease noted a potential conflict of interest due to a prior working relationship with the project’s architect, Arris Studios; she added that based on advice from the FPPC, she would recuse herself from this item and left the dais at 7:00 p.m. Council Members Christianson, Gomez and Vice Mayor Rivoire noted having no Ex Parte Communications. Mayor Harmon disclosed having a prior conversation with appellant Ms. Mourenza, which was not specific to this project, additionally she disclosed having a prior conversation with the developer many months ago. Packet Pg. 84 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 7, 2017 Page 5 Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Cohen presented an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and respond to Council questions. Appellant Richard Racouillat, noted inadequate parking spaces as the basis of the appeal; he suggested this project will cause significant adverse impact to the neighborhood noting that the mechanical lift parking system will not alleviate the existing concerns. Applicant Lauren Rienz, stated that the project is a sustainable mixed-use project in an ideal location, he noted multiple conditions previously placed on the project by the ARC; he spoke regarding proposed bicycle parking, parking concessions, and low-income housing units consistent with the LUCE noting that all State and Federal rules were followed. Public Comments: David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for vehicles. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the history of mixed-use projects and the need for additional parking at this project. Odile Ayral, San Luis Obispo, noted insufficient parking at the project site and supports the appeal. David Hafemeister, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal and for a mitigation to lessen the health and safety concerns; he noted insufficient parking. Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo, noted support for the appeal and mitigations; he spoke regarding sight constraints. Mark Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, noted support for the appeal due to insufficient parking. Jeff Herten, local business owner, noted support for the appeal due to insufficient parking. John E. Phillips, San Luis Obispo, noted support for the appeal due to insufficient parking and overcrowding in the area. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, noted support for the appeal. John Snetsinger, San Luis Obispo, noted support for the appeal due to impacted traffic and insufficient parking. Janet Pierucci, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal, she suggested lowering the density by half of what is currently proposed. Elizabeth DeHaan, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal noting impacted traffic in the area. John Ashbaugh, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal noting parking, health, and safety impacts issues with the project. Packet Pg. 85 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 7, 2017 Page 6 Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal noting neighborhood impacts. Pete Evans, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal noting neighborhood impacts. Kerry Brown, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal noting impacts on the neighborhood and insufficient parking. Dawn Ortiz Legg, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the struggles for young professionals to find housing and supports the project and denial of the appeal. Dr. Richard J. Krejsa, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal noting insufficient parking. Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of approving the project and denial of the appeal. Tim Jouet, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal, noting density and the LUCE. Mila Vulovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal noting public safety. Thom Jess, Architect for the project deferred his speaking time to Applicant Lauren Rienz. Applicant Lauren Rienz, spoke regarding the health and safety findings and added that this is a perfect location for mixed use project. ---End of Public Comment--- Council recessed at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m., with all Council Members present except for Council Member Pease who remained rescued from this item. Council deliberation ensued; staff answered questions. ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-0-1 (PEASE RECUSED) to adopt a Resolution No. 10771 (2017 SERIES) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal (filed by Lydia Mourenza & Richard Racouillat) thereby approving the design of a new four-story mixed-use project that includes ground floor commercial/retail space, 27 residential units, and mechanical parking lifts, with a categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated February 7, 2017 (22 Chorro Street, APPL-4278- 2016);” as amended. Section 2 of the Resolution was amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On October 18, 2016, per City Council Resolution No. 10749 (2016 Series), the project was determined to be statutorily exempt under Section 15195 and categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Packet Pg. 86 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 7, 2017 Page 7 Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption was filed on December 12, 2016 as Document No. 40-12122016-260 in the San Luis Obispo Clerk Recorder’s Office. Design approval of the project does not change the project in a manner that would impact that previous determination. Council Member Pease returned to the Dais at 9:18 p.m. 7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND ANNUAL AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR 2015-16 Interim Finance Director Bradford, Accounting Manager Controller Pardo with assistance from CPA, Glenn presented an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 8. AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITIES OF ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, AND PISMO BEACH TO JOINTLY FINANCE AND CONSTRUCT A REPLACEMENT ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER Assistant City Manager Johnson and Administration Assistant Victoria Tonikian presented an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement in substantial conformance with the County of San Luis Obispo, and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach to jointly finance and construct the replacement of an animal services shelter. LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A written Council Liaison Report was received from Council Member Carlyn Christianson. Packet Pg. 87 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 7, 2017 Page 8 Vice Mayor Rivoire reported attending a recent SLOCOG meeting, he noted that the Board voted to support the legislative platform of the other Council of Governments and take a position in support of the two transportation bills that the City has already taken a position of support on and noted there being a substantial level of support of the actions at the State level. Mayor Harmon reported having met with the League of Women Voters, she noted discussion of an idea regarding a concierge type service at future City Council meetings in which a League representative would facilitate attendees with yellow speaker cards and pamphlets on civil discourse. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a special city council meeting to be held on Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., at the Veteran’s Hall, 801 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purposes of conducting a review of the rental housing inspection program. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 88 9 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Thursday, February 16, 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 Thursday, February, 16, 2017 at 6:08 p.m. in the Veterans Hall, located at 801 Grand Ave, 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: 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, Introductions, Workshop Format Mayor & Council, Facilitators Mayor Harmon and Council Members spoke individually, welcoming members of the community. Brief History of Rental Housing Inspection Program and Current Data Staff Community Development Director Michael Codron outlined the history of the neighborhood wellness program with use of a PowerPoint presentation. Community Engagement on Issue Identification and Proposed Solutions Public Samson Blackwell, Cal Poly Human Resources, led engagement activities, inviting members of the public to share actionable proposals to Council. Packet Pg. 89 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 16, 2017 Page 2 Top RHIP Issues as Identified by the Community: Legality of escalation Tenant relations Unfair financial impact Invasion of privacy Inefficient use of time and financial resources Tenant displacement Inconsistency in the interpretation by staff Overreach of code enforcement Decreased affordable housing Proposals to Correct Identified Issues of the RHIP: Complete repeal Free self-certification program via safety list provided by City at time business license is issued Complaint-driven system - pending repeal Focus on critical issues and implement controls to minimize exposures Multi-pronged approach Narrowed enforcement limiting inspection focus to historically high code violations Provide tenants with rights and responsibilities with signed checklist annually Deregulation to include incentive based program Community to share fees with landlord Presentation of Group Representatives to Council: Jeanne Kinney, suggested competitive housing stock to include legalized tiny houses and city fines for improvements. Duane (No last name provided), requested repeal of RHIP with no alternative and return to standard code enforcement. Graham Updegrove, supports a two-step process to include repeal of RHIP and implement revamped complaint-driven process to include standardized staff response time, tenant advocacy program, and an amnesty program addressing unpermitted construction. Eric Veium, suggested repeal of RHIP and annual distribution of educational mailers to tenants, including a health and safety checklist. Garrett (No last name provided), supports repeal of the RHIP and implementation of an incentive program. Nicki Anderson, acknowledged code enforcement costs, suggested an equal Cal Poly coalition with City, educational resources for tenants and RHIP repeal. Cynthia Bosche, supports a RHIP repeal and replacement with a comprehensive education program for tenants and property owners, a voluntary safe housing certification program to include the cost of new program in annual business license fee, in addition to a City created Packet Pg. 90 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 16, 2017 Page 3 safety checklist. Mike Neland, suggested self-certification with safety checklist. Individual Public Comment Public Public Comments: Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, suggested Council better communicate tenant rights. Nick Andre, San Luis Obispo, believes the current program is making the issue worse and requested complete repeal, supportive of a complaint-driven replacement program. Andrew Brown, expressed appreciation to Council, requesting tenant resources be readily available. Julia Pierce, expressed quality of life concerns. Mike Baumberger, San Luis Obispo, supports repeal, noting spike in complaints following the hiring of two new code enforcement officers. Rick Rengel, San Luis Obispo, encouraged Council to direct staff to reconsider zoning code regulations. Gary Linney, San Luis Obispo, opposed to repeal of RHIP, urged Council to consider protection of tenant’s rights. Steve Hicks, San Luis Obispo, does not support repeal, requested code enforcement officer education to increase compliance. Brett Strickland, spoke regarding over-inclusion, suggested the end user will pay the price. Kathie Walker, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of repeal; suggested inspections go beyond health and safety code. Christina Pierce, suggested issue was created by local cost of living and City’s unwillingness to consider infill projects. Stuart Jenkins, spoke in support of repeal and replacement. ---End of Public Comments--- Discuss Next Steps Council Council discussion ensued, directing staff to return with an ordinance repealing the existing ordinance ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to suspend new mandatory inspections, to conclude existing code Packet Pg. 91 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 16, 2017 Page 4 compliance cases under the program. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 92 9 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, March, 7, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Carlyn Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT END OF 2016 UPDATE Police Chief Deanna Cantrell and Captain Smith provided a report on the Police Department end of 2016 Update with the use of a Power Point presentation. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Casey McCullough, spoke in support of placing a resolution on a future agenda to show Council support for undocumented immigrants. David Schrieshem, spoke in support of placing a resolution on a future agenda to show Council support for undocumented immigrants. Packet Pg. 93 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 7, 2017 Page 2 Terry Mohan, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding a lack of tree maintenance by City staff in his neighborhood. ---End of Public Comment--- Mayor Harmon requested to agendize a resolution showing support for undocumented immigrants. Council Members Christianson, Pease, Gomez and Vice Mayor Rivoire all voiced support for the request. City Manager Lichtig provided suggestion for a future meeting date for staff to bring this item back to Council. By consensus, Council agreed to bring this item back for consideration on the April 4th agenda. CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 2 thru 5. ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Item 6. 2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 3. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 17, 2017 CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of January 17, 2017 4. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MEMBRANE EQUIPMENT SYSTEM PRE-SELECTION CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Membrane Bioreactor Equipment System for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project, Specification No. 91539; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to the supplier who presents the lowest responsible bid (based on net present value) Membrane Bioreactor Equipment System if such bid is within the engineer’s estimate of $10,000,000; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve funding for the design drawings for the Membrane Bioreactor Equipment System from the selected supplier in an amount not to exceed $250,000. 5. SLOCOG MOU WITH TRANSIT OPERATORS IN SLO URBANIZED AREA (UZA) CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution No. 10775 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority and the City of San Luis Obispo regarding public transit Packet Pg. 94 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 7, 2017 Page 3 planning and programming” of Federal Transit Administration Funding. 6. NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE AND EVALUATION Mayor Harmon pulled item 6 for separate consideration. Associate Planner Rebecca Gershaw answered questions from the Council. CARRIED 5-0, to continue the Neighborhood Matching Grant Pilot Program for two additional years, with $20,000 available for grants in the 2017-19 Financial Plan, assuming current funding sources are identified in the existing budget to reallocate to the Program. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 7. PUBLIC HEARING - 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Community Development Director Michael Codron and Acting Housing Programs Manager Jenny Wiseman provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Donna Fioravanti, San Luis Obispo, representing CAPSLO provided an update on the 40 Prado project. Ken Litzinger, representing the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, thanked Council for their commitment to funding the Bishop Street Studios Project; he spoke regarding efforts to apply for federal tax credits. ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Adopt Resolution No 10776 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the 2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations (GENP-4175-2016)” to approve funding allocations for $442,462 of CDBG funds for the 2017 Program Year; and 2. Reallocate $31,200 in 2014 CDBG funds from the Women’s Shelter Program to Family Care Network, Inc Packet Pg. 95 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 7, 2017 Page 4 8. PUBLIC HEARING - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly and Utilities Deputy Director Aaron Floyd provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comment--- Council Member Pease volunteered to serve as Council Member representative on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. By consensus, Council agreed and included her appointment in the recommended motion. ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 10777 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo to form the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency”; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve minor modifications to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; and 3. Authorize the use of up to $200,000 of Water fund balance as the City’s portion of initial operating capital for Fiscal Year 2017/18 for the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (subject to reimbursement from the Groundwater Sustainability Agency); and 4. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to take certain actions relative to the formation of the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and 5. Appoint representative City Council Member Pease and the Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly as an alternative representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 9. PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 15.10 RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OF TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE Community Development Director Michael Codron, Chief Building Official Anne Schneider, and Code Enforcement Supervisor Teresa Purrington provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Packet Pg. 96 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 7, 2017 Page 5 Public Comments: Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the Ordinance repeal however voiced concern and supports checks to continue on multifamily units. Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, thank Council for acting on behalf of the community and hearing their issue specific to the repeal. ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to: Introduce 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.” RECESS Council recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m., with all Council Members present. 10. PROCESS TO DEVELOP CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES FOR PROACTIVE AND COMPLAINT-BASED ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES HANDLED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Community Development Director Michael Codron, Chief Building Official Anne Schneider, and Code Enforcement Supervisor Teresa Purrington provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding code enforcement priorities; she noted the importance of community interaction. Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, provided information on the California Rural Association Assistance Program and noted the local courts system as a good alternative to aid with resident housing issues. Steve Del Martini, San Luis Obispo, stated that property managers represent only half of rentals in the City noting that absentee landlords are important to consider. Phil Hurst, San Luis Obispo, shared a negative experience with City enforcement officials. Kathie Walker, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding the definition of substandard housing and noted that it is very subjective, she stated that collaboration with the community as well as education is important. Packet Pg. 97 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 7, 2017 Page 6 ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file a presentation on the status of Community Development code enforcement activities in the City of San Luis Obispo and provided staff with direction on the development of revised code enforcement priorities for the 2017-19 Financial Plan. 11. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE UNREPRESENTED CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES Human Resources Director Monica Irons and Human Resources Analyst Nickole Sutter provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to: Adopt Resolution 10778 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding compensation for the unrepresented confidential employees and superseding previous resolutions in conflict” with a one-year term (January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017). LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Harmon reported spending the night in homeless over flow shelter and encouraged Council to do the same, she officiated her first wedding and she noted attending ‘Meet your Muslim Neighbor” event as well as attending the Library grand opening and the Peoples Kitchen Board Meeting where she received free lunch cards to hand out to needy individuals. No other reports were provided. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to a Special City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of discussing marijuana regulations. The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Packet Pg. 98 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 7, 2017 Page 7 __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 99 9 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, March 14, 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, March 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; Michael Codron, Community Development Director; and Heather Goodwin, Deputy 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 Aaron Gomez led the Pledge of Allegiance. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. MARIJUANA REGULATION Community Development Director Codron and City Attorney Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation entitled “California Adult Use of Marijuana Act” and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Gerick Latham, Cal Poly student, spoke about his roommate’s medical marijuana delivery service; stated that he consumes and cultivates medical marijuana for health related issues; spoke in support of cannabis. Packet Pg. 100 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March, 14, 2017 Page 2 Claire Mamakos, North County, Lobbing Director for the San Luis Obispo Chapter California Normal, urged the Council to draft regulations that would preserve SLO’s uniqueness which would create a healthy economy for the local farmer. Linda Chimenti, Paso Robles, spoke about the idea of having a fear when consuming marijuana; opined that marijuana should be regulated. Nico Pitchen, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his medical marijuana delivery service; stated that he will be participating in a student career fair to find potential employees, stated that the potential ban will financially hurt his business; spoke against the proposed ban. James Vogel, Cal Poly student, spoke about proactive legislation vs reactive legislation; opined that local control can make a difference. Tony Keith, San Luis Obispo, spoke about sound planning; stated that he is an advocate for local dispensaries in the downtown; urged Council to direct staff to draft regulations by early next year. Christopher Matthews, San Luis Obispo, SLO Compassionate Care business owner, spoke about his business and the temporary ban; opined the Council needs to work with cannabis businesses that are currently operating and to draft an ordinance what will work for everyone. Cmstal Gries, spoke about her 80-year-old mother-in-law who consumes marijuana for health reasons; opined that her mother-in-law would prefer a brick and mortar type of service to purchase her medical marijuana. Quinn Brady, spoke about her family’s medical marijuana farming business; spoke in support of a policy that supports the industry and allows people to come out of the dark and into a more transparent place into the community. Marie Roth, Templeton, representing San Luis Obispo County Cannabis Business Association, Inc. (SLOCCBA), provided a general overview of the SLOCCBA and spoke about the cannabis industry. John Belsher, San Luis Obispo, opined that the City should take the steps to regulate marijuana cultivation; stated that the Monday Club SLO will hosting an educational opportunity to learn about Marijuana for parents of teenagers on April 4, 2017 at 5:45 pm. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Coastal Unified School District teacher, San Luis Obispo, provided a brief overview of anti-drug/alcohol programs for youths that she founded; encouraged residents to attend the Monday Club SLO’s educational opportunity about Marijuana. ---End of Public Comment--- Council Member Christianson noted for the record that there were 158 individuals who testified in 2015 regarding medical marijuana. Packet Pg. 101 9 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March, 14, 2017 Page 3 ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Introduce an Ordinance No. 1633 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, codifying and reaffirming current City law, policy and practice by expressly prohibiting all commercial and industrial recreational and medical marijuana uses, activities and operations and limiting outdoor cultivation of medical and recreational marijuana within the City” which expressly codifies and affirms the City’s authority to enforce its current permissive zoning, licensing, permitting and regulatory policies prohibiting marijuana uses, activities, and operations, except as otherwise permitted under the Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Cannabis Regulatory and Safety Act, or the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act pending Council direction and consideration of permanent regulations; and 2. Direct staff to monitor developments in other jurisdictions and at the federal level, engage the community regarding various land use and taxation alternatives that may be appropriate, and return with recommended changes to the City’s Municipal Code. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 21 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Heather Goodwin Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg. 102 9 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared by: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGREEMENT FOR THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC MICHAEL C. HALPIN HOUSE (116 CHORRO STREET) RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving a Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the owner of the Michael C. Halpin House at 116 Chorro Street, under the terms described in the agreement. DISCUSSION Background The owner of the Michael C. Halpin House, at 116 Chorro, has submitted an application to enter into a Mills Act historic preservation agreement with the City for the improvement and preservation of the historic property in exchange for property tax relief. The Mills Act Program The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program enables California cities to enter into contracts with owners of historical property to provide them with tax relief in exchange for an agreement to actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of historical resources. A Mills Act contract is effective for an initial 10-year period, and then is automatically extended annually for an additional year. After the initial term, either the City or the owner may, by written notice, decide not to renew the contract. During the effective term of the contract, the property owner must improve or rehabilitate the property, maintain the property consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and provide visibility of the historical resource from the public right-of-way. The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan describes the City’s goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources. It is the City’s policy that si gnificant historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE §3.3). Participation in the Mills Act Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the maintenance and restoration of historic properties (COSE §3.6.2). A property must be on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources in order to be enrolled in the program. Currently there are 54 properties participating Figure 1: Michael C. Halpin House Packet Pg. 103 10 in the program, with the last request approved by the Council in August, 2016. The Michael C. Halpin House The Michael C. Halpin House was constructed as a one-story, single-family residence in 1930, with second-level attic space added in 2002. Michael C. Halpin worked in the wholesale grocery industry, running the Rand-Halpin Company, operators of the warehouse in the Channel Commercial Company building (now Railroad Square), and was the owner of Halpins Food Market in Morro Bay. The house was later home to Harry J. Morris, of the Morris & Garritano Insurance firm (formerly Morris & Dee), a prominent San Luis Obispo insurance firm.1 The architect of the building is unknown. The Michael C. Halpin House is described in City records 2 as Tudor Revival in style, with unusual patterned wood shingle siding and a distinctive turret with a stained glass window (see Attachment C). The property appears to be in good condition. It was designated as a Master List Resource by the City Council on March 2 nd, 2010 (Resolution No. 10153, Attachment E), noting its eligibility due to its architectural style, age, and association with individuals who helped shape San Luis Obispo’s history. Proposed Improvements Several improvements have been identified by the applicant for inclusion in the proposed historic preservation agreement for this property. Recommended improvements to be included in the agreement for this property are included in Exhibit A of the draft Mills Act Contract (Attachment B) and summarized below:  Repair pest damage identified in a recently completed pest inspection report including: shingle damage; eaves, fascia, trim damage; and other miscellaneous exterior wood damage  Repair electrical deficiencies noted in a recently completed home inspection report, including panel upgrades and repairs, and repair of receptacles and boxes  General maintenance of roofing and interior and exterior surfaces, trim, and decoration, including painting and replacement, as necessary  General maintenance, including landscaping, plumbing, heating, and electrical system.  Landscape improvements to restore and enhance visibility of the property’s historic character, including tree work and new plantings and mulching  Repairs and efficiency improvements for landscape irrigation system  Drainage improvements, as identified in a recently conducted home inspection report  Plumbing upgrades and replacement, including fixtures and water heaters as necessary  Fireplace and chimney restoration, according to recommendations from a recently conducted fireplace inspection  Replacement of vinyl windows, along the building elevations visible from the public right-of-way, with period-appropriate divided lite windows of materials, design, and form matching that of the original windows, in order to restore the historic character of the original window pattern and forms. 1 House history from: Betsy Bertrando (2009). Historic Resource Evaluation; The Michael C. Halpin House, in application file CHC 118-09. 2 Historic Resources Inventory form; CDD historic property record (“yellow file”) for 116 Chorro Packet Pg. 104 10 Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the application and the terms of the draft contract at a public hearing on February 27th, 2017. The Committee, by unanimous vote, recommended that the Council approve the contract. The resolution adopted by the Committee is attached to this report (Attachment D). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historic property is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions – Project). Implementation of the Mills Act is a government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project resulting in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (Guidelines § 15378 (b) (4)). FISCAL IMPACT Under a Mills Act Contract, the value of property is assessed using a “capitalization of income” method described in the California Revenue and Taxation Code. The “Restricted Value” may be significantly lower than the current assessed value of the property, resulting in tax savings to the property owner. This tax savings represents the financial incentive to invest in rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of the historic resource. Recent estimates of tax savings suggest that, for property valued at $1,000,000, a property owner might realize approximately $60,000 in tax savings over the initial 10-year term of the Mills Act Contract. About 3.36% of property taxes were allocated to the City for the 2015/2016 fiscal year,3 and so the tax savings may have an impact to the City of about $2,100 over the initial 10 - year period of the contract. The Restricted Value of the property is calculated by the County Assessor after the contract is agreed upon, and the assessed property val ue indicated in Assessor records often does not accurately reflect the current value of the property, particularly after a change of ownership, making it difficult to accurately estimate the tax savings and resulting fiscal impacts to the City. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of this request to a future date for additional analysis or research; or 2. Do not enter into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract with the property owner. This alternative is not recommended. The contract provides a tax relief incentive that is a tool for achieving the City’s goals for historical preservation. 3 Property Tax Perspective, Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015; County of San Luis Obispo [ONLINE at http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/AC/Digital/Property+Tax/Perspective/2015-16+Property+Tax+Perspective.pdf, accessed July 20, 2016] Packet Pg. 105 10 Attachments: a - Draft Resolution b - Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Draft) c - Historic Resources Inventory d - CHC Resolution e - Council Resolution 10153 Packet Pg. 106 10 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE OWNER OF THE MICHAEL C. HALPIN HOUSE AT 116 CHORRO STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California Government Code § 50280 et seq. (known as “the Mills Act”) to enter into contracts with the owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series), establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic resources through financial incentives; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this property as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and WHEREAS, Robert Harper (“Owner”) is the owner of that certain qualified real property, together with associated structures and improvement thereon, located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-022-019, located at 116 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, California, also described as the Michael C. Halpin House (hereinafter referred to as the “historic property”); and WHEREAS, the City and Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs and improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code; and. WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 27, 2017, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property preservation agreement, and recommended that the Council enter into the agreement; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, , the City Council held a hearing on April 4, 2017, in the Council Chamber at 990 Palm Street of the City of San Luis Obispo as part of its regularly scheduled meeting for the purpose of considering approval of the historic preservation agreement, and has duly Packet Pg. 107 10 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 considered all evidence, including the record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: a) Conservation and Open Space Element program 3.6.2 states that the City will participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties. b) The Michael C. Halpin House, located at 116 Chorro Street, has been recognized as a historic asset in the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property by the City Council on March 10, 2010 (Resolution No. 10153). As such, maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by § 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review. SECTION 3. Historic Property Preservation Agreement Approved. The City Council hereby approves the "Historic Property Preservation Agreement Between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Owner of the Historic Property Located at 116 Chorro Street", and entered into between the City and owner, Robert Daniel Harper. SECTION 4. Community Development Director Authorized to Sign Agreement for City. The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to execute said agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo. SECTION 5. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into said agreement, the City Clerk shall cause the agreement to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Packet Pg. 108 10 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 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. 109 10 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 116 CHORRO STREET, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2017, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and Robert Daniel Harper (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.” WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of that certain real property commonly known as 116 Chorro Street (APN 001-022-019), and legally described as shown in the attached “Exhibit B” (“Owner’s Property”); and WHEREAS, Owner has agreed to enter into an Historic Property Preservation Agreement with the City for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owner’s Property, an historic resource within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and in further consideration of the mutual benefits, promises, and agreements set out herein, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owner, his heirs, or assigns hereby agree to undertake and complete, at his expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through 50290 and in Section 3, below. Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal. a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this agreement unless written notice of non-renewal is served as provided herein. b. If the Owner or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owner or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the agreement as provided herein. Packet Pg. 110 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 2 c. The Owner may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owner of non-renewal. d. If either the City or the Owner serves notice to the other party of non-renewal in any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining. Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Owner agrees to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the appearance of the building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee. b. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural ornamentation to the greatest extent possible. c. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owner of changes to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement, repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit. The Owner agrees to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to changing the building’s use or commencing construction work. d. Owner agrees that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A. e. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs, doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized Packet Pg. 111 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 3 historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community Development Director. f. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owner’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish any and all information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Section 6. Cancellation. a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the Owner has failed to preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4 of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of failure of the Owner to preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12 ½% of the full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction imposed with this agreement. b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288. Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement. a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the agreement by the Owner, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter; or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owner); Packet Pg. 112 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 4 then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owner or apply for such relief as may be appropriate. b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under. c. By mutual agreement, City and Owner may enter into mediation or binding arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract. Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the historic building located at 116 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-022-019, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties hereto. To City: Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To Owner: Robert Daniel Harper 116 Chorro St San Luis Obispo CA 9341 Section 10. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or Packet Pg. 113 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 5 assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. b. The Owner agrees to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owner, or from those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on the Owner’s behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or improvement of the historic property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner’s activities in connection with the historic property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees. c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the historic property. d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be affected thereby. g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. Packet Pg. 114 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 6 Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into this agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to the Owner; however, the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of executing, recording, and administering the historical property contracts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have executed this agreement on the day and year written above. OWNER ____________________________________ ______________________________ Robert Daniel Harper, Date CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ____________________________________ ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon Date Pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. XXXX (2017 Series) ATTEST: ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED Packet Pg. 115 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 7 EXHIBIT “A” MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE MICHAEL C. HALPIN HOUSE LOCATED AT 116 CHORRO STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Owner shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character-defining architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract with the City of San Luis Obispo for property located at 116 Chorro Street. Character-defining features shall include, but are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface treatments. Owner agrees to make the following improvements and/or repairs during the term of this contract but in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:  Repair pest damage identified in a recently completed pest inspection report including: shingle damage; eaves, fascia, trim damage; and other miscellaneous exterior wood damage  Repair electrical deficiencies noted in a recently completed home inspection report, including panel upgrades and repairs, and repair of receptacles and boxes  General maintenance of roofing and interior and exterior surfaces, trim, and decoration, including painting and replacement, as necessary  General maintenance, including landscaping, plumbing, heating, and electrical system.  Landscape improvements to restore and enhance visibility of the property’s historic character, including tree work and new plantings and mulching  Repairs and efficiency improvements for landscape irrigation system  Drainage improvements, as identified in a recently conducted home inspection report  Plumbing upgrades and replacement, including fixtures and water heaters as necessary  Fireplace and chimney restoration, according to recommendations from a recently conducted fireplace inspection  Replacement of vinyl windows, along the building elevations visible from the public right-of-way, with period-appropriate divided lite windows of materials, design, and form matching that of the original windows, in order to restore the historic character of the original window pattern and forms, based on photographic evidence. Packet Pg. 116 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 8 EXHIBIT “B” Legal Description For APN/Parcel ID(s): 001-022-019 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 18 OF THE ANHOLM ADDITION TO THE ClTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 13, 1927 IN BOOK 3, PAGE 91 OF MAPS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 11 DEGREES 47' WEST, 74 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 44' EAST, 96 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK, THENCE NORTH 7 DEGREES 23' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 101.4 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES 47' EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 69.1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Packet Pg. 117 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 116 Chorro Street Page 9 State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On________________, before me __________________________________________, Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________, Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On________________, before me __________________________________________, Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________, Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. Packet Pg. 118 10 Packet Pg. 119 10 Packet Pg. 120 10 Packet Pg. 121 10 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT FOR THE MASTER LIST MICHAEL C. HALPIN HOUSE LOCATED AT 116 CHORRO STREET WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series), establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic resources through financial incentives; and WHEREAS, Robert Daniel Harper is the owner (“Owner”) of real property at 116 Chorro Street, in the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obis po has designated the property at 116 Chorro as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City and Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs and/or improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et. seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code. WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 27, 2017, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property preservation agreement; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Packet Pg. 122 10 Resolution No.XXXX-17 HIST-4114-2016 (116 Chorro) Page 2 Section 1. Findings. 1. Conservation and Open Space Element program 3.6.2 states that the City will participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties. 2. The Michael C. Halpin House, located at 116 Chorro Street, has been recognized as a historic asset in the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property. As such, maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Section 2. Environmental Review. The above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review. Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application HIST-4114-2016, allowing the City to enter into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement. On motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Committee Member Larrabee, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: 7 NOES: 0 REFRAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of February, 2017. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee Packet Pg. 123 10 RESOLUTION NO. 10153 (2010 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 116 CHORRO STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AND REMOVING IT FROM THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST, CHC 118 -09 WHEREAS, applicants Bob and Andrea Kamm, on November 3, 2009, submitted an application to add their Contributing residence to the Master List of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo at a public hearing held in the Council Meeting Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 25, 2010, recommended the Council add the property located at 116 Chorro Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 2, 2010, for the purpose of considering adding the property located at 116 Chorro Street to the Master List of Historic Resources and removing it from the Contributing Properties List (CHC 118 -09); and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, the records of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Council makes the following findings of consistency with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines eligibility criteria for Master List Historic Resources: 1. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it is a good example of French Provincial and Normandy styles. 2. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it was built in 1930 and is relatively old in the context of Anglo- American history in San Luis Obispo. 3. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it is in a highly visible location on Chorro Street and stands as a good example of revival architecture popular in the 1930s. The house is compatible with neighboring structures in the Anholm Tract that are also examples of revival architecture. 4. The house is associated with individuals who helped shape San Luis Obispo's history because notable past residents have made significant contributions to the City through their association with business development. Packet Pg. 124 10 Resolution No. 10153 (20) Series Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby add the property located at 116 Chorro Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as the historic Michael C. Halpin House" and remove it from the Contributing Properties List. SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review. Upon motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Council Member Marx, and on the following vote: AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh, Marx and Settle, Vice Mayor Carter and Mayor Romero NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of March 2010. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Christine DietrickL14ityAttorney Packet Pg. 125 10 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 126 10 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police Prepared By: Christine Wallace, Neighborhood Outreach Manager SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY PARTY REGISTRATION PILOT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Approve the creation of a voluntary party registration pilot program to be managed b y the Police Department. DISCUSSION Background Neighborhood Wellness has been a Major City Goal for two budget cycles FY 2011/13, FY 2013/2015 and an Other Important Objective for FY 2015/17. Many initiatives have been put forth to enhance or improve the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. Additionally, in 2013 the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group was formed to address neighborhood concerns. The following action items have contributed to the enhancement of the quality of life in the City’s neighborhoods and a measurable decrease in noise complaints:  Noise ordinance amendment – 2010  Unruly gathering ordinance and amendment – 2010, 2015  Social host ordinance – 2010  Safety Enhancement Zone amendments – 2010, 2013  Proactive code enforcement for neighborhood blight - 2012  Clean Up Week improvements – 2013  Neighborhood Officer Program – 2013  PD/Code Enforcement Walk and Talks - 2013  SLOPD/Cal Poly PD MOU – 2015  Rental Housing Inspection Program launch – 2016 On January 17, 2017 staff presented Council with a study session on party registration programs which was the final City-led recommendation of the Civility Report (Attachment C). Council provided direction to staff to pursue the creation of a voluntary program and also provided direction on elements of the program. Prior to the study session, staff conducted thorough outreach with residents and student groups to share other community’s programs and receive feedback. After the study session, staff continued with the outreach. A draft guidelines of the pilot program was provided to each group and feedback was received. Program Guidelines The following are the Program Guidelines for the voluntary party registration pilot program: Packet Pg. 127 11 Host Requirements 1. Registrants must be at least 18 years old. 2. All party registrations must be submitted no later than one week in advance of the party. 3. Registration applications must be submitted in person at the Police Department. A photo ID is required when submitting an application. 4. Registrants must be a resident of the property being registered. Registrants may not register a party at someone else’s property. Event Requirements 1. Registrations may only be submitted for parties taking place on Friday or Saturday. Parties may be registered on Sundays if the following Monday is a holiday. 2. Parties starting earlier than 8:00 am will not be permitted in the program. 3. Registration is only valid on the date listed on the form. 4. Parties which occur in common areas are not allowed to register for the party registration program. 5. Amplified music must be inside the house. It is recommended that doors and windows be kept closed. Complaints & Resolution 1. Registration information will be given to the dispatch center. If a noise complaint is received for the registered property on the day of the party, a dispatcher will call the phone number listed on the registration form to inform the registrant of the complaint. 2. Registered parties will only receive one (1) telephone warning; subsequent complaints at the same location will require police response. 3. Registrants will have 20 minutes from the time of the initial complaint to end the noise. 4. If the registrant fails to answer the warning phone call, police will be dispatched to the location and a citation will be issued if the noise violation is verified. 5. If the registrant fails to end the noise within 20 minutes of the first phone call and a second complaint is received, police will be dispatched and a citation will be issued if the noise violation is verified. 6. Criminal or municipal violations other than noise may result in police response without a telephone warning. These violations may include, but are not limited to: fights, public urination, parking violations, open container, underage consumption, unruly gathering and social host (providing alcohol to underage individuals). Registration Limitations 1. Properties that are on the premises (no warning) list may not be registered for parties. (Exception: Use permitted fraternity and sorority houses may register events if they have not had a noise violation in the preceding nine (9) months.) Packet Pg. 128 11 2. Individuals who have received a noise violation citation or unruly gathering citation may not register a party within nine (9) months of the citation. 3. Houses that receive two phone warnings for separately registered parties lose registration privileges for nine (9) months after the second occurrence. 4. Registrants that have been issued an unruly gathering citation are disallowed to register a party. Program Oversight and Launch As directed by Council, the Police Department will manage the pilot program. Registration forms will be submitted at the Records counter, then reviewed and approved or denied by the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and dispatch will facilitate the 20-minute warning call to registered events. The Neighborhood Outreach manager will monitor noise complaints and collect/compile complaint data of both registered events as well as overall noise complaint data. The pilot program will begin for events the first weekend of May and applications available for submittal starting April 24th. The Neighborhood Outreach Manager will work with the student affairs offices of Cal Poly and Cuesta College to disperse program information in addition to social media, hard copy flyers, e-blasts and media ads. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department concurs with the guidelines of the voluntary pilot program. Per the standard conditions for sorority and fraternity houses with Use Permits, this program is consistent with Use Permit procedures and adds another layer of good neighbor strategy. FISCAL IMPACT As directed by Council in the study session, there will not be a fee for the pilot program. Staff will be evaluating the time spent on program management and provide recommendations when the pilot program review comes to Council for review after one year. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not approve the creation of a voluntary party registration program. 2. Modify the guidelines for the voluntary party registration program. Attachments: a - Party Registration Resolution b - Exhibit A Program Guidelines c - Council Reading File - Voluntary Party Registration Staff Report Packet Pg. 129 11 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOLUNTARY PARTY REGISTRATION PILOT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has made neighborhood wellness and quality of life a priority; and WHEREAS, recent neighborhood wellness initiatives have resulted in quieter neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group Report recommended the establishment of a party registration program; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to create a pilot program at the January 17, 2017 Council meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the voluntary party registration pilot program as described in Exhibit A is hereby approved. 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: Packet Pg. 130 11 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 131 11 Program Guidelines The following are the Program Guidelines for the voluntary party registration pilot program: 1. Registrants must be at least 18 years old. 2. All party registrations must be submitted no later than one week in advance. 3. Registration applications must be submitted in person at the Police Department. A photo ID is required when submitting the application. 4. Registrants must be a resident of the property being registered. Registrants may not register someone else’s party. 5. Registrations may only be submitted for events taking place on Friday or Saturday. Sundays may be registered if the following Monday is a holiday. 6. Events starting earlier than 8:00 am will not be permitted in the program. 7. Registration is only valid on the date listed on the form. 8. Common area parties may not be registered. 9. Amplified music must be inside the house. It is recommended that doors and windows be kept closed. 10. Registration information will be given to the dispatch center. If a noise complaint is received, a dispatcher will call the phone number listed on the registration form to inform the registrant of the complaint. 11. Registered parties will only receive one (1) telephone warning; subsequent complaints at the same location will require police response. 12. Registrant will have 20 minutes to end the noise after the first phone call. 13. If the registrant fails to answer the warning phone call, police will be dispatched to the location and a citation will be issued if the violation is verified. 14. If the registrant fails to end the noise within 20 minutes of the first phone call and a second complaint is received, police will be dispatched and a citation will be issued if the violation is verified. 15. Criminal or municipal violations other than noise may result in police response without a telephone warning. These violations may include, but are not limited to: fights, public urination, parking violations, open container, underage consumption, unruly gathering and social host (providing alcohol to underage individuals). 16. Houses that receive two phone warnings for separately registered parties lose registration privileges for nine (9) months after the second occurrence. 17. Properties that are on the premises (no warning) list may not be registered for parties. (Exception: Use permitted fraternity and sorority houses may register events if they have not had a noise violation in the preceding nine (9) months.) 18. Individuals who have received a noise violation citation or unruly gathering citation may not register a party within nine (9) months of the citation. 19. Registrants that have been issued an unruly gathering citation are disallowed to register a party. Packet Pg. 132 11 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DEDICATION FOR TRACTS 3063, 3066 AND 3095 (RIGHETTI RANCH, JONES, IMEL) RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the attached Affordable Housing Agreement (Attachment A) to accept the dedication of land to meet to Inclusionary Housing Requirements of Tracts 3063, 3066, and 3095; and 2. Authorize the Community Development Director to approve minor modifications and to execute the approved Affordable Housing Agreement. BACKGROUND Ambient Communities (“Ambient”) is currently in the final phases of receiving entitlements and approvals for tract maps of three separate subdivisions within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (“OASP”). Those three subdivisions include: Righetti Ranch (Tract #3063), Jones Ranch (Tract #3066), and Imel (Tract #3095). Within the three combined subdivisions, and the newly obtained Pratt parcel, Ambient will develop over four hundred and twenty (420) residential dwelling units (the "Project"). To comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing program and various OASP policies, Ambient must dedicate 15% of the residential dwelling units as deed restricted affordable units; 10% of those are required to be affordable to moderate income households, and 5% affordable to low income households. The OASP allows this requirement to be met either by dedicating land in new subdivisions free of charge to a recognized low-income housing developer or by building affordable units within the projects. Specifically, Policy 3.3.4 of OASP states: Developers of residential subdivisions may dedicate land to the Housing Authority, or other City recognized low-income housing developer, in-lieu of constructing the required affordable housing units. Land that is dedicated for the purpose of developing affordable housing must be of sufficient size to construct at least the number of low and/or moderate income units required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the project, plus 25% to accommodate the allowed density bonus. When land is provided to meet the affordable housing requirement, all frontage improvements and required off-site improvements shall be installed by the market- rate housing developer. In general, land dedicated for affordable housing shall be dispersed throughout subdivisions, instead of clustered. The requirement to disperse affordable housing shall not be construed to prevent dedication of land suitable for an affordable apartment project. Packet Pg. 133 12 Previously, Ambient had determined that all affordable units would be built within the Righetti and Jones sites; however, when Ambient recently took ownership of the Pratt parcel (APN: 053- 061-024) and now wishes to dedicate a portion of that parcel to People’s Self Help Housing Corporation (“PSHH”) to satisfy the entire project’s inclusionary housing requirements. The decision to accept land dedication in-lieu of building the affordable housing in a subdivision is under the discretion of the City Council. DISCUSSION Existing Inclusionary Housing Approvals Prior to Ambient’s purchase of the Pratt parcel, three hundred and eighty three (383) units were proposed in the project. To satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.91), Ambient was to construct and deed restrict forty-one (41) units within the Righetti subdivision and eleven (11) units within the Jones subdivision. Once Ambient purchased the Pratt site, the number of proposed dwelling units increased to four hundred and twenty (420) dwelling units. This increased the inclusionary requirement to sixty three (63) deed restricted units – 10% moderate and 5% low income. To meet these requirements, Ambient has proposed the following (Attachment A): 1. Deed restrict nine (9) for sale, moderate income condominiums within the Jones subdivision (VTM 3066) for construction in Phase 3; and 2. Dedicate a sufficient size portion of the Pratt parcel to PSHH to construct at least fifty- four (54) affordable rental units of varying size. These units shall include twelve (12) moderate income and forty-two (42) low income units, with deeper affordability encouraged. Prior to dedication of land to PSHH, Ambient shall be required to complete installation of all off-site improvements and frontage improvements during Phase 1 so the parcel is development ready. Timing of Land Dedication Installation of infrastructure and subdivision of the Pratt site will occur in Phase 1. The parcel will then be dedicated to People’s Self Help Housing at the beginning of Phase 2. Once dedicated, PSHH will move forward with obtaining planning and building entitlements and establishing a financing structure for development of the affordable units. Timing of the land dedication was established and approved based on the construction of other tract improvements for Righetti Ranch C Streets and Jones Ranch Phase 1 (seen in Exhibit C of Attachment A). Benefit of Proposed Land Dedication In working with both Ambient and PSHH, staff finds the dedication of land to PSHH to provide a greater community benefit than the development of affordable units within the subdivisions as previously proposed. First, consistent with OASP Policy 3.3.4, PSHH will have the ability to build more than fifty- four units on the parcel using an affordable housing density bonus; providing additional affordable units for the community. Second, the development and management of these units by Packet Pg. 134 12 PSHH ensures a highly qualified affordable housing provider and case management service provider will oversee these affordable units and establish successful long term operating standards and resident amenities. All affordable rental units will be deed restricted for fifty-five (55) years through an Affordable Housing Agreement with PSHH, recorded against the propert y. If the Developer fails to construct the nine (9) affordable units on the Jones property and/or fails to convey a portion of the Pratt property to PSHH per the Affordable Housing Agreement, then Ambient will owe an in-lieu fee in the total amount of $6.9 million dollars. Next Steps After approval of the land dedication is complete, City staff and Ambient will execute the attached Affordable Housing Agreement (“Agreement”). This agreement has been drafted by the City Attorney’s office and ensures Ambient will comply with all aspects of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in a timely and legal manner. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is an action to accept a land dedication for a future development project. Each subdivision within the project is subject to environmental review during the entitlement process. FISCAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal impacts associated with the approval of this land dedication and Agreement. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not authorize the land dedication from Ambient to PSHH. This action is not recommended because the dedication meets all requirements of the OASP and City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Should denial of the land dedication occur, Ambient would be required to provide the units within the subdivisions as previously stated. 2. Continue consideration of the land dedication. The City Council can direct staff to return with additional information regarding the funding request so that a final decision can be made. This action is not recommended as Ambient must enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to recordation of any final map phase. Attachments: a - Affordable Housing Agreement Packet Pg. 135 12 1808\03\1834969.5 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attn: Community Development Director No fee for recording pursuant to (Space above for Recorder's Use) Government Code Section 27383 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (For-Sale Affordable Units for Tract # 3063, Tract # 3066, and Tract # 3095) This AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ("Agreement") is made and entered into on the ____ day of _____________ 2017 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a California charter city and municipal corporation (the "City"), and Righetti Ranch, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Righetti”), also referred to herein as “Owner.” Owner and City are sometimes collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS A. Owner is the owner of certain real property known as Righetti Ranch (Tract #3063), Jones Ranch (Tract #3066), Imel (Tract #3095), and the Pratt Property (APN: 053-061-024) in the City, which are more particularly described in attached Exhibit A incorporated herein by this reference and collectively referred herein as (the "Property"). B. Within the three combined subdivisions and the Pratt Property, Owner will develop over four hundred and seventeen (417) residential units (the "Project"). C. To satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 17.91 (the "Inclusionary Housing Ordinance"), and in connection with the Project's approvals, Owner has agreed to develop sixty-three (63) affordable units to meet the Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Righetti Ranch Tract 3063, Jones Tract 3066, Imel Tract 3095, and the Pratt Property. D. Policy 3.3.4 of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (“OASP”) provides developers within the specific plan area the opportunity to dedicate land in lieu of building affordable housing on - site. Specifically, that section states: Developers of residential subdivisions may dedicate land to the Housing Authority, or other City recognized low-income housing developer, in-lieu of constructing the Packet Pg. 136 12 1808\03\1834969.5 2 required affordable housing units. Land that is dedicated for the purpose of developing affordable housing must be of sufficient size to construct at least the number of low and/or moderate income units required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the project, plus 25% to accommodate the allowed density bonus. When land is provided to meet the affordable housing requirement, all frontage improvements and required off-site improvements shall be installed by the market- rate housing developer. In general, land dedicated for affordable housing shall be dispersed throughout subdivisions, instead of clustered. The requirement to disperse affordable housing shall not be construed to prevent dedication of land suitable for an affordable apartment project. E. Owner desires to satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by: (1) constructing and selling nine (9) units within Jones (Tract 3066) (the "Affordable Units") and in conformance with the sales prices and income limits established by the City's "Affordable Housing Standards" published by the City's Community Development Department to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.91.040 B and (2) dedicating a portion of land located at 3750 Bullock Lane, San Luis Obispo, APN: 053-061-024, commonly referred to as the “Pratt Property,” to People’s Self Help Housing, Inc. (“PSHH”), for the construction of at least fifty-four (54) affordable units. The Pratt Property is legally described in Exhibit A incorporated herein by this reference. The portion of the Pratt Property to be dedicated to PSHH is generally depicted in Exhibit B incorporated herein by this reference. This property is referred to herein as (the “Dedication Property.”) F. Pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Affordable Housing Standards, the Owner is required to sell the designated Affordable Units in Jones (Tract 3066) to buyers from moderate income households (the "Initial Buyers") and to execute certain documents with each Initial Buyer that will restrict the sales price to maintain the affordability of the Affordable Units or impose an equity-sharing program for a period of forty-five (45) years from the date of sale to the Initial Buyer (the "Affordability Period"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree and acknowledge that the above recitals are true and accurate, and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference, and the Parties mutually acknowledge and agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS Section 1.1. Definitions. In addition to terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings in this Agreement: (a) “Affordable Housing Rental Restriction Agreement” means the Affordable Housing Rental Restriction Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants executed by Owner encumbering the Dedication Property. Packet Pg. 137 12 1808\03\1834969.5 3 (b) "Affordable Sales Price" means the maximum allowable sales price for an Affordable Unit in effect at the time of its sale by the Owner to an Eligible Household, which is to be calculated in accordance with the formula provided in the Affordable Housing Standards. (c) "Director" means the Community Development Director of the City or successor position. (d) "Eligible Household" means a household which has been determined by the Housing Authority or other agency designated by the Director to be eligible to purchase an Affordable Unit as a Moderate Income Household, in compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and this Agreement. (e) "Homebuyer/City Deed of Trust" means the Purchase Money Deed of Trust, Deed of Trust Covenants, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing, executed by each Initial Buyer of an Affordable Unit that secures the Initial Buyer's performance under the Homebuyer/City Note. (f) "Homebuyer/City Note" means the Occupancy, Resale, and Refinancing Restriction Agreement, with Option to Purchase and Promissory Note Secured by Deed of Trust, and executed by each Initial Buyer of an Affordable Unit. (g) "Household Income" means the combined gross, pre-tax income of all adult occupants of the applicant household. (h) "Housing Authority" means the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo. (i) “Phase 1”, “Phase 2”, and “Phase 3” means the development phases of the Project as shown on the phasing map hereto attached as Exhibit C. Section 1.2. "Moderate Income Household" is defined in the City of San Luis Obispo's Affordable Housing Standards and means a household with a Household Income that does not exceed 120% of the area median income as established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement: Exhibit A Legal Description of the Project properties Exhibit B Depiction of the Dedication Property. Exhibit C Phasing map of the Project including the Location of Affordable Units and Schedule of Affordable Units in Jones (Tract 3066) ARTICLE 2. CONSTRUCTION OF TRACT 3066 (JONES) PROJECT AND AFFORDABLE UNITS Section 2.1. Construction of Affordable Units. The Parties have agreed that the Owner shall construct and sell the Affordable Units, consisting of nine, two bedroom units within Jones Tract 3066 in the approximate location shown and described on Exhibit C in conformance with Packet Pg. 138 12 1808\03\1834969.5 4 the sales prices and income limits established for moderate income families as defined by the City’s Affordable Housing Standards. If, after recordation of this Agreement, Owner proposes to change the location of any Affordable Unit within the Project, Owner shall submit a written request for such change to the Director, who shall have sole discretion to approve or deny such request. Section 2.2. Construction Timing. The Affordable Units shall be constructed in proportion to construction of the other units in the Project pursuant to the schedule in Exhibit D. No certificates of occupancy or final inspections shall be issued after the seventeenth (17th) unit in the Project Phase 3 until certificates of occupancy or final inspections have been issued for the nine Affordable Units unless an alternate phasing plan has been approved as part of the Project's discretionary approvals. Section 2.3. Design and Appearance of Affordable Units. The design, appearance, and general quality of the Affordable Units shall be of the same character as the Project as a whole. Section 2.4. Use of Affordable Units. The Affordable Units shall be sold only to Eligible Households who will owner-occupy the Affordable Units as their primary place of residence. ARTICLE 3. SALE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Section 3.1. Sale of Affordable Units by Owner to Eligible Households. (a) Owner shall sell all the Affordable Units to Eligible Households at an Affordable Sales Price as established by the City’s Affordable Housing Standards and in accordance with the City’s Affordable Housing Purchase Guidelines. The Affordable Sales Price shall be the absolute maximum price that the Owner or any other seller may receive as compensation for the sale of an Affordable Unit. (b) Owner shall actively market the Affordable Units, openly and in the same general manner as the Project as a whole, allow prospective buyers to view the Affordable Units, model units or floor plans, disclosure documents, and any other relevant sales materials, as ma y be available. Owner's sales agents shall provide the same general quality of customer service to the Affordable Unit buyers as provided to market-rate buyers, shall display information about the availability of the Affordable Units in a readily noticeable manner in the sales office and/or Project sales website, shall disclose the Affordable Unit restrictions to any prospective buyers in a timely manner and direct potential purchasers to submit eligibility applications to determine if they qualify as Eligible Households. (c) The Owner agrees to retain the Housing Authority, or other agency designated by the Director, for screening of potential purchasers to determine if they qualify as Eligible Households. (d) Once certified, Eligible Households shall submit purchase offers directly to Owner, and Owner shall accept offers to purchase in the order received, provided that such offers include a letter from the Housing Authority, or other agency designated by the Director, that the buyer is an Eligible Household, a valid check for the required good faith deposit, and a preliminary Packet Pg. 139 12 1808\03\1834969.5 5 first mortgage loan approval. Owner shall conduct any additional screening of applicants deemed necessary and not in violation of fair housing laws. (e) Selected applicants shall be responsible for obtaining their own financing for the Affordable Units. (f) Purchase contracts between Owner and Eligible Households shall include requirements that buyers execute documents for the benefit of the City as described in Section 3.2 below. (g) The escrow instructions for the sale of an Affordable Unit shall stipulate that the Homebuyer/City Note and Homebuyer/City Deed of Trust shall be recorded against the Affordable Unit at close of escrow on the sale to the Eligible Household; and that the Homebuyer/City Note and Homebuyer/City Deed of Trust shall be recorded junior only to the lien of the deed of trust securing the Eligible Household's first purchase money mortgage loan, or to a second mortgage loan only if such loan is provided by a public agency which requires such subordination, or as otherwise approved in writing by the City. (h) A Request for Notice of Default and Sale for the benefit of the City shall be recorded for each deed of trust recorded at close of escrow. (i) Within five (5) days following the sale of any Affordable Unit by the Owner to an Initial Buyer, Owner shall forward, or shall cause escrow officer to forward to the City, copies of the buyer's and seller's settlement statement and all closing documents, including the Homebuyer/City Note and Homebuyer/City Deed of Trust executed in connection with the sale. (j) Owner shall be independently responsible to make good faith efforts to market and sell the Affordable Units in compliance with this Agreement, and shall cooperate with City in good faith in the effort to sell the Affordable Units to Eligible Households in a timely manner. (k) If Owner has not received any purchase offer from an Eligible Household for an Affordable Unit within one hundred eighty (180) days after the Affordable Unit has been offered for sale, the Owner shall provide a one hundred eighty (180) days’ notice to the City and shall satisfy any further conditions that may be reasonably required by the City, including but not limited to, further efforts to find an Eligible Household and/or additional marketing by the Owner to attract an offer to purchase from an Eligible Household. If escrow has not closed on the Affordable Unit sale within an additional sixty (60) days from date of Owner's one hundred eighty (180) days’ notice, if the City consents in writing, such consent to not be unreasonably withheld, , Owner may sell the Affordable Unit at its fair market value and pay to the City an amount equal to the difference between the actual contract sale price and the Affordable Sales Price. As an alternative, if the parties mutually agree, Owner may sell the Affordable Unit to the City or the City's designee for the Affordable Sales Price to satisfy Owner's obligations under this Agreement with respect to such Affordable Unit. (l) If an Affordable Unit is sold at fair market value with the City's written consent as specified in subsection (k) of this Section, such Affordable Unit shall not be subject to any requirements of this Agreement following City's receipt of applicable payment. Upon receipt Packet Pg. 140 12 1808\03\1834969.5 6 of such payment, City shall provide Owner with a recordable document releasing the Affordable Unit from this Agreement. Section 3.2. Homebuyer Documents and Security Instruments. Prior to the sale of each Affordable Unit, Owner shall ensure that: (a) The Initial Buyer and the City execute a Homebuyer/City Note in the form prepared by the City. (b) The Initial Buyer signs a Homebuyer/City Deed of Trust in the form prepared by the City. (c) Following sale of an Affordable Unit to the Initial Buyer, the Initial Buyer shall be responsible for complying with the terms of this Agreement through the Homebuyer/City Note and the Homebuyer/City Deed of Trust. Section 3.3. Records. The Owner shall retain all records related to compliance with obligations under this Agreement for a period not less than five (5) years from the date of origination of such records, and make them available to City employees or others designated by the City for inspection and copying on five (5) business days' written notice. The City shall be entitled to monitor compliance with this Agreement, and the Owner shall cooperate with City monitoring, including obtaining Eligible Household verification upon request of the City. ARTICLE 4. SUBDIVISION OF PRATT PROPERTY AND DEDICATION OF THE LOW INCOME PROPERTY Section 4.1. Compliance with Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Policy 3.3.4 of the OASP, Owner is dedicating the Low Income Property to PSHH in order to partially satisfy Owner’s affordable housing requirement related to the Project. The Parties agree that should PSHH refuse or fail to accept the Dedication Property, Owner shall be able to dedicate such land to another low-income housing developer approved by the City. Section 4.2. Land Dedication Timing. Prior to certificates of occupancy or final inspections for the Project, Owner shall subdivide the Pratt Property in order to create the Dedication Property as a legal lot pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and City rules and regulations. The Dedication Property shall be in substantial compliance with the depiction in Exhibit B and of sufficient size to allow for at least fifty-four (54) affordable dwelling units. City and Owner acknowledge that the OASP and recently updated Land Use Element (“LUE”) of the City’s General Plan identify the Pratt Property as an R-3 zoned parcel. City and Owner acknowledge that City is in the process of updating its Zoning Code which includes the updated zoning as set forth in the LUE. City and Owner further acknowledge that the timing of transfer of the Dedication Property as set forth herein will occur around the same time when the Pratt Property will be rezoned consistent with the LUE. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy in Phase 2 of the Project, the Dedication Property shall be conveyed in fee simple absolute to PSHH Packet Pg. 141 12 1808\03\1834969.5 7 free and clear of any liens and deeds of trust except as provided in Section 4.3. Owner shall, at Owner’s sole cost and expense, be responsible for constructing the Low Income Property to a “super pad” condition which shall mean that the property will (i) be graded to construction readiness without foundation or paving; (ii) all frontage improvements and offsite improvements required to provide access and utilities to the Dedication Property including, but not limited to streets, curbs, gutters, drainage and stormwater compliance associated perimeter streets runoff, sidewalks, street lights, water mains, sewer mains, dry utilities; (iii) all water, sanitary sewer, and treated stormwater drainage, shall be stubbed and sized for the number of units proposed, to the property line of the Dedication Property. All of the aforementioned improvements shall be constructed to City standards at a size and location consistent with an approved tentative map for the Pratt Property or, in absence of an approved tentative map, at a size and location consistent with the OASP, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Public Work’s Director. Section 4.3. Affordable Housing Agreement, Note. Prior to dedication of the Low Income Property to PSHH, Owner shall record an Affordable Housing Rental Restriction Agreement in a form subject to the written approval of the City requiring and securing performance of: (i) the construction of at least fifty-four (54) affordable housing units on the Low Income Property; and (ii) restricting the rental of at least fifty-four (54) housing units on the Low Income Property to very low, low, and moderate income in accordance with the affordable housing requirements for the Project. ARTICLE 5. ENFORCEMENT Section 5.1. Covenants Running with the Land. The requirements of this Agreement shall be covenants running with the land as defined in California Civil Code Section 1460, and shall apply to the properties as shown and described on Exhibit A. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1468, which governs such covenants, the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon all Parties having any right, title, or interest in any of the properties described herein, or any portion thereof and on their heirs, successors in interest and assigns for a period of forty-five (45) years. The Parties agree that all future deeds or transfers of interest regarding the properties shall show the restrictions of this Agreement for as long as the Agreement is in effect. Section 5.2. Release of Property from Agreement. Upon the earlier to occur of (i) the dedication of the Low Income Property to PSHH or another low income housing developer in compliance with this Agreement; and (ii) the sale of 100% of the Affordable Units to Initial Buyers from Eligible Households in compliance with the terms of this Agreement or (iii) the conclusion of the Affordability Period, the entire Property shall be released from the burdens of this Agreement and this Agreement shall be terminated. Section 5.3. Default. Failure of the Owner to satisfy any of Owner's obligations under the terms of this Agreement within thirty (30) days after the delivery of a notice of default from the City will constitute a default under this Agreement and a violation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. In addition to remedies for breach of this Agreement, the City may exercise any and all remedies available to it under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or other any other provision of law or equity, including, but not limited to: Packet Pg. 142 12 1808\03\1834969.5 8 (a) withholding, conditioning, suspending or revoking any approvals for the Project, including without limitation final inspections for occupancy and/or the issuance of any certificates of occupancy; (b) instituting against the Owner, or other parties, a civil action for declaratory relief, injunction or any other equitable relief, or relief at law, including without limi tation an action to rescind a transaction and/or to require repayment of any funds received in connection with such a violation; (c) where one or more persons have received financial benefit as a result of violation of this Agreement, the City may assess, and institute legal action to recover as necessary, a penalty in any amount up to and including the amount of financial benefit received, in addition to recovery of the benefit received; and (d) requiring the Owner or his/her successors in interest to the Property to pay the City payment received by the Owner for the unauthorized sale of the Affordable Unit. 5.3 Failure to Construct Affordable Units or Dedication of Land. In the event that Owner fails or refuses to construct the Affordable Units or dedicate the Lo w Income Property to PSHH or another low-income housing developer approved by City, then City shall be entitled to receive monetary damages for non-performance in an amount equal to (a) $6,900,000 being the in-lieu fee that City would have been entitled to receive if no affordable housing units had been constructed under this Agreement times (b) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of affordable housing units not completed under this Agreement and the denominator of which is sixty-four (64) times (c) 3% interest per annum on monetary amount due. For purposes of this Section 5.3(a), the term “affordable units not completed” shall include the fifty-four (54) units proposed for the Dedication Property in the event Owner fails or refuses to dedicate such property to PSHH or another low-income housing developer approved by City. For purposes of this Agreement, each affordable housing unit shall be deemed complete at such time as the unit has been certified for occupancy by the City of San Luis Obispo. Section 5.4. Attorney's Fees and Costs. If either Party takes or commences any actions or proceedings, including litigation or arbitration, against the other b y reason of any breach or claimed breach of any provision of, or in any way connected with, this Agreement, or seeks a judicial declaration of rights under this Agreement, the Party prevailing in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from the other Party the prevailing Party's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including, but not limited to, all expert witness fees, other witness fees and associated expenses, whether or not the proceeding or action proceeds to judgment. ARTICLE 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 6.1. Appointment of Other Agencies. At its sole discretion, the City may designate, appoint or contract with any other public agency, for-profit or non-profit organization to perform some or all of the City's obligations under this Agreement. Packet Pg. 143 12 1808\03\1834969.5 9 Section 6.2. Hold Harmless. Owner will indemnify and hold harmless (without limit as to amount) City and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents in their official capacity (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), and any of them, from and against all loss, all risk of loss and all damage (including expense and attorney's fees) sustained or incurred because of or by reason of any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, judgments and executions for damages of any and every kind and by whomever and whenever made or obtained, allegedly caused by, arising out of or relating in any manner to the Project, the Affordable Units, or Owner's performance or non-performance under this Agreement, including claims pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., and shall protect and defend Indemnitees, and any of them with respect thereto, except to the extent arising from the proven gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City. The provisions of this Section shall survive expiration or other termination of this Agreement or any release of part or all of the Property from the burdens of this Agreement, and the provisions of this Section shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6.3. Notices. All notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Party to receive such notice at the addressed set forth below: TO THE CITY: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attn: Community Development Director WITH COPY TO: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: City Attorney TO THE OWNER: Righetti Ranch LP c/o Ambient Communities Central Coast LLC 979 Osos Street, Suite E San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Dante Anselmo WITH A COPY TO: Ambient Communities Central LLC 179 Calle Magdalena #201 Encinitas, CA 92024 Packet Pg. 144 12 1808\03\1834969.5 10 Attn: Robert Anselmo Any notice shall be deemed delivered on the first business day that delivery is attempted or upon receipt, whichever is sooner. As used herein, "business day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or any state or federal holiday on which financial institutions in San Luis Obispo County are authorized or required to close for observance thereof. Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other Parties of the new address, in th e manner set forth above. Section 6.4. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the full and entire understanding of the Parties regarding the matter set forth herein. Any other prior or existing understandings or agreements by the Parties, whether formal or informal, regarding any matters addressed within this Agreement are hereby superseded or terminated in their entirety. Section 6.5. Each Party's Role in Drafting the Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement has had an opportunity to review the Agreement, confer with legal counsel regarding the meaning of the Agreement, and negotiate revisions to the Agreement. Accordingly, neither Party shall rely upon Civil Code Section 1654 in order to interpret any uncertainty in the meaning of the Agreement. Section 6.6. Amendment of Agreement. No changes, amendments, or alterations to this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by all Parties hereto. Major amendments to this Agreement, shall be subject to the review and approval of the decision-making body which approved the Project. Minor amendments to this Agreement may be approved by the Director. Upon approval, a new Agreement containing the amendments shall be executed and recorded. Section 6.7. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by California law. Venue shall be the County of San Luis Obispo. Section 6.8. Waivers. Any waiver by the City of any obligation or condition in this Agreement must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the City to take action on any breach or default of Owner or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Owner to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the City to any act or omission by Owner shall not be construed to be a consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the City's written consent to future waivers. Section 6.9. Title of Parts and Sections. Any titles of the sections, subsections, or subparagraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement's provisions. Section 6.10. Multiple Originals; Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. Section 6.11. Recording of Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property in the Official Records of the County of San Luis Obispo prior to the recordation of any Packet Pg. 145 12 1808\03\1834969.5 11 parcel map or final subdivision map or issuance of any building permit for the Project, whichever occurs first. Section 6.12. Severability. In the event any limitation, condition, restriction, covenant, or provision contained in this Agreement is to be held invalid, void or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Agreement shall nevertheless be and remain in full force and effect. Packet Pg. 146 12 1808\03\1834969.5 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. OWNER: Righetti Ranch LP, a Delaware limited partnership By: NRE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Its: General partner By: Ambient Communities Central Coast LLC, a California limited liability company Its: Sole Member By: ________________________ Its: ________________________ By: ________________________ Its: ________________________ CITY: City of San Luis Obispo, a California charter city and municipal corporation By: ________________________ Michael Codron, Community Development Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: By: _______________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Packet Pg. 147 12 13 1808\03\1834969.5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF __________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ______________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. Packet Pg. 148 12 14 1808\03\1834969.5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF __________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ______________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. Packet Pg. 149 12 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: LOT 126 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 6, 1906 IN BOOK 1, PAGE 92 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO DAVID CARROLL KENNEDY AND SHARON KENNEDY BY DEED DATED JUNE 27, 1974 AND RECORDED JUNE 27, 1974 IN BOOK 1785, PAGE 547 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 076-481-011 Packet Pg. 150 12 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY – TRACT 3063 Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL A: (CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED IN BOOK 3181, PAGE 649) (A.P.N.: 004 - 707-001) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN SECTIONS 6 AND 7 OF TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 6, CONVEYED BY NIS M. JACOBSON, ET UX. TO ALLEN E. RIGHETTI, ET UX. DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 3 AND THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHWEST OF ORCUTT ROAD DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 28, 1944, IN BOOK 365, PAGE 457 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PARTLY IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND PARTLY IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ALL IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALONG WITH ALL THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP SLAL87-220 ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 43 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY LYING NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED EAST-WEST LINE: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH 33°26'04" WEST 21.67 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 89°58'23" EAST, 559.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°41'14" EAST, 198.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°31'26" EAST, 107.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°00'57" EAST, 92.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°54'04" EAST, 267.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°18'00" EAST, 10.33 FEET TO A 1-1/2" IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED "RCE 12545" AT THE CORNER OF SECTIONS 1 AND 12 OF TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST, AND SECTIONS 6 AND 7 OF TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 43 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID EAST -WEST LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST-WEST LINE; SOUTH 88°41'02" EAST, 49.78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'37" EAST, 85.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°48'54" EAST, 160.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°04'35" EAST, 109.46 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 88°53'26" EAST, 101.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°30'56" EAST, 421.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°31'23" EAST, 158.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°08'40" EAST, 418.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°13'08" EAST, 331.38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34°18'20" WEST, 28.05 FEET TO A 1- 1/2" IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED "RCE 12545" AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 43 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS OF SAID EAST-WEST LINE. PARCEL B: (LOT 1 OF SLAL 15-0060 - 2015-064258) (A.P.N.: 004-706-006) A PORTION OF LOT 129 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 7TH, 1906 AS FILED IN BOOK 1, AT PAGE 92 OF RECORD OF SURVEY S IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (GOVERNMENT LOT 6) OF SAID SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASELINE AND MERIDIAN, MARKED BY A 2”X3” REDWOOD STAKE DESIGNATED AS CORNER “C-1” AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT, BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTENSEN AND JOSEPH D. GRANT RECORDED FEBRUARY 6TH, 1906, FILED IN BOOK 69, AT PAGE 37 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SAID INDENTURE, BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 129 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT, AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 7 OF SAID SECTION 6 AS CONVEYED TO ALLEN E. RIGHETTI BY JOINT Packet Pg. 151 12 TENANCY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 28TH, 1944, FILED IN BOOK 365, AT PAGE 457 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, NORTH 88° 53’ 32” WEST, 299.07 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 129, NORTH 66° 04’ 22” WEST, 488.16 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 88° 35’ 31” WEST, 587.42 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 31° 59’ 46” WEST, 344.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 128 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J. D. GRANT AND E. F. G. SAKER FILED IN BOOK 74, AT PAGE 437 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 128, NORTH 58° 00’ 14” EAST, 870.62 FEET TO THE NORTHERN MOST CORNER OF SAID LOT 129 ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL LAND CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTENSEN AND JOSEPH D. GRANT RECORDED FEBRUARY 6TH, 1906, FILED IN BOOK 69, AT PAGE 37 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL LAND CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTENSEN AND JOSEPH D. GRANT, SOUTH 38° 30’ 37” EAST, 788.52 FEET TO CORNER “C-4” AS DESIGNATED THEREIN; THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL LAND CONVEYE D BY INDENTURE BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTENSEN AND JOSEPH D. GRANT, SOUTH 38° 50’ 37” EAST, 455.88 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: (LOT 2 OF SLAL 15-0060 - 2015-064258)(A.P.N.: 004-706-007) PORTIONS OF LOTS 129, 131 AND 132 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURB AN TRACT ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 7TH, 1906 AS FILED IN BOOK 1, AT PAGE 92 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND ALL OF PARCEL 3 OF COAL 88-083 ACCORDING TO THAT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED IN BOOK 3181, AT PAGE 644 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER O F THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (GOVERNMENT LOT 6) OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASELINE AND MERIDIAN, MARKED BY A 2”X3” REDWOOD STAKE DESIGNATED AS CORNER “C-1” AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT, AND MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTENSEN AND JOSEPH D. GRANT RECORDED FEBRUARY 6TH, 1906, FILED IN BOOK 69, AT PAGE 37 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SAID INDENTURE, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 129 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT, AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 7 OF SAID SECTION 6 AS CONVEYED TO ALLEN E. RIGHETTI BY JOINT TENANCY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 28TH, 1944, FILED IN BOOK 365, AT PAGE 457 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, NORTH 88° 53’ 32” WEST, 299.07 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 129, NORTH 66° 04’ 22” WEST, 488.16 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 88° 35’ 31” WEST, 587.42 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 31° 59’ 46” WEST, 344.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 128 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J. D. GRANT AND E. F. G. SAKER FILED IN BOOK 74, AT PAGE 437 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; Packet Pg. 152 12 THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 128, SOUTH 58° 00’ 14” WEST, 444.97 FEET TO THE SOUTHERN MOST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 128, NORTH 32° 02’ 46” WEST, 463.44 FEET TO THE WESTERN MOST CORNER THEREOF MARKED BY A ONE INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED LS 2391 AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, AT PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF LOT 127 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J. D. GRANT AND LOUIS T. STEEN FILED IN BOOK 76, AT PAGE 472 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, NORTH 31° 56’ 57” WEST, 462.34 FEET TO THE WESTERN MOST CORNER THEREOF MARKED BY A ¾ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED RCE 32981 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, AT PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 133 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J. D. GRANT, AND A. C. SHUSTER FILED IN BOOK 79, AT PAGE 389 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 57° 59’ 25” WEST, 312.04 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 133, SOUTH 32° 00’ 54” EAST, 874.62 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 8° 58’ 46” EAST, 74.19 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 15° 34’ 28” EAST, 72.08 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 10° 38’ 54” WEST, 72.61 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 21° 51’ 31” WEST, 59.43 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 27° 18’ 45” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 32° 38’ 22” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 37° 57’ 58” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 43° 17’ 35” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 52° 49’ 18” WEST, 71.66 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 60° 31’ 34” WEST, 57.48 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 32° 06’ 43” WEST, 90.22 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 57° 59’ 04” WEST, 69.30 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 32° 00’ 54” WEST, 46.00 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 87° 18’ 08” WEST, 21.31 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 32° 00’ 54” WEST, 856.87 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 29° 32’ 22” WEST, 110.41 FEET; THENCE, NORTH, ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A 52.50 FOOT RADIUS, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 58° 09’ 47”, AN ARC LENGTH OF 53.30 FEET; Packet Pg. 153 12 THENCE, NORTH 32° 00’ 35” WEST, 5.92 FEET TO A POINT THAT LIES 30.00 FEET OFFSET SOUTHEASTERLY AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 133; THENCE, ALONG A LINE THAT LIES 30.00 FEET OFFSET SOUTHEASTERLY AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 133, SOUTH 57° 59’ 25” WEST, 201.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 132 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J. D. GRANT AND L. J. BECKETT ET AL, FILED IN BOOK 75, AT PAGE 328 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT, SOUTH 32° 01’ 59” EAST, 2072.21 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF COAL 88 -083 ACCORDING TO THAT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 1988- 044493 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 132 OF TRACT 1376 ACCORDING TO THAT MAP, FILED IN BOOK 14, AT PAGE 77 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, AS M ARKED BY A RAILROAD SPIKE SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, AT PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF COAL 88-083 ACCORDING TO SAID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 1988-044493 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SOUTH 88° 34’ 52” EAST, 559.57 FEET TO A 1 ½ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED LS 5201 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT 1376; THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF COAL 88-083 ACCORDING TO SAID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 1988-044493 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES: 1. SOUTH 88° 17’ 04” EAST, 198.73 FEET TO A 1 ½ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED LS 5201 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 14, AT PAGE 77 OF MAPS; 2. SOUTH 89° 04’ 24” EAST, 107.76 FEET TO A 1 ½ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED LS 5201 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 14, AT PAGE 77 OF MAPS; 3. SOUTH 87° 36’ 47” EAST, 92.75 FEET TO A 1 ½ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED LS 5201 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 14, AT PAGE 77 OF MAPS; 4. SOUTH 88° 29’ 54” EAST, 267.67 FEET TO A 1 ½ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED LS 5201 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 14, AT PAGE 77 OF MAPS; 5. SOUTH 87° 53’ 46” EAST, 10.35 FEET TO A 1 ½ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED RCE 12545 MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 14, AT PAGE 77 OF MAPS; THENCE, LEAVING THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT COAL 88-083, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6, NORTH 01° 17’ 21” EAST, 1333.32 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 7; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 7, SOUTH 88° 53’ 32” EAST, 599.99 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL D: (LOT 3 OF SLAL 15-0060 - 2015-064258) (A.P.N.: 004-706-008) PORTIONS OF LOTS 131 AND 132 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 7TH, 1906 AS FILED IN BOOK 1, AT PAGE 92 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF COAL 88-083 ACCORDING TO Packet Pg. 154 12 THAT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED IN BOOK 3181, AT PAGE 644 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNT Y, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 132 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J. D. GRANT AND L. J. BECKETT ET AL, FILED IN BOOK 75, AT PAGE 328 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFIC E OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 132, NORTH 57° 59’ 25” EAST, 745.92 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 132, SOUTH 32° 00’ 54” EAST, 874.62 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 8° 58’ 46” EAST, 74.19 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 15° 34’ 28” EAST, 72.08 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 10° 38’ 54” WEST, 72.61 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 21° 51’ 31” WEST, 59.43 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 27° 18’ 45” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 32° 38’ 22” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 37° 57’ 58” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 43° 17’ 35” WEST, 57.90 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 52° 49’ 18” WEST, 71.66 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 60° 31’ 34” WEST, 57.48 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 32° 06’ 43” WEST, 90.22 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 57° 59’ 04” WEST, 69.30 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 32° 00’ 54” WEST, 46.00 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 87° 18’ 08” WEST, 21.31 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 32° 00’ 54” WEST, 856.87 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 29° 32’ 22” WEST, 110.41 FEET; THENCE, NORTHERLY, ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A 52.50 FOOT RADIUS, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 58° 09’ 47”, AN ARC LENGTH OF 53.30 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 32° 00’ 35” WEST, 5.92 FEET TO A POINT THAT LIES 30.00 FEET OFFSET SOUTHEASTERLY AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 133; THENCE, ALONG A LINE THAT LIES 30.00 FEET OFFSET SOUTHEASTERLY AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 133, SOUTH 57° 59’ 25” WEST, 201.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 132 OF SAID SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J. D. GRANT AND L. J. BECKETT ET AL, FILED IN BOOK 75, AT PAGE 328 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, BEING A POINT ON THE Packet Pg. 155 12 NORTHEASTERN LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT, NORTH 32° 01’ 59” WEST, 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL E: (LOT 3 OF SLAL 15-0104 – 2016-043143) (A.P.N.: 004-706-011) PORTION OF LOT 127 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1906 AS FILED IN BOOK 1, AT PAGE 92 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 127 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J.D. GRANT AND LOUIS T. STEEN, FILED IN BOOK 76, AT PAGE 472 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY MARKED BY A ¾ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED RCE 32981 AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP FILED IN BOOK 94, AT PAGE 91 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 126 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 127, SOUTH 31° 56’ 57” EAST, 462.34 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 127 MARKED BY A ONE INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED LS 2391 AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, AT PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 127, NORTH 58° 00’ 05” EAST, 626.89 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 127, NORTH 31° 56’ 58” WEST, 221.38 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 58° 03’ 02” WEST, 19.53 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 31° 56’ 58” WEST, 240.92 FEET TO A POINT IN THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 126 AND 127; THENCE ALONG SAID COMMON LINE, SOUTH 58° 00’ 14” WEST, 607.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL E-1: AN EASEMENT FOR PRIVATE INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY: PORTION OF LOT 127 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1906 AS FILED IN BOOK 1, AT PAGE 92 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 127 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT AS CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN J.D. GRANT AND LOUIS T. STEEN, FILED IN BOOK 76, AT PAGE 472 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, MARKED BY A ¾ INCH IRON PIPE WITH TAG STAMPED RCE 32981 AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP FILED IN BOOK 94, AT PAGE 91 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 126 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO Packet Pg. 156 12 SUBURBAN TRACT; THENCE, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID LOTS 126 AND 127, NORTH 58° 00’ 14” EAST, 607.36 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID COMMON LINE NORTH 58° 00’ 14” EAST, 172.29 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON LINE, EASTERLY, ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A 250.00 FOOT RADIUS, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26° 20’ 47”, AN ARC LENGTH OF 114.96 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 84° 21’ 01” EAST, 124.60 FEET; THENCE, EASTERLY, ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A 250.00 FOOT RADIUS, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32° 52’ 34”, AN ARC LENGTH OF 143.45 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 51° 28’ 27” EAST, 79.86 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY INDENTURE BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTENSEN AND JOSEPH D. GRANT FILED IN BOOK 69, AT PAGE 37 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 38° 30’ 34” EAST, 30.00 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 51° 28’ 27” WEST, 79.85 FEET; THENCE, WESTERLY, ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A 280.00 FOO T RADIUS, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32° 52’ 34”, AN ARC LENGTH OF 160.66 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 84° 21’ 01” WEST, 124.60 FEET; THENCE, WESTERLY, ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A 220.00 FOOT RADIUS, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26° 20’ 47” AN ARC LENGTH OF 101.16 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 58° 00’ 14” WEST, 172.32 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 31° 56’ 58” WEST, 30.00 FEET; TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 004-706-006, 004-706-007, 004-706-008, 004-706-011 and 004-707-001 Packet Pg. 157 12 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY – TRACT 3063 Real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL A: (A.P.N.: PORTION OF 004-705-013) LOT B OF TRACT 3066-PHASE 1, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED DECEMBER 21, 2016 IN BOOK 36, PAGES 41 THROUGH 45 OF MAPS. PARCEL B: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A STRIP OF LAND 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH OVER A PORTION OF LOT A AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 3066 – PHASE 1 RECORDED DECEMBER 21, 2016 IN BOOK 36 OF MAPS AT PAGES 41 THROUGH 45, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDER, SAID STRIP HAVING BEEN OFFERED FOR DEDICATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES ON SAID MAP, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FO LLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO LOT A, LOT B AND TIBURON WAY AS SAID LOTS AND PUBLIC ROAD ARE SHOWN ON THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED MAP OF TRACT 3066 – PHASE 1; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TIBURON WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS WHICH BEARS SOUTH 15° 35’ 24” EAST 280.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9° 56’ 24” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 48.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84° 21’ 01” EAST 124.60 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 220.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32° 52’ 34” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 126.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51° 28’ 27” EAST 79.86 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF ORCUTT ROAD AS SAID ROAD IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBURBAN TRACT ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1906 IN BOOK 1 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 92 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF ORCUTT ROAD SOUTH 38° 30’ 34” EAST 60.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51° 28’ 27” WEST 79.85 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32° 52’ 34” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 160.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84° 21’ 01 WEST 124.60 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 220.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9° 56’ 24” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 38.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15° 35’ 24” WEST 60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIPTION. APN: Ptn of 004-705-013 Packet Pg. 158 12 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF DEDICATION PARCEL A copy of this map is available at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept. Packet Pg. 15912 EXHIBIT C PHASING MAP OF RIGHETTI RANCH, JONES, AND IMEL [ SHOWING LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS] A Copy of this map is available at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept. Packet Pg. 16012 MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS TO BE BUILT ON JONES A copy of this map is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. Location of nine moderate income, two bedroom units Packet Pg. 16112 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 162 12 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Michael Codron, Community Development Director SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAINTAINING STATUS QUO BY EXPRESSLY CODIFYING AND AFFIRMING THE CITY’S AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE ITS CURRENT PERMISSIVE ZONING, LICENSING, PERMITTING AND REGULATORY POLICIES PROHIBITING MARIJUANA USES, ACTIVITIES, AND OPERATIONS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED UNDER THE COMPASSIONATE USE ACT, THE MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATORY AND SAFETY ACT, OR THE CONTROL, REGULATE, AND TAX ADULT USE OF MARIJUANA ACT PENDING COUNCIL DIRECTION AND CONSIDERATION OF PERMANENT REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 1633 (2017 Series) maintaining status quo by expressly codifying and affirming the City’s authority to enforce its current permissive zoning, licensing, permitting and regulatory policies prohibiting marijuana uses, activities, and operations, except as otherwise permitted under the Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Cannabis Regulatory and Safety Act, or the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act pending Council direction and consideration of permanent regulations. DISCUSSION On March 14, 2017, the City Council voted 5 – 0 to introduce Ordinance No. 1633 (2017 Series) (Staff Report from that meeting – Attachment “A”). Ordinance 1633 (Attachment “B”) preserves current City policy and authority to prevent issuance of state licenses for marijuana activities within the City while staff works in a thoughtful manner to craft a well-informed regulatory approach that considers state medical and recreational licensing and regulatory requirements, community input and desires around marijuana operations and activities in the City, Council direction and coordination with the City’s recently initiated Zoning Code update, in response to the complexity and newness of the state regulatory construct, uncertainties in prospective federal enforcement priorities, and the evolving local landscape of marijuana regulation. The ordinance explicitly clarifies that personal cultivation of up to six plants, whether recreational or medicinal, is allowed in the City in both indoor and outdoor locations, as contemplated by Proposition 64. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with maintaining the current status quo relative to cannabis and cannabis-related uses within City limits; however, due to the passage of Proposition 64, the City is likely to experience an increase in enforcement activities related to marijuana use and higher demand on public safety. Packet Pg. 163 1213 13 ALTERNATIVES 1.The Council could reject the proposed Ordinance though this is not recommended as the Council voted unanimously to introduce it and the need to maintain the status quo by expressly codifying and affirming the City’s authority to enforce its current permissive zoning, licensing, permitting and regulatory policies prohibiting marijuana uses, activities, and operations still exists. 2.The Council could continue final adoption of the proposed Ordinance and provide direction to staff for revisions. Attachments: a - Staff Report: 03-14-2017 Item 01 Marijuana Regulation b - Ordinance 1633 Packet Pg. 164 1213 13 Meeting Date: 3/14/2017 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anne Russell, Interim Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: MARIJUANA REGULATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment A) maintaining status quo (as discussed below) by expressly codifying and affirming the City’s authority to enforce its current permissive zoning, licensing, permitting and regulatory policies prohibiting marijuana uses, activities, and operations, except as otherwise permitted under the Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Cannabis Regulatory and Safety Act, or the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act pending Council direction and consideration of permanent regulations; and 2. Direct staff to monitor developments in other jurisdictions and at the federal level, engage the community regarding various land use and taxation alternatives that may be appropriate, and return with recommended changes to the City’s Municipal Code. DISCUSSION Report in Brief In May 2014, in anticipation of the passage of state legislation legalizing and providing for the state licensing of medical marijuana operations and activities and following neighborhood complaints relating to marijuana cultivation, staff presented regulations to Council that would have expressly prohibited dispensaries (brick and mortar or mobile) and limited and regulated personal or collective medical marijuana cultivation activities. Council opted not to pursue those regulations after hearing public concerns and, instead, proceeded with regulation directly addressing only the potential nuisance/odor effects of cultivation activities. On January 14, 2016, following the 2015 passage of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), the Council revisited the issue of medical marijuana regulation in response to language in MMRSA suggesting that cities that did not take affirmative action to prohibit marijuana cultivation could become subject to sole state licensing authority.1 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 10683 (Attachment E), which reaffirmed that the City’s longstanding interpretation that its permissive zoning code prohibited marijuana businesses, operations and uses, including commercial cultivation of medical marijuana and directed the State not to issue any licenses under MMRSA (MCRSA) in the City. Since the Council’s last action, the statewide initiative legalizing certain recreational marijuana activities and providing for the comprehensive regulation and licensing of commercial marijuana 1 That language was later determined to be unintended remnant language and was the subject of clean up legislation that reaffirmed local control provisions, but the City’s resolution remains operative. Packet Pg. 165 13 businesses was passed. Unfortunately, due to some language in the initiative that does not provide the same express deference to permissive zoning bans that was included in MCRSA, it is now necessary and advisable for the council to expressly address marijuana regulation via adoption of an ordinance. Given the complexity and newness of the state regulatory construct, uncertainties in prospective federal enforcement priorities ,and the evolving local landscape of marijuana regulation, staff desires to act in a thoughtful manner calculated to yield a well-informed regulatory approach that considers state medical and recreational licensing and regulatory requirements, community input and desires around marijuana operations and activities in the City, Council direction and coordination with the City’s recently initiated Zoning Code update. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Council adopt an ordinance preserving current City policy and authority to prevent issuance of state licenses for marijuana activities within the City, while providing input to staff on the nature and scope of desired regulations, if any, that Council wishes staff to pursue regarding medical and recreational marijuana. This report outlines current city law, policy, and practice and some questions on which Council guidance and input is sought in defining a regulatory approach going forward. Background State Medical Marijuana Initiatives In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, providing a defense to state criminal prosecution for the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Medical Marijuana Program Act established a voluntary participation, State-authorized medical marijuana identification card and registry database for verification of qualified patients and their primary caregivers. In 2015, the State Legislature approved the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA). MMRSA created an extensive statewide regulatory and licensing system for the cultivation, manufacture, testing, dispensing, distribution and transport of medical marijuana, effective January 1, 2016. It exempted from its licensing scheme, medical marijuana cultivation by individual qualified patients and primary caregivers with no more than five qualified patients. MMRSA also created a dual licensing scheme, whereby State medical marijuana licenses would be issued to operators only if they were operating in compliance with local regulation, and would not be issued to operators in jurisdictions that prohibited medical marijuana uses and activities (either expressly or under principles of permissive zoning2). In 2016, the State Legislature updated MMRSA by approving AB 21 and SB 837 to address issues not previously addressed in prior legislation and changed the name of MMRSA to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA). 2 Permissive Zoning Principles generally provide that the interpretation of uses in each zone are intended to permit similar types of uses within each zone. In the case of the City of San Luis Obispo, interpretation shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment procedure (i.e. an ordinance amendment adding a use) as a means of adding new types of uses to a zone; hence if not specifically identified as an allowed use, the use is disallowed in any zone in the City. Packet Pg. 166 13 State Recreational Marijuana Initiative In November 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Prop 64 or AUMA). Prop 64 legalized under California law non- medicinal/recreational marijuana use for those 21 years of age and over, and established the Bureau of Marijuana Control within the Department of Consumer Affairs to regulate and license the marijuana industry. In the absence of a local ordinance either banning or regulating a specific commercial marijuana activity, the State could issue a license to an existing business (expected to begin January 2018), which could result in the City’s inability to preclude state licensed operations that may be undesirable from operating within City jurisdiction. Reliance on permissive zoning to prohibit or enforce against such operations may no longer be sufficient once state license issuance begins because AUMA does not contain the same express language as the MCRSA relating to permissive zoning. Analyses and an FAQ of Proposition 64 are included as Attachments B, C and D. Ban, Regulate or Do Nothing? If the Council ultimately desires to consider allowing and regulating certain medical and/or recreational marijuana uses or activities within the City, it will take a substantial amount of time to conduct public outreach regarding the appropriate contours of City regulation and to draft comprehensive zoning, licensing, tax and other municipal code provisions relating to commercial and/or medical marijuana activities within the City. Thus, staff is recommending that the Council adopt an ordinance reflecting the current status quo in the City until staff and the Council can receive input from residents as to how best address this issue. Prop 64 allows local governments to ban some or all commercial recreational marijuana activities, to reasonably regulate some or all commercial recreational activities, or to do nothing and default to the operation of state law. Given the lack of statutory authority to rely on permissive zoning under AUMA, doing nothing creates an undesirable level of ambiguity and lack of guidance to staff in processing City business license, building permit and land use applications, as well as in responding to public safety and code enforcement complaints involving marijuana uses and activities in the City. Relying on permissive zoning also increases the potential that state licenses could be issued to existing or newly established businesses, compromises the City’s ability to oppose the issuance of such licenses, and subjects the City to an increased potential for legal challenge if permits, licenses or land use entitlements for marijuana uses and activities are denied or enforcement actions pursued. Accordingly, staff does not recommend that the Council do nothing and this report focuses on maintaining the City’s current policies and practices to deny marijuana uses in the City, while seeking direction from the Council regarding a proposed approach to define and pursue code amendments that would permit and regulate some degree of commercial marijuana operations in the City. Permissible Commercial Use Regulation The State is preparing to issue 19 different types of commercial marijuana related licenses. 13 of them deal with cultivation, depending on size, and whether indoor, outdoor or mixed; two deal with manufacturing (one requires the use of non-volatile solvents for the manufacturing process while the other may involve use of volatile solvents, with increased risk of explosion and fire), and one each for testing, retailer, distributor, and microbusiness (less than 10,000 square feet). Packet Pg. 167 13 The City can ban or regulate some or all the different licensed activities [H&S 11362.2 (b), B&P 26200]. Typical regulations would include local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, standards to reduce secondhand smoke exposure, and adopting (in addition to the state’s minimum standards) additional regulations for health and safety, environmental protection, testing, security, food safety, and worker protection [B&P 26201]. The City can also allow or ban smoking, vaporizing and ingesting on licensed retailer or microbusiness premises subject to specified conditions [B&P 26200 (d); B&P 26200 (a)]. The City’s current regulations prohibit smoking and control secondhand smoke, including tobacco, marijuana, and e-cigarette smoke and vapors, in public and other places under Chapter 8.16 of the Municipal Code. As mentioned above, the Council can adopt additional health and safety, environmental protection, testing, security, food safety, and worker protections beyond those imposed by a state license [B&P 26201], and to impose taxes in addition to those imposed by the State. Imposition of new taxes requires voter approval. If the Council wishes to pursue any or all of these regulatory options, it will take time to seek public input as to the appropriate scope of permitting and regulation and to identify and analyze, and then draft appropriate regulations. While the state is investigating the feasibility of creating classifications of nonprofit licenses, a city may issue temporary (12 month- which may be renewed) local licenses to nonprofit entities primarily providing specified marijuana to low income persons, subject to specified conditions. At this time, the City has not received any such requests, and would not entertain such a request until permanent regulations are adopted. Permissible Personal Use Regulation To give the City Council an idea of the scope of its authority to allow or prohibit certain activities related to personal marijuana use, staff provides the following list, related both to cultivation activities and non-cultivation activities: Permissible Non-Cultivation Related Regulation • The City cannot prevent transportation of marijuana or marijuana products on public roads in the City [B&P 26080 (b], but can ban deliveries to individuals and properties within the City. [B& P 26090 (c)] • The City can ban marijuana use in publicly owned, leased or occupied buildings. [H&S 11362.45(g)] Permissible Regulation of Cultivation for Personal Use • The City cannot ban indoor cultivation of six or less plants per residence (not per resident) [Health and Safety Code (H&S) section 11362.2(b) (2); H&S 11362.1 (a)(3)] • The City can adopt reasonable regulations to regulate such indoor cultivation. [H&S 11362.2(b)(1)] • The City can limit or entirely ban outdoor cultivation of marijuana (medical or recreational) if it chooses, or allow it, but adopt reasonable regulations, such as setback and/or screening requirements. [H&S 11362.2 (b) (3); Business and Professions Code Packet Pg. 168 13 (B&P) 26200 (a)]. Prior to 2015, the City received odor complaints relating to outdoor cultivation of marijuana asserted to be for personal/medicinal use. Thus, the City adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 8.22 to the Municipal Code (Attachment F-Council Reading File). While not specifically directed toward marijuana, the Chapter prohibits uses or activities causing persistent offensive odors to emanate across property or parcel lines. Those existing provisions would continue to apply to any outdoor cultivation otherwise allowed under state law and not prohibited by local law. As previously noted, prior to adopting the odor nuisance regulations in 2014, and prior to passage of MCRSA or Proposition 64, Council considered, but opted not to adopt, proposed medical marijuana regulations limiting outdoor cultivation. From a historical enforcement perspective, the City has not pursued enforcement action (either criminal or code enforcement) against non-commercial medicinal marijuana cultivation activities (i.e., small indoor and/or outdoor grows limited to qualified patients and caregivers for the personal use of qualified patients), that are not in violation of otherwise applicable nuisance regulations. Under MCRSA, there are exemptions from the licensing and regulatory provisions for cultivation of marijuana up to 100 square feet per qualified patient for personal medical use or up to 500 square feet for a primary caregiver of up to five qualified patients for those patients’ personal medical use. However, there is case law supporting a city’s right to prohibit outdoor medical cannabis cultivation entirely. With the passage of Proposition 64, indoor and outdoor cultivation of up to six plants for recreational use became legal in California, but that law also expressly permits a local agency to regulate or entirely prohibit outdoor cultivation. However, an agency must adopt an express prohibition to do so. Based on current law and historic city enforcement practice, as well as public input and Council direction when staff last presented outdoor cultivation regulations for Council consideration, the ordinance currently presented by staff does not propose complete prohibition on outdoor cultivation for personal use. Rather, the ordinance includes a uniform, express limit on outdoor cultivation of six plants per residence, regardless of whether cultivation is for personal medical or recreational use. Thus, if adopted as proposed, limited outdoor cultivation for personal use would be allowed, to the extent that it does not otherwise violate city odor nuisance provisions or otherwise applicable city regulations. Commercial activities that could otherwise be licensed under MCRSA or AUMA would be prohibited pending public outreach and the drafting of comprehensive regulations. If the Council wishes to prohibit outdoor cultivation entirely pending further consideration, it may do so by directing staff to incorporate the following language into the ordinance: A person may not plant, cultivate, maintain or store any marijuana plant outdoors at any location within the City. Some issues to consider in determining whether to prohibit outdoor cultivation entirely versus allowing some limited outdoor cultivation consistent with state law are that the latter approach may increase neighborhood disputes, complaints, and need for City involvement. In addition, the law defines “private residence” to include apartment units, mobile homes, and other forms of higher density development where personal use cultivation and closer interaction of residents Packet Pg. 169 13 may result in increased likelihood for negative interactions regarding the activity. What Should SLO Do in the Long Term? The issues the Council will need to consider are extensive and input from residents and stakeholders is critical to the Council’s ultimate decision. Before staff can draft final regulations, if any, the Council will need to determine whether all or some commercial marijuana uses should be banned; whether some uses should be banned and others regulated; and whether a distinction should be made between commercial medical marijuana and commercial recreational marijuana uses. Staff is not requesting that Council provide final direction at this meeting, but Council input on areas of policy on which it would like staff to focus public outreach, environmental review and other considerations is extremely helpful. Staff has put together a project plan to guide additional research and a public engagement process to help answer this question (Attachment C). Staff has brainstormed a series of questions that should be posed in the process and on which staff seeks initial Council input, as follows: 1. Does the Council want to permit cannabis and cannabis related uses in the City? 2. What types of cannabis and cannabis related uses should be allowed in the City and subject to what limitations [i.e., broader personal and/or commercial cultivation (indoor and/or outdoor); manufacturing; testing; retail/dispensary (recreational or medical only; storefront or non-storefront); distribution; if any or all the foregoing, subject to size, number and/or location limitations, etc.]? 3. How should the City regulate the delivery of recreational or medical marijuana? 4. Does the City wish to permit or require any level of vertical integration of cannabis related uses permitted (“seed-to-sale” businesses, with a single licensee holding licenses in more than one state licensing category)? 5. Should local taxation be pursued? 6. Should staff study and present information related to the economic and fiscal impacts of allowing cannabis related uses, and the impacts of maintaining the prohibition indefinitely? 7. What qualifications should be required of business operators? 8. What limitations, if any, should apply to marketing and advertising? 9. Can private businesses offer space for their patrons to consume cannabis? 10. Should regulatory fees consistent with cost recovery policies be pursued to pay for the expenses to administer any permit requirements? If Council wants staff to pursue outreach and regulation in this area, in addition to information on the questions above, staff will obtain and return to Council with additional background information regarding public safety impacts and revenue expectations to inform the outreach process, which will include answers to questions, such as: 1. If cannabis uses are permitted, such as a dispensary and/or cultivation, what additional public safety resources would be needed to ensure public safety? 2. What would the costs be for additional enforcement related to these types of businesses? 3. Should residents anticipate more crime if cannabis uses are permitted in the City? 4. What has SLOPD’s experience been with cannabis grows and/or delivery services in the City to date? Packet Pg. 170 13 5. How much money could the City expect to generate from cannabis taxation? If the Council directs staff to pursue development of a regulatory structure, staff will begin the research and outreach process and begin to address the questions above. Consequences of Complete Ban If the City Council chooses to ban cultivation or retail sale of marijuana, the City will not be eligible for grants otherwise available from the excise and cultivation taxes generated by Prop 64. These grants are available to assist with law enforcement, fire protection or other local programs addressing public health and safety associated with implementation of Prop 64. While the taxes to be generated are significant (15% excise tax on gross receipts and cultivation taxes based on weight per various plant part), the amount that will be available for grants is unknown. The taxes go first to reimbursing various state agencies for costs incurred for carrying out their respective duties under Prop 64. The next $25-65 million (increases annually by $10 million for first 5 years) is earmarked for specific state agencies. Of what is left over after those distributions, only 20% is available for grants. In 2022 (after the first 4 years of operation) the first $50 million of that 20% goes to the California Highway Patrol and after 2028 the Legislature may allocate funds to programs other that those specified, with a provision that any revisions cannot result in a reduction of the funds from the amount allocated to each account in fiscal year 2027-28. [Revenue and Taxations Code (R&T) Section 34019 (f)(3)(C) and (D), and R&T 34019 (h)]. These taxes are in addition to any other tax imposed by the City. [ R&T 34021] CONCURRENCES The Police Department has reviewed and concurs with the recommendations in this report. Notwithstanding the changes in California law, the Federal Controlled Substances Act makes it unlawful under Federal law for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense, marijuana. There is no exemption for medical marijuana. While recent comments by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General have not signaled any immediate or significant changes to Federal enforcement approach at this point, there have been comments made that have caused some speculation that a more aggressive federal enforcement position may be forthcoming in the states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Taking a measured approach to local regulation will allow the City time to evaluate and incorporate any subsequent federal enforcement guidance into any regulatory or taxation measures the Council might want to consider. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The adoption of the proposed Ordinance maintains the status quo and does not make any change in the current or historic policy or practice of the City, and the whole of such action is not an activity which may cause direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment under Public Resources Code Section 21065 or California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15378 (a) and, therefore is exempt from, and not a project subject to, environmental review. Even if the adoption of the proposed Ordinance codifying existing law is determined to constitute approval of a project under CEQA, and even if the project is not subject to any statutory or categorical exceptions, as a matter of common sense, it Packet Pg. 171 13 can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question, the adoption of an Ordinance expressly codifying existing law and practice, may have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA guidelines section 15061 (b) (3). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with maintaining the current status quo relative to cannabis and cannabis-related uses within City limits; however, due to the passage of Proposition 64, the City is likely to experience an increase in enforcement activities related to marijuana use and higher demand on public safety. Existing resources available in the Community Development Department budget, and included in the scope of work of the Zoning Regulations update, will be used to support the public engagement process. Because of the unique and complicated nature of this effort, outreach and drafting of any regulations, tax measures, and fees should Council provide this direction, will be led by the City’s Special Projects Manager. Depending on Council direction, if the Council desires to allow any type of marijuana use within the City’s boundaries, such allowable activities could be considered to be regulated through business license requirements and could also be taxed subject to voter approval. Additional technical consultant resources to study the feasibility and challenges associated with potential taxation or business license regulation of marijuana commercial activities may be recommended to develop final recommendations to Council. Finally, the Council should be aware that if the City ultimately chooses to adopt a permanent ban on commercial cultivation or retail sale of marijuana, the City will not be eligible for grants that otherwise may available from the excise and cultivation taxes generated by Prop 64. These grants are available to assist with law enforcement, fire protection or other local programs addressing public health and safety associated with implementation of Prop 64. While the taxes to be generated are likely significant, the amount that will be available for grants is unknown and uncertain at this point because there are significant statutory priorities and earmarks for funding through at least 2028. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do nothing. Staff does not recommend this alternative. If the City has no express ban or regulatory scheme, the City may not be able to preclude the issuance of a State license to operate a marijuana business in the City, even if such a business is not in the City’s best interests to allow and leaves the application and enforcement of current city law ambiguous. 2. Provide more specific direction on future alternatives. The City Council could be more specific about its goals for a future regulatory scheme, however, this alternative is not recommended because there are still uncertainties associated with the various alternatives. In addition, future decision-making will benefit greatly from public engagement efforts to answer certain questions about community preferences associated with the options for licensing and taxation of cannabis related activities. Packet Pg. 172 13 3. Provide direction to incorporate language in the proposed ordinance to prohibit all outdoor cultivation. Language to implement this direction is included in the report and would prohibit all recreations and medical marijuana cultivation within the City. Attachments: a - Ordinance Preserving City Authority to Prohibit Marijuana Uses and Activities b - Briefing-Prop64 c - FAQ League CA Cities Prop 64 Adult Use of Marijuana d - Memo League CA Cities Adult Use Marijuana Act e - Resolution 10683 (2015 Series) f - Council Reading File - 03-17-2015 Council Agenda Report - Code Amendment - Odor Nuisance Packet Pg. 173 13 O ______ ORDINANCE NO. 1633 (2017 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CODIFYING AND REAFFIRMING CURRENT CITY LAW, POLICY AND PRACTICE BY EXPRESSLY PROHIBITING ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL RECREATIONAL AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA USES, ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS AND LIMITING OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, entitled “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996”, providing a defense to state criminal prosecution for specified medical marijuana use, and the Medical Marijuana Program Act established a voluntary participation, State-authorized medical marijuana identification card and registry database for verification of qualified patients and their primary caregivers; and WHEREAS, in 2015, the State Legislature approved the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (“MMRSA”), which created an extensive statewide regulatory and licensing system for the cultivation, manufacture, testing, dispensing, distribution and transport of medical marijuana. MMRSA exempted from its regulatory and licensing system, certain medical marijuana cultivation by individual qualified patients and primary caregivers with no more than five qualified patients. In 2016, the State Legislature updated MMRSA by approving AB 21 and SB 837 to address issues not previously addressed in prior legislation and changed the name of MMRSA to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA); and WHEREAS, under MCRSA, the State will not issue licenses to operators in jurisdictions that prohibit medical marijuana uses and activities, either expressly or under principles of permissive zoning; and WHEREAS, the City historically has relied on permissive zoning principles to decline permitting of marijuana businesses and uses within the City, and reaffirmed that position by adoption of Resolution 10683 on January 14, 2016; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, entitled “The Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (“AUMA”). AUMA legalized under California law non-medicinal/recreational marijuana use for those 21 years of age and over, and created a comprehensive regulatory, licensing and tax system for the non-medical marijuana industry, including 19 different types of licenses for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, retailer, distributor and microbusiness; and WHEREAS, AUMA allows local governments to ban recreational marijuana businesses entirely, or regulate such businesses, and to reasonably regulate cultivation through zoning and other public health and safety laws, including prohibiting outdoor cultivation outright, but AUMA does require local governments to allow limited indoor cultivation in private residences; and Packet Pg. 174 13 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, despite the changes in California law, the Federal Controlled Substances Act still makes it illegal under federal law for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense, marijuana, and the future of federal government enforcement actions under a new Presidential administration is uncertain in states that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana; and WHEREAS, it will take a substantial amount of time: to conduct public outreach regarding the direction the City should take regarding both medical and recreational marijuana businesses; to draft comprehensive zoning and other regulations relating to commercial recreational and/or medical marijuana activities within the City; to determine whether to pursue certain taxes related to commercial recreational marijuana; and to analyze the potential impacts and health and safety issues relating to such businesses, including, but not limited to, environmental, water, indoor electrical fire hazards, mold, odors and criminal activity; and WHEREAS, AUMA does not contain the protective language relating to permissive zoning that MCRSA does, and, in the absence of an express ordinance either prohibiting or regulating non-medical marijuana business or activities, the City could become subject to State licensing of marijuana businesses and activities within its jurisdiction and/or may not be able preclude the State from issuing licenses to marijuana businesses anywhere in the City; and WHEREAS, it is unclear to the full extent to which AUMA and MCRSA may conflict, how state regulatory provisions ultimately may reconcile the two licensing structures, and whether the provisions of AUMA will control over MCRSA; and, WHEREAS, the City has had odor complaints relating to outdoor cultivation of marijuana, resulting in the addition of Chapter 8.22 to the Municipal Code, prohibiting persistent offensive odors from emanating across property or parcel lines; and WHEREAS, the City currently prohibits smoking and controls secondhand smoke, including marijuana smoke and vapors, in public and other places under Chapter 8.16, of its Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to preserve its ability to continue its current licensing, permitting, regulation and enforcement practices regarding marijuana uses within its boundaries in order to receive and consider council direction and public outreach to define the appropriate nature and scope of regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted by the City Council as findings in support of the Ordinance. SECTION 2. This Ordinance constitutes an exercise of the City’s police powers under the California Constitution and codifies existing law, policy and practice in the City of San Luis Obispo prohibiting marijuana uses and activities. Packet Pg. 175 13 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 SECTION 3. Chapter 9.10 is added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, to read as follows: Chapter 9.10 MARIJUANA REGULATION 9.07.010 Purpose and Intent A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to maintain the status quo while the city conducts public outreach by limiting the outdoor cultivation, and prohibiting manufacturing, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing and wholesale and retail distribution and sale of recreational and medical marijuana to protect the health, safety and welfare of the city consistent with state law. B. This chapter is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, prohibiting or interfering with any right, defense or immunity afforded to qualified patients or their caregivers relating to medical marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, the Medical Cannabis Regulatory and Safety Act and other applicable California law. C. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed as, prohibiting or interfering with any right, defense or immunity of any individual relating to the recreational use or possession or indoor cultivation of marijuana as permitted by the Control, Regulation and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act; provided, nothing in this subsection is to be construed to permit actions violating or not permitted by other provisions of the Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, Chapter 5.01 Business License Program, Chapter 8.16 Smoking Prohibited and Secondhand Smoke Control, Chapter 8.22 Offensive Odors and Chapter 17.22 Use Regulations. 9.10.020 Limitation of Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana No person shall cultivate, plant, grow, maintain or store more than six marijuana plants outdoors in any location within the City, whether or not located in a greenhouse or other structure designed or used for such activities. 9.10.030 Prohibition of Marijuana-Related Businesses A. Except as otherwise specifically required by California law, any and all commercial or industrial recreational and medical marijuana/cannabis-related uses, activities, businesses, or operations, are prohibited and unlawful within the City of San Luis Obispo. B. This prohibition applies to both for profit and nonprofit commercial and industrial uses, activities, businesses, operations, even if a State license under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act or the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act is not required. C. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, commercial and/or industrial: cultivation (both indoor and outdoor); manufacturing; processing; laboratory testing; Packet Pg. 176 13 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 wholesale or retail distribution, delivery and sale; labeling; storage; or permitting of smoking/vaporizing/ingesting on any business premises, of marijuana/cannabis, marijuana/cannabis products and all marijuana/cannabis derivatives for any purpose. 9.10.40 Violation and Penalties A. Misdemeanor. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor; provided, that where the city attorney determines that such action would be in the interest of justice, he/she may specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be an infraction. B. Infraction Violation. Where the city attorney determines that, in the interest of justice, a violation of this chapter is an infraction, such infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation, a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for a second violation of the same provision within one year, and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for each additional infraction violation of the same provision within one year. C. The fine amounts set forth above may be modified, from time to time, by city council resolution. In no event shall such fine amounts exceed the amounts authorized by state law. D. Each person committing, causing, or maintaining a violation of this chapter or failing to comply with the requirements set forth herein shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this chapter is committed, continued, maintained, or permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly. E. The violation of any provision of this chapter shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and contrary to the public interest. Any public nuisance under this chapter may, at the city’s discretion, be abated by the city by civil process by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance. The city shall also be entitled to recover its full reasonable costs of abatement. The prevailing party in any proceeding associated with the abatement of a public nuisance shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred in any such proceeding if the city has elected at the initiation of that individual action or proceeding to seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees. F. In lieu of issuing a criminal citation, the city may issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for committing, causing or maintaining a violation of this chapter. Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from also issuing a citation upon the occurrence of the same offense on a separate day. G. The remedies set forth in this chapter are cumulative and additional to any and all other legal remedies available whether set forth elsewhere in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, or in state or federal laws, regulations, or case law Packet Pg. 177 13 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 SECTION 4 The adoption of this Ordinance maintains the status quo and does not make any change in the current or historic law, policy or practice of the City, and the whole of such action is not an activity which may cause direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment under Public Resources Code Section 21065 or California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15378 (a) and, therefore, is exempt from, and not a project subject to, environmental review. Even if the adoption of this Ordinance codifying existing law is determined to constitute approval of a project under CEQA, and even if the project is not subject to any statutory or categorical exceptions, as a matter of common sense, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question, the adoption of the Ordinance codifying existing law, may have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA guidelines section 15061 (b) (3). SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall not be interpreted in any manner to conflict with controlling provisions of state or federal law, including, without limitation, the Constitution of the State of California. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2017, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 178 13 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 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. 179 13 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 180 13 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney SUBJECT: CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE AN INDEPENDENT CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the City Attorney to execute the second amendment to the agreement with Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, with a not to exceed amount of $70,000; and 2. Authorize the use of non-departmental: contingency budget in the amount of $20,000 to complete an ongoing independent personnel investigation. DISCUSSION This item is on the agenda because the estimated costs to complete an ongoing independent personnel investigation exceed the budgetary authority of the Assistant City Manager and require City Council approval. On February 7, 2017, Human Resources Director, Monica Irons received a written complaint alleging multiple City policy violations by the Fire Chief and City Manager related to the production, display, and participation in a video shown at the Annual Chamber of Commerce Dinner. Given the level and roles of the employees subject to investigation and expressed concerns raised by complainants and their representative regarding the impartiality of the City Attorney and the HR Director to conduct the investigation internally, the HR Director and City Attorney and the Council agreed that an independent, confidential personnel investigation by a qualified third party investigator was appropriate. Under California and federal law, employers have an affirmative duty to take steps to prevent harassing conduct from occurring, and once misconduct is alleged, to take prompt, corrective steps. As part of that duty, regulations adopted under the California Fair Employment Act mandate that employers “conduct a fair, timely, and thorough investigation that provides all parties due process and reaches reasonable conclusions based on the evidence collected.” A critical component of the investigation process is the need to comprehensively document the investigation through preparation of a written report. Factors that commonly affect the cost of an investigation are the number and nature of issues presented, the number of interviews with complainants, accused employees, and relevant witnesses to prepare for, conduct, summarize and analyze and the amount of relevant documents and other records for review and consideration. Each of these components involves an additional associated cost to incorporate and address them effectively in the written report. Due to this inter-connectedness, an increase in the anticipated number of issues, interviews, and documents and records for review and consideration results in additional expense for the entire process. This circumstance is common to personnel investigations involving the type of allegations at issue here and it has been the case in this instance. Packet Pg. 181 14 Five law firms were contacted regarding this matter. The HR Director and City Attorney received approval from Assistant City Manager on February 14, 2017 (Attachment “C”) to engage the firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, partner Katy Suttorp to conduct the investigation in an initial amount up to $15,000, which was the amount available to initiate the investigation in the City Attorney’s budget, with additional costs anticipated. Costs increased above those originally estimated due to scheduling accommodations for complaining parties and their representatives requiring more than one trip to San Luis Obispo by the investigator. Additional complaints were filed following the initial written complaint, which drove additional interviews of both complaining parties and rel ated witnesses. Finally, the investigator needed to conduct some follow up interviews with witnesses and complainants to ensure a complete and thorough investigation. Further funding was approved on March 21, 2017 (Attachment “D”) by the Assistant City Manager in the amount of $35,000. The authorization of additional funding up to $20,000 now requested from Council is estimated at this time to be sufficient to complete the investigation and process all vendor payments. City Attorney requests authorization to sign the second amendment to the agreement (Attachment “A”) with Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP increasing the not to exceed amount to $70,000. FISCAL IMPACT There is sufficient budget in 2016-17 fiscal year within City Attorney ($15,000) and non- departmental contingency ($55,000) accounts. There is no impact to fund balance. Attachments: a - Second Amendment Burke Personnel b - First Amended Agreement - Burke Personnel Fully Executed c - 1st CMR Burke Personnel Investigation approved d - 2nd CMR Burke Further Funding approved Packet Pg. 182 14 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to Agreement is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on __________________, 2017, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City, and BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP, a limited liability partnership, hereinafter referred to as Consultant. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on February 10, 2017, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for professional legal services related to an independent personnel investigation into the Fire Chief and City Manager, grounded in applicable City rules and policies, and otherwise defined in Attachment “A” of the original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the investigation is ongoing; and WHEREAS, the parties seek to modify certain provisions of the Agreement between them to address the increased costs due to additional complaints being filed and the need to conduct additional interviews with witnesses. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The not to exceed amount in Section 1. Term of the Agreement is modified to $70,000. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By:________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney CONSULTANT ________________________________ By: Timothy L. Davis Its: Partner Packet Pg. 183 14 Packet Pg. 184 14 Packet Pg. 185 14 Packet Pg. 186 14 Packet Pg. 187 14 Packet Pg. 188 14 Packet Pg. 189 14 March 17, 2017 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Jcd 3/20/17 SUBJECT: Use of Non-departmental: Contingency budget to further fund an independent personnel investigation RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the use of Non-departmental: Contingency budget in the amount of $35,000 to further fund an ongoing independent personnel investigation; and 2. Authorize the City Attorney to sign the first amendment to the agreement with Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, with a not to exceed amount of $50,000; and 3. Direct the Interim Finance Director to encumber the funds for this investigation and related legal fees. DISCUSSION On February 7, 2017 Human Resources Director, Monica Irons received a written complaint alleging multiple City policy violations by the Fire Chief and City Manager related to the production, display, and participation in a video shown at the Annual Chamber of Commerce Dinner. The video was produced and shown by the Fire Chief, and the City Manager appeared in the video. Upon receiving the complaint, obtaining a copy of the video, and viewing it, the HR Director and City Attorney agreed that an independent confidential personnel investigation was appropriate. Five law firms were contacted regarding this matter. The HR Director and City Attorney received approval from Assistant City Manager on February 14, 2017 to engage the firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, partner Katy Suttorp to conduct the investigation in an initial amount up to $15,000, which was the amount available to initiate the investigation in the City Attorney’s budget. The investigation is ongoing, with increased estimated costs due to additional complaints being filed and the need to conduct additional interviews with witnesses and complainants. Further funding requested in the amount of $35,000, with an expectation that additional funding of up to $20,000 will need to be requested from Council. City Attorney requests authorization to sign the first amendment to the agreement with Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP increasing the not to exceed amount to $50,000 and further requests that the Interim Finance Director be directed to encumber the additional $35,000 in funds. Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved City Administration DJJ 03/21/17 Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed City Attorney’s Office JCD 3/20/17 Finance and IT XB 3/21/17 Packet Pg. 190 14 Use of Non-departmental: Contingency budget to further fund a personnel investigation Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The Human Resources: Administration budget includes $10,000 in funding for personnel investigations each year. However, these resources have already been depleted for the current fiscal year. The City Attorney: Legal Services budget had $15,000 in available funding which was used to initiate the investigation. With no further funding available in the City Attorney budget, staff requests the use of $35,000 from Non-departmental: Contingency budget. This account (25200-7050) has a current balance of $1,733,771. With funding available within existing budgets there is no fiscal impact to this action. ATTACHMENTS 1. Burke Williams Sorensen Agreement 2. FirstAmendment_Burke_Personnel 3. CMR dated 2/14/17 Packet Pg. 191 14 February 13, 2017 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Jcd 2/13/17 PREPARED BY: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Use of City Attorney: Legal Services funding to retain Burke Williams Sorensen, LLP to conduct an independent personnel investigation RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the use of City Attorney: Legal Services budget in the amount of $15,000 to conduct an independent personnel investigation. Attached is the agreement that includes the current fee schedule. 2. Authorize the City Attorney to sign agreement(s) necessary to support the investigation. 3. Direct the Interim Finance Director to encumber the funds for this investigation and related legal fees. DISCUSSION On February 7, 2017 Human Resources Director, Monica Irons received a written complaint alleging multiple City policy violations by the Fire Chief and City Manager related to the production, display, and participation in a video shown at the Annual Chamber of Commerce Dinner. The video was produced and shown by the Fire Chief, and the City Manager appeared in the video. Upon receiving the complaint, obtaining a copy of the video, and viewing it, the HR Director and City Attorney agreed that an independent confidential personnel investigation was appropriate. Five law firms were contacted regarding this matter. The HR Director and City Attorney have preliminarily authorized the firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, partner Katy Suttorp to conduct the investigation. This firm is on the City Attorney’s on-call list in the area of employment law. Ms. Suttorp has extensive experience in personnel investigations, firefighter bill of rights, training in the area of harassment and discrimination prevention, and is available to start the investigation immediately. Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved City Administration DJ 02/14/17 Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed City Attorney’s Office jcd 2/13/2017 Finance and IT Packet Pg. 192 14 Use of City Attorney: Legal Services to retain law firm for personnel investigation Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The Human Resources Administration budget includes $10,000 in funding for personnel investigations each year. However, these resources have already been depleted for this fiscal year. Staff requests the use of City Attorney: Legal Services funding, which currently has a surplus, end- of-fiscal-year balance forecast to be approximately $17,000. With funding available within existing budgets there is no fiscal impact to this action. ATTACHMENTS 1. Burke Williams Sorensen Agreement Packet Pg. 193 14 March 17, 2017 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Jcd 3/20/17 SUBJECT: Use of Non-departmental: Contingency budget to further fund an independent personnel investigation RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the use of Non-departmental: Contingency budget in the amount of $35,000 to further fund an ongoing independent personnel investigation; and 2. Authorize the City Attorney to sign the first amendment to the agreement with Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, with a not to exceed amount of $50,000; and 3. Direct the Interim Finance Director to encumber the funds for this investigation and related legal fees. DISCUSSION On February 7, 2017 Human Resources Director, Monica Irons received a written complaint alleging multiple City policy violations by the Fire Chief and City Manager related to the production, display, and participation in a video shown at the Annual Chamber of Commerce Dinner. The video was produced and shown by the Fire Chief, and the City Manager appeared in the video. Upon receiving the complaint, obtaining a copy of the video, and viewing it, the HR Director and City Attorney agreed that an independent confidential personnel investigation was appropriate. Five law firms were contacted regarding this matter. The HR Director and City Attorney received approval from Assistant City Manager on February 14, 2017 to engage the firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, partner Katy Suttorp to conduct the investigation in an initial amount up to $15,000, which was the amount available to initiate the investigation in the City Attorney’s budget. The investigation is ongoing, with increased estimated costs due to additional complaints being filed and the need to conduct additional interviews with witnesses and complainants. Further funding requested in the amount of $35,000, with an expectation that additional funding of up to $20,000 will need to be requested from Council. City Attorney requests authorization to sign the first amendment to the agreement with Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP increasing the not to exceed amount to $50,000 and further requests that the Interim Finance Director be directed to encumber the additional $35,000 in funds. Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved City Administration DJJ 03/21/17 Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed City Attorney’s Office JCD 3/20/17 Finance and IT XB 3/21/17 Packet Pg. 194 14 Use of Non-departmental: Contingency budget to further fund a personnel investigation Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The Human Resources: Administration budget includes $10,000 in funding for personnel investigations each year. However, these resources have already been depleted for the current fiscal year. The City Attorney: Legal Services budget had $15,000 in available funding which was used to initiate the investigation. With no further funding available in the City Attorney budget, staff requests the use of $35,000 from Non-departmental: Contingency budget. This account (25200-7050) has a current balance of $1,733,771. With funding available within existing budgets there is no fiscal impact to this action. ATTACHMENTS 1. Burke Williams Sorensen Agreement 2. FirstAmendment_Burke_Personnel 3. CMR dated 2/14/17 Packet Pg. 195 14 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 196 14 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Matt Horn, Deputy Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE CITY COUNCIL’S MARCH 21, 2017 DECISION OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY STALWORK, INC.) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TREES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Denying in Part, and Upholding in Part, an Appeal of the Tree Committee’s Decision to Deny a Tree Removal Request at 2466 Augusta Street and Waiving and Levying Civil Penalties.” DISCUSSION On March 21, 2017, the City Council considered an appeal filed by Stalwork, Inc. of the Tree Committee’s decision on requested tree removals for the property located at 2466 Augusta Street. By way of reference, the following figure identifies each tree referenced in the City Council’s decision: Packet Pg. 197 15 At that meeting the City Council, by minute order: a) Denied the appeal regarding Tree No. 1 and levied civil penalties in the amount of $8,200 against Stalwork, Inc. and $8,200 against the owner or owners of the Property located at 2466 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo, California. b) Did not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of Tree Nos. 2 and 6 based on the findings set forth above. c) Approved the removal of Tree Nos. 3, 4 and 5 subject to: i. issuance of a building permit for a pool in the rear yard of the property; and ii. Tree replacement mitigation on a 1 to 1 basis to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Approval of the attached resolution simply ratifies the City Council’s March 21, 2017 action. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project and tree removals at 2466 Augusta Street is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (maintenance or replacement of an existing facility). Packet Pg. 198 15 FISCAL IMPACT Levied civil penalties in the amount of $16,400 will be deposited into the City’s General Fund. Attachments: a - 03-07-2017 Resolution Packet Pg. 199 15 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING IN PART, AND UPHOLDING IN PART, 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: Tree No. 1: Denied the removal of the California Pepper located next to the front driveway; Tree No. 2: Approved the removal of the Pine Tree located in the driveway area; Tree No. 3: Denied the removal of the California Pepper Tree located next to the garage; Tree No. 4: “Tabled” action on removal of the Eucalyptus located in the rear of the property until a pool permit is issued; Tree No. 5: “Tabled” action on removal of the Black Acacia in the rear of the property until a pool permit is issued; and Tree No. 6: Approved the removal of the Black Acacia located in the side of the property towards the rear yard. 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 filed by Stalwork, Inc. 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 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 levy of civil penalties associated with the premature removal of the Trees Nos. 2 and 6: 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. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby: Packet Pg. 200 15 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ a) Denies the appeal regarding Tree No. 1 and hereby levies civil penalties in the amount of $8,200 against Stalwork, Inc. and $8,200 against the owner or owners of the Property located at 2466 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo, California. b) Does not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of Tree Nos. 2 and 6 based on the findings set forth above. c) Approves the removal of Tree Nos. 3, 4 and 5 subject to: i. issuance of a building permit for a pool in the rear yard of the property; and ii. Tree replacement mitigation on a 1 to 1 basis to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. SECTION 3. Environmental Review. This decision is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 and 15303. 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. 201 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. 202 15 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY TERESA MATTHEWS AND LYDIA MOURENZA) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON 71 PALOMAR DRIVE, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's approval of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project on 71 Palomar Drive, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Data Applicant LR Development Group Representative Thom Jess, Architect Historic Status Master List Zoning R-4 (High Density Residential) General Plan High Density Residential Site Area 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant is proposing to reposition, rehabilitate, and adaptively reuse the Master List Historic Sandford House as part of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project located at the corner of Luneta and Palomar. The project includes the repositioning of the Historic Sandford House for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.) and constructing six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios, four of which will be deed restricted for very low income; sixteen two-bedroom Packet Pg. 203 16 apartments; and twelve three bedroom apartments). The project is also proposing to remove 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting a total of 110 (34 trees on the project site and 76 off-site). The project includes 63 parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings that is accessed from Palomar Avenue and 66 bicycle parking spaces. Based on community feedback and prior Council direction, alternatives are being considered in place of the Luneta Drive connection included in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan, such as a pedestrian and bicycle connection only. Conditions of approval are included to allow for implementation of these alternatives in the event such policies are modified in the future. However, until any changes are made to the Circulation Element, the project shows compliance with current policies. On March 28, 2016, the CHC reviewed a proposal for a 41-unit multi-family development with four multi-level buildings and the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and provided direction to the applicant that included reducing the scale of the new structures on the site and providing more distance between the historic house and the new construction (Attachment J, CHC Minutes). On June 27, 2016, the CHC reviewed a revised project proposal that included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House and a newly designed 33-unit multi-family development that responded to CHC direction. The CHC voted 4:2 recommending the ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards with a series of conditions (see Attachment I, CHC Resolution). On August 1, 2016, the ARC participated in a conceptual review of the proposed project and provided feedback to the applicant regarding trees, landscaping, architectural elements and materials, scale and massing. On January 30, 2017, the ARC reviewed the proposed multi-family project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review and considered the CHC’s recommendation and the response by the applicant to ARC direction. The ARC voted 4:1 to approve the repositioning, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the proposed 33-unit multi-family residential project (Attachment G, ARC Resolution). On February 8, 2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project (Attachment E, Appeal Application & Letter). The appeal states that the project has not been properly analyzed and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the environment as well as adverse effects on health and safety. The scope of this review is to provide an evaluation of the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines and other applicable City policies and standards. The Council is being asked to review the proposed project, the concerns of the appeal and provide a final determination on the proposed project. Staff is recommending the Council deny the appeal and uphold the ARC’s approval of the project (Attachment A, Resolution A) because the project respects site constraints, will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood, is consistent with the City’s Packet Pg. 204 16 development standards and General Plan policies and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, environmental impacts of the project will be less than significant. As such, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. If the Council approves the project, the project will have all necessary entitlements needed to move forward for building permits. The following report provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and the appeal. DISCUSSION Site Information/Setting Table 1: Site Information Site Size 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Present Use & Development Residential; Master List Historic Sandford House Land Use Designation High Density Residential (R-4) Topography Elevation: Min. 245 feet; Max. 270 ft. Slope: ~11% slope Current Access From Luneta Drive Surrounding Use/Zoning North, East & West: R-4 (High Density Residential) South: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Project Description: The applicant is proposing the following (Attachment D, Project Plans):  Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;  Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;  Repositioning the historic house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its current location; Packet Pg. 205 16  Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);  Removal of 551 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 110 trees (34 trees on site and 76 trees off site);  Construction of six apartment buildings (four, 2 -story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios of which four are deed restricted for very low income residents, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom apartments);  63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and  Road improvements to Luneta Drive.  Materials include: smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, and wood balcony railings. 1 Approximately 9 of the 55 trees proposed to be removed are located within the area for the Luneta Street extension. If this extension is not required based on a General Plan amendment, then the trees may remain in place depending on the alternative design. These trees include eucalyptus, a coast live oak, a Monterey pine, a myoporum, and an acacia tree. Figure 2: Site Plan: The image shows the locations of each of the residential structures. Parking is located under the most northerly buildings (outlined) on the site. Ingress and egress to the parking garage is off Palomar Avenue (shown with the arrow). Packet Pg. 206 16 Project Statistics Table 2: Project Comparison to R-4 Zoning Standards Item Proposed R-4 Zoning Standards Setback Front Yard 16 feet 15 feet Other Yard 10 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43% 60% Density Units (DU) 5 studios (2.5 DU), 16 two-bedrooms (16 DU), and 12 three bedrooms (18 DU) = 36.51 DU 28.56 (24 DU per acre) + 25% (8 DU2) density bonus = 36.56 DU for the site Parking Spaces 3 Vehicle 63 61 Bicycle (long-term) 66 66 Bicycle (short-term) 22 4 Notes: 1. 28.56 DU x 25% density bonus for providing 7% very -low affordable housing units (4 studio units). Per SLOMC 17.16.010, studio apartments are 0.50 DUs, One bedroom units are 0.66 DUs, Two bedroom units are 1 DU, and three bedroom units are 1.5 DUs. 2. The 7.14 DU density bonus for this project rounds up to 8 DU based on SLOMC 17.90.040(B): All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number . 3. Chapter 17.90.040 (Standard Incentives for housing projects) includes parking ratio of 1 space per studio and 1-bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom residential units. Historic Background In 1983, the Historic Sandford House was added to the Master List of Historic Resources based on its architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture (Attachment K, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Evaluation Report). The report notes the Sandford House retains several of the notable characteristics which reflect Colonial Revival style, including symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway and neoclassical portico. The Historic Evaluation identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930. The Historic Sandford House was likely constructed in 1895 (no records have been found with the exact date of construction). Reginald Wills-Sandford, (for whom the house is named), and his wife Mary Woods Sperry owned the property from 1895 to 1899. In 1930 the solarium was added and integrated into the south side of the Historic Sandford House. The addition of the solarium is considered historically significant as it contributes to the architectural style and character of the house (Attachment K, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Section 6.2.1). In the 1950’s other additions and accessory structures were added to the property. These non - historic alterations included: two single-story stucco clad additions to the rear (north side) of the main structure, a 2-story addition, a detached garage, and a secondary residential building. In 1970, the garage was converted into sleeping quarters and a carport was added (Attachment K, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Sections 5.2 and Packet Pg. 207 16 6.2.1). Policy Background 1. Land Use Element The subject property has been identified in the Land Use Element (LUE) as High Density Residential. High Density Residential is defined as attached dwellings in two and three story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of development is appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and nodes (Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards, Land Use Element). LUE Policy 2.2.6. states that the City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all residents. Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but often include one or more of the following characteristics:  A mix of housing type styles, density, and affordability.  Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale.  Nearby services and facilities including schools, parks, retail (e.g., grocery store, drug store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or other public facilities.  A tree canopy and well-maintained landscaping.  A sense of personal safety (e.g., low crime rate, short police and emergency response times).  Convenient access to public transportation.  Well-maintained housing and public facilities. Additionally, the LUE states the City shall promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas (LUE Policy 2.2.7). 2. Housing Element The Housing Element (HE) supports LUE goals and policies and includes several specific policies that encourage infill residential development, housing for all financial strata and the promotion of higher residential density where appropriate.2 The City has outlined in HE Goal 2 that housing should be in-line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period (see Table 3). The project is proposing to construct four very-low income units 2 Housing Element Policies: Policy 2.2: Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions show n in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period. Policy 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Policy 7.1: Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that respects the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. Policy 7.2: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on -site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. Packet Pg. 208 16 which are some of the more challenging units to be provided within a private development. The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status and encourages housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co- housing accommodations, utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing Element further states:  That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and extremely low income households (Policy 2.17); and  That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance (Program 6.19). Table 3: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units approved, under construction or built (January 1, 2014 to October 11, 2016) Income Category A B A-B New Construction Need (RHNA) Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built Remaining RHNA Need, Dwelling Units Extremely-Low (< 31% of AMI) 142 5 137 Very Low (31-50% of AMI) 143 53 90 Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 81 98 Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 95 107 Above Moderate (>120% of AMI) 478 4781 0 TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7121 432 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 2016 1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA. Actual above moderate units = 1,350. 3. Major City Goal Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over 2015-17 financial year. The goal states: Implement the Housing Element, facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options, including support for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share. 4. State Housing Density Bonus Law California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. In addition to a density bonus, by providing a certain percentage of affordable units within a project (as outlined in Section 17.90.060 of the Zoning Regulations), a developer may receive alternative incentives or concessions for the project such as exceptions to height limits, setback and parking requirements and deferral or waiver of fees. Government Code § 65915(e)(1) states, in pertinent part: Packet Pg. 209 16 …In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by [the Density Bonus Law]. This section allows a developer to request a waiver or concession of a development standard and the City must grant the waiver or concession unless it finds that the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. A “specific, adverse impact” is defined as follows: … a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. For purposes of this section, inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation does not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. As it relates to this specific project it is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the General Plan land use designation. For this project, the developer is setting aside four units for very-low income (7%) which equals a State mandated 25% density bonus in accordance with State law and the City’s Zoning Code. The developer has requested standard incentives for parking requirements as outlined in Section 17.90.040 of the Zoning Regulations and is fully consistent with all development standards. 5. Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) applies to “housing development projects.” “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:  Residential units only.  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of buildings that are two or more stories.  Transitional housing or supportive housing. The HAA provides certain protections for housing development projects. One of the State legislature’s stated reasons for the enactment of the HAA is because the legislature found that [m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing projects. Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(4). In light of this declaration of policy, the legislature enacted the HAA which prohibits a local agency from: (1) disapproving a housing development project; (2) conditioning the approval of a housing development project for very low, low or Packet Pg. 210 16 moderate income households which renders the project infeasible; or 3) approving but requiring the housing development project to be developed at a lesser density than allowed by the agency’s zoning code unless the agency makes a finding that the project will have a specific adverse impact on the public health and safety and there is no feasible way to mitigate the impact. Again, “specific, adverse impact” is defined as … a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete and inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation does not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2) and § 65589.5(j) The proposed project at 71 Palomar is a housing development project within the meaning of the HAA because it consists of residential units only. Staff does not believe that the adaptive reuse of the historic Sanford House as an office and amenity center disqualifies the project from this definition as those uses are purely accessory to this housing development project. Project Review Background March 28, 2016: The CHC reviewed a proposal for a 41-unit multi-family development with four multi-level buildings. The proposal also included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and provided the following direction to the applicant: 1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right- of-way and the new development; 2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence; and 3. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. June 27, 2016: The CHC reviewed a revised proposal for the subject site that included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House and proposed a newly designed 33-unit multi-family development in response to the CHC direction. The CHC voted 4:2 recommending the ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards with a series of conditions (see Attachment I, CHC Resolution). The CHC provided the following recommendations to ARC: 1. The ARC shall evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and Packet Pg. 211 16 give great consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees. 2. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for the ARC to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure. 3. The project shall remove the smooth panel horizontal elements around the windows on Buildings A and B. August 1, 2016: The ARC participated in a conceptual review on the proposed project in order to provide feedback to the applicant. The ARC provided the following list of directional items: Tree Removal and Landscaping The ARC deferred directional comments on tree removal and landscaping until they have more information. The ARC requested the following information be included for their review: 1. Provide a tree survey, biological report, wildlife habitat information, bird survey and an aesthetics analysis. 2. Review the trees individually and collectively. 3. Discussion on the historic siting and location of plantings. 4. Vintage of the trees. 5. Carefully consider the use or need of water as a part of the new landscaping plan. 6. Provide details on the landscape plans that show exactly how vegetation will be planted along the northern property line. Materials and Architectural Elements 1. Provide durable materials – include details on plans of the fit and finish of all the materials on all (4) sides of the project. 2. Provide details of the exterior light fixtures. 3. Consider using lighter colors. Scale and Massing 1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta. Consider putting single level structures at Luneta. 2. Provide individuality between the buildings. 3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford House. 4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes. 5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project, especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner, sheet A3.5). 6. Pedestrian circulation between buildings appears too close. Provide wider walkways between the buildings. Packet Pg. 212 16 January 30, 2017: The ARC reviewed the proposed multi-family project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. The review also included consideration of the CHC’s recommendation and as well as changes made to the project in response to ARC direction. The ARC voted 4:1 to approve the repositioning, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the proposed 33-unit multi-family residential project (Attachment G, ARC Resolution). Appeal On February 8, 2017, Tessa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project (Attachment E, Appeal Application & Letter). The appeal states that the project has not been properly analyzed and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the environment as well as adverse effects on h ealth and safety. Specifically, the appeal lists the following issues/concerns: 1. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review is flawed; 2. The Arborist Reports are flawed and cannot be relied upon; 3. The Biological Studies are limited and the proposed mitigations outlined in the IS/MND are fatally flawed; 4. The Aesthetics Section of the IS/MND is inadequate; 5. Moving the Sandford House will compromise the integrity of the structure; 6. Parking for the project is inadequate; 7. The IS/MND does not adequately address safety, noise and the overturn of family occupied houses with 150 new neighborhood residents and their visitors; 8. The project will overburden utilities in the neighborhood; and 9. The ARC was erroneously instructed that California State Law prohibited them from reducing the overall density of the project. Staff Analysis of the Appeal Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines for Multi-family Housing Design (Chapter 5, Section 5.4), State housing law, laws concerning historic structures and environmental impacts as required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Below is a discussion of the concerns and issues identified within the appeal application and letter. 1. Flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15195 specifically exempts from environmental review “Residential Infill” which are higher density housing projects, less than 100 units on less than four acres within one half mile of a major transit stop and provides a certain level of affordable housing. This project would otherwise qualify for this exemption except that the threshold criteria in § 15195(a)(1) and § 15192(g) limits the use of such exemption if the project has a significant effect on historic resources. Because of the potential impacts to the historic Sandford House, staff determined that this CEQA exemption was inappropriate. Accordingly, an Initial Study was prepared. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was completed for the proposed Packet Pg. 213 16 project in accordance with the CEQA. The MND found that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities/service systems will be less than significant. A MND and Addendum was completed by Oliveira Environmental Consulting in March 2016 and June 2016 following changes to the design of the project. During the first public hearings for the project at the Cultural Heritage Committee, new information was provided during public testimony that resulted in the Community Development Director’s decision to revisit the MND, specifically the aesthetic and biological sections. Rincon Consultants was selected by the City as a third-party consultant to peer review the MND and to prepare an arborist report and evaluations focused on the potential aesthetic and biological impacts of the proposed tree removals. The Arborist Report, Aesthetics Analysis and the Biological Peer Review are included as attachments to the MND attached (Attachment K, MND – Attachments 6, 7 & 8)). The peer review and evaluations included policy analysis of potential impacts and made recommendations for additional mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and recommended mitigation, staff updated the MND. The MND was re-released for another 30- day public review period from November 15, 2016 to December 19, 2016. Public comment was received on the analysis of the MND and, although not required for a MND, responses to those comments are compiled in Attachment L. Comments were also received on the technical accuracy of the supplemental Arborist Report completed by Rincon Consultants. Rincon reviewed their report based on those comments and submitted a revised document which corrected the species of several trees and tree height (Attachment N, Revised Arborist Report). The revised report does not recommend a change in the recommendation provided in the MND. 2. Arborist Reports are Flawed The Appeal letter states that the arborist reports misidentify trees; inadequately assess their health; fail to adjust their health assessment for simple remedies; and do not identify the many significant trees... The role of an arborist report is to provide information that can be used by staff and decision makers to evaluate the proposed tree removals based on City Code and policies. First, it should be noted that Rincon’s arborist report was an independent review from the applicant’s arborist report prepared by A&T Arborists dated June 8, 2016. As noted in the previous section above, the Arborist Report completed by Rincon was reviewed and revised based on comments provided by the public as well as the Tree Committee. Revisions included correcting species names and heights of trees (Attachment N, Revised Arborist Report). Rincon’s Arborist Report identifies that there are 59 trees on the site and that 41 trees on site are either dead or in poor or fair condition. This information is consistent with the findings of A&T Arborists (Attachment K, MND – Attachments 7). Chapter 12.24 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Tree Regulations. Included within these regulations is the procedure for requesting the removal of trees as part of a development project. The Code states: Packet Pg. 214 16 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. 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;3 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 review 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. The Tree Regulations do not provide criteria or establish a list of tree types that are to be preserved other than stating 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.A). The City’s General Plan has a goal to “Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species” (COSE 7.4) and has the following policy for protection of significant trees. None of the trees on the site have been categorized as significant trees. Significant trees, as determined by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural Review Committee, are those making substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall 3 The City Arborist inspected the property and all the trees on the site. Through the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) review the City Arborist provided a recommendation of r emoval with the mitigation outlined in the MND. Packet Pg. 215 16 be protected. Removal of significant trees shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3. Oak Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and in open space areas shall be protected. The City Arborist supports the removal of 55 of the 59 trees and is recommending mitigation and conditions of approval in exchange for their removal. The City Arborist has included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review mitigation measures for the tree removals as follows: 4 The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist. With a 2:1 planting, the project will not only replace the 55 trees that are removed but will also add an additional 55 trees to the City’s urban forest for a total of 110 trees. The applicant will plant at least 34 trees on-site and 76 trees off-site. Depending on the final decision regarding Luneta Drive, approximately 9 of the trees proposed to be removed may be retained in place contingent on the design. 3. Biological Studies are Flawed The appeal letter states that the “project does not comply with CEQA, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty and the City’s own General Plan.” A Biological Assessment completed by Rincon found that mature landscaping present at the project site provides tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat for urban-adapted avian or bat species. The Assessment identified that several large trees on the site are suitable habitat for various raptor species such as the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (on the Federal Watch List and a species of local concern), the common red-tailed hawk and the barn owl. Additionally, the State Fully Protected and local species of concern white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) could also nest at the site while foraging in the open grasslands located less than 1,000 feet to the south. White-tailed kite has been documented by the California Natural Diversity Database, an inventory of the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California, within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site. Most of the mature landscaping would be removed prior to construction of the project, and impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially significant but mitigable. The project site also contains potential roosting habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (a 4 City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 12.24.090.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 planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. Packet Pg. 216 16 State and Local Species of Special Concern). Pallid bat has been documented by the CNDDB approximately one mile south of the project site and this species ma y utilize the structures on the project site as roosting areas. Structures that occur within the project site that can be utilized by special status bats include the Sandford house, sheds, enclosed carports, and other living areas. The demolition of existing structures and the movement of the Historic Sandford house and the removal of the mature landscaping would happen prior to the construction of the project, and impacts to pallid bats are considered potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Environmental Document that assumes that these bird and bat species will be found on the site. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 includes the following requirements consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to protect bird species: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. These mitigation measures are commonly accepted by biologists of Fish and Wildlife to protect bird populations that are within a proposed area of development. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 require the following mitigation for Roosting Bats: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation The appeal letter states that an: …unbiased study will show that the project is not in compliance with the Land Use Element that requires the City shall preserve protect and enhance the City’s neighborhoods (2.1); that residential developments preserve and incorporate amenities, natural site features such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants (2.3.7); and that the Ci ty shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, preserve Natural, Historic and Cultural Features and maintain mature trees on-site to the maximum extent feasible (2.3.9). Packet Pg. 217 16 A supplemental Aesthetics Analysis was provided by Rincon Consultants that analyzed various views toward the proposed project site in conjunction with City policies and CEQA thresholds regarding viewsheds. The Aesthetics Analysis includes numerous photographs and in-person analysis of views towards the site (Attachment K, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6). The Study determined that the project was consistent with General Plan policies and would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be a less than significant impact and does not require mitigation. The project site is in an urban area of the City characterized by residential and commercial development amongst natural features such as mature trees, and Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak. The project site is aesthetically prominent from adjacent roadways due to the existing historic structure and trees onsite, but is not within a City designated scenic vista (COSE Figure 11). Analysis indicates that when viewed from various other public viewpoints near the site, including public trails on Cerro San Luis and surrounding roadways, the project site blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out as visually prominent or unique, and the addition of the proposed apartment buildings, would conform to views of the surrounding urban area which includes other multi-family structures. The Aesthetic Analysis identified that the proposed development would involve more intense structural development on the site than existing conditions, and proposes the removal of most of the existing mature trees from the site. Despite retaining some of the existing mature trees on the Figure 4: Northeast-facing view of project area from Cerro San Luis public hiking/bicycle trail. Figure 3: Southwest facing view of the project and surroundings from the north side of Ramona Drive, approximately 130 feet east of Palomar Avenue Packet Pg. 218 16 site, the proposed development and overall number of trees removed would result in a less natural appearance of the site when compared to existing conditions as newly landscaped trees would be shorter in height than the proposed 35-foot structural development unlike the existing trees. Although the project would change the aesthetic character of the site, based on the CEQA thresholds, the project does not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surroundings and does not create a new source of substantial light glare. The proposed project includes high-density residential development with a maximum height of 35 feet that is consistent with adjacent high- density development and retains the visually prominent Sandford House. Additionally, the project includes design elements such as peaked roof lines, separate structures to break up the massing of the proposed multi-level residential structures, inclusion of over 30 landscaped trees, four existing trees, and other landscape features, and agrarian style architecture to complement the Sandford House. With these design and landscape features, the project complies with City General Plan policies aimed at preserving scenic views and the character of prominent visual features within the City. The ARC determined the project was consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines that are intended to ensure that future development is consistent with the City’s expectations relating to the quality and character of site and building design, and to protect scenic resources and views, from public rights-of-way. As such, the project would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings. 5. Repositioning of the Historic Sandford House The appellant’s letter states that the “relocation from the original foundation compromises the integrity of the historic resource and degrades the setting, feeling and associate which are criteria under the City historic preservation ordinance.” Applied Earthworks evaluated the repositioning of the historic house for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for rehabilitation as well as with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment K, MND – Historic Evaluation Report: Attachment 4). This evaluation determined the proposed repositioning was consistent with SOI standards and City policies and recommended a series of conditions to ensure the preservation of the historic structure. As noted above in the Background section, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) supported the proposed rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project and found that the project complied with the SOI standards and the City standards. Repositioning the house would not necessarily preclude the house from being nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. Currently the site historic structure is not being considered. 6. Parking The appeal letter states “the parking proposal is clearly inadequate as the 33 units as currently designed will house close to 150 residents. The city’s existing models are not adequate to address the occupancy, and thus, the likely automobile population resulting from this project.” The City’s parking standards contained in the Municipal Code do not base the calculation on the number of residents, the calculation is based on the number of bedrooms. This Municipal Code Packet Pg. 219 16 provision requires the project to include 61 parking spaces; the project provides 63 spaces. This is based on the parking requirements found in Chapter 17.90: Affordable Housing Incentives, which outlines standard incentives for housing project that include affordable units. The section states that “upon the request of the developer, parking ratios of a development meeting the criteria of this section, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking shall be as follows: 1. Studio to one bedroom: one onsite parking space 2. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces 3. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.” 5 Table 4: Parking Requirements for developments that include affordable housing per SLOMC 17.90 Unit Type # of units Parking Required Studio/One-bedroom 5 5 Two-bedroom/Three-bedroom 28 56 Total 61 7. Environmental Review of Safety, Noise and Neighborhood Compatibility The appeal letter states that the “IS/MND does not adequately address the likely issues resulting from the 150 new neighborhood residents and their visitors.” In particular, the appellants have concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists at various intersections, noise with the addition of 150 people to the site and will cause family occupied houses to change over to high density rentals. Safety: The project will include upgrades to the frontage along Luneta Drive including new sidewalks for pedestrian access. The MND evaluated the traffic generated by the project and found that the additional trips associated with the project were within the level of service allowed for residential streets. Noise: The MND evaluated noise and noted that the Noise Element designates residential uses as noise sensitive. The proposed residential use is consistent with existing residential uses in the project vicinity and would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Adjacent single family residences will be partially shielded from noise generated by the project by distance (over 50 feet from the single-family units to the south property line) and by the structures themselves since all entrances to the buildings and common spaces are interior to the site. The environmental review noted that the proposed project would have a less 5 Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.040.K. Figure 5: Map showing the zoning of the project site (outlined) and the surrounding neighborhood. Packet Pg. 220 16 than significant impact related to producing a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Change in single-family housing occupants: No information or policies are available to evaluate the impact of new multi-family development on the change in occupancy of single-family units within the same neighborhood. 8. Utilities The appeal letter states that “many if the neighborhood utilities are already overburdened (e.g., natural gas, sewer, water, etc.). We cannot afford to add to this burden without significant capital investment.” The City does not provide natural gas – that utility is provided by Southern California Gas Company. In regards to other utilities, the proposed project was reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies were identified. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm water facilities, which were anticipated under the recent General Plan Update. The City has adequate water service to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present near the project site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in 2012 and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS) in January 2016. The WCSIRS identified capacity deficiencies in the collection system during peak wet weather downstream of the project and have been identified as at risk for potentially surcharging which could result in sanitary sewer overflows. Replacement and rehabilitation of private sewer laterals in poor condition will reduce inflow and infiltration in the collection system and peak flow rates. Based on this information the project is required to incorporate Mitigation Measure USS-1 (Attachment K, MND). Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities Director. Aside from this condition of approval, the City has adequate sewer service to serve the proposed project. 9. The ARC Review and California State Law The Appellant’s letter states that “the ARC was erroneously instructed that California State Law prohibited them from making any requirement that would result in a reduction in the overall density of the project.” The ARC was informed during the review process about the State Housing Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act as discussed the Policy Background Section of this staff report. The ARC was directed that they had the ability to discuss options of how the project may be further reduced in scale, but could not require a reduction in the number of units per State Law unless they could make findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the development project, as proposed, would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, and there was no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact other than reducing the density. Packet Pg. 221 16 Conditions of Approval Staff has updated the ARC Conditions of Approval within the Draft Resolution to provide further clarity in the requirements expected for the project (see underline and strikethrough in Attachment A). Condition No. 8 requires that the applicant/property owner shall ensure long- term maintenance, protection, and survival of the trees as shown on the final landscape plan for a minimum of five years. In the event a tree does not survive within the five-year period, the applicant/property owner shall replace the tree to ensure no net loss of trees on the site over the long-term. Conditions No. 19 and 42 provide clarity of the developer’s responsibility regarding Luneta Drive depending on any amendments to the City’s Circulation Element. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Building, Fire, Public Works, Natural Resources and Utilities staff. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was completed for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment K). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities/service systems will be less than significant. Summaries of the potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, as well as a discussion on aesthetics are included as part of the Environmental Review section of the ARC staff report (Attachment F). All mitigation measures have been incorporated into project conditions of approval (Attachment A, Resolution A). FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations and policies (Attachment B, Resolution B - Appeal upheld). 2. Continue consideration of the project if more information is needed. The City Council make continue consideration of the project if more information is needed to make a decision. Packet Pg. 222 16 If the project is continued, clear direction should be provided to City staff so that a decision can be made on the project when it returns for action. Attachments: a - Resolution A - Appeal denied b - Resolution B - Appeal upheld c - Vicinity Map d - Project Plans - 12-14-16 e - Application & Letter f - ARC Staff Report (1-30-2017) g - ARC Reso (1-30-2017) h - ARC Minutes (1-30-2017) i - CHC Resolution (6-27-16) j - CHC Minutes (6-27-16) k - Council Reading File - MND (11-15-2016) l - Council Reading File - Response to Comments and Letters m - Heritage Tree Memo (6-9-16) n - Revised Arborist Report with Track Changes Packet Pg. 223 16 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY TERESA MATTHEWS AND LYDIA MOURENZA AND THEREBY APPROVING THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 4, 2017 (71 PALOMAR AVENUE, APPL-0158-2017) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 27, 2016, with a four-two vote recommending the ARC approve the project, subject to the findings and conditions of CHC Resolution No. CHC-1009-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 30, 2017, with a four-one vote approving the project, subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1002-17 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on January 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 4, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0158-2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, the appellants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-0158-2017) of the Architectural Review Commission decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH 2193-2015): Packet Pg. 224 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 8.1 and 2.17 because the project provides infill, high-density residential for a variety of special needs and meets the City’s RHNA need for very low units. 3. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the proposed project incorporates similar materials and architectural features to the surrounding neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme. 4. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by providing architectural design that complements the character, height and scale of the historic Sandford House and the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed modifications to the Master List Historic Sandford House and site which includes rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, since character defining features will be retained, repaired, or replaced in kind. 6. That the proposed construction of the new, 33-unit apartment buildings is consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is subordinate to and compatible with the scale, siz e, massing and architectural features of the Master List Historic Sandford House. 7. That the proposed removal of the non-historic additions is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because they have not acquired historic significant in their own right. 8. The project is consistent with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines since the project will be required to include an excavation monitoring and data recovery plan to document and preserve any artifacts found during construction. 9. That the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly characterize the project’s potentially significant impacts and that the incorporated mitigations measures appropriately ensure that p otentially significant impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact that finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, environmental impacts will be less than significant. Packet Pg. 225 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules- regulations/asbestos.php.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules- regulations/asbestos.php.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. Packet Pg. 226 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. 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. g. 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. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to 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 California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor 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. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Packet Pg. 227 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781- 5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. 3. Soil Transport. It is estimated that 16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) will be cut from the site, but the final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor that idling control Packet Pg. 228 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ techniques are being implemented to reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment during construction. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment 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 removal of the buffer.  Monitoring Plan, BIO-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the Migratory bird monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The plans shall call out the name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey the project site. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources Manager for compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow bats to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the structure. If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project site or at an approved location offsite. Prior to removal of any trees over 20-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or Packet Pg. 229 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.  Monitoring Plan, BIO-2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of bat monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The plans shall call out the name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey the project site. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources Manager for compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist.  Monitoring Plan, BIO-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the tree replanting and replacement plan per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Arborist for compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan will need to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.  Monitoring Plan, CR-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the formal monitoring plan of the rehabilitation of the Historic Sandford House and the new construction per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure, the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, and project conditions to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect Packet Pg. 230 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure, including all requirements of the formal monitoring plan. Mitigation Measure CR-2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non-original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood- sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.  Monitoring Plan, CR 2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the removal of the non-original additions of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure for removals to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained.  Monitoring Plan, CR-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the relocation of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to move the house to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi- light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.  Monitoring Plan, CR-4: Building plans shall show and outline all details of replacing the first floor solarium windows of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to replace the windows to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around t he Sandford House. Packet Pg. 231 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ High-pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City.  Monitoring Plan, CR-5: Building plans shall show and outline all details of the method in which the historic Sandford House will be cleaned and paint removed per the mitigation measure above. Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to clean and remove paint to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.  Monitoring Plan, CR-6: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all architectural details, location and massing of the new construction per the mitigation measure above. Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure and the approved architectural plans to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015) prepared for the proposed project includes design features, recommended BMPs for water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall become required components of project development and the project proponent shall be required to implement these design features and recommendation as set forth.  Monitoring Plan, HWQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the Stormwater Control Plan as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site during construction for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather capacity constrained portion of the City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or Packet Pg. 232 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase. This may be satisfied by: (A) Sufficient reductions in wastewater flow within sub-basins A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3, commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the project, to be achieved by the verified replacement of compromised private sewer laterals, or public sewer mains, either by the developer, the City, or any property owner located within the basins; (B) Participation in a sewer lateral replacement program or similar inflow and infiltration reduction program to be developed by City, which is in place prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; or (C) Any other off-site sewer rehabilitation proposed by the developer approved by the Utilities Director, which will achieve a reduction in wastewater flow commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the project. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities Director.  Monitoring Plan, USS-1: A sewer rehabilitation plan shall be developed in cooperation with Utilities Staff per the mitigation measure above. The rehabilitation plan shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by Utilities staff as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure, including all requirements of the sewer rehabilitation plan. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project, hereby granting final approval of the application APPL-0158-2017 for the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, subject to the following conditions: Conditions Planning Division – Community Development Department 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City sh all promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. The Architectural Review Commission’s approval of this project will expire after three years if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-year extension. 3. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference Packet Pg. 233 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. 5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zon ing Regulations. 6. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building modifications and improvements. 7. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. 8. The applicant/property owner shall ensure long-term maintenance, protection, and survival of the trees shown on the final landscape plan for a minimum of five years. In the event a tree does not survive within the five-year period the applicant/property owner shall replace the tree to ensure no net loss of trees on the site over the long-term. 9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate Packet Pg. 234 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Co mmunity Development Directors. 10. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure. 11. The project shall retain the Blue Gum Eucalyptus at the southwest corner of the site, the Norfolk Island Pine and Canary Island Palm in front of the Historic Sandford House and the Mexican Fan Palm at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the landscape plans approved by ARC and shall be considered for Heritage Tree designation. 12. The project shall plant at a minimum three 36-inch box trees and two 15-gallon trees on the project site and/or adjacent property on which the property owner of 71 Palomar has an access and landscaping easement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department 13. Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition of dwelling units, or the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.05 14. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements for reference. The building plan submittal shall include the dimensions and bearings for all property lines for reference. The developer shall provide authorization for all proposed improvements within the corner parcel known as 75 Palomar (052-162-015). 15. The required public and private improvements may be completed with a separate public improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department. As an alternate, the building plan submittal may be used to show all required improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. A separate plan review fee payable to the Public Works Department shall be required for the Public Works Department review of improvements associated with the building plan submittal. Said review fee shall be in accordance with the improvement plan review fee resolution in effect at the time of the building permit application submittal. 16. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show and note any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 17. The existing driveway approaches shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards. Packet Pg. 235 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 18. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show all new driveway approaches to comply with current standards. The current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. 19. Luneta Drive shall be developed as a through public street per City Engineering Standards unless otherwise waived or deferred by the City Council. If Luneta Drive is developed as a public street, then the developer shall dedicate the required public right-of-way including PUE and Street Tree easements to the satisfaction of the City. If the City Council later amends the Circulation Element of the General Plan to not require Luneta Drive as a through street, then the developer shall offer to dedicate to the City that same portion of the property for PUE, street tree easements, pedestrian and bicycle right of way, or park or other similar purposes to the satisfaction of the City. 20. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete street improvement and curb grade plan for the build out of Luneta Drive, Luneta Drive sidewalk extension, the bulb-out on Palomar Avenue, and/or street termination or cul-de-sac if applicable. All grades, layout, staking and cut sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 21. The developer shall underground the existing overhead wire utilities along the Luneta Drive widening and extension from the existing westerly terminal end pole to the joint pole on the easterly side of Palomar Avenue per City and PG&E standards. The preliminary and final PG&E handout packages shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 22. The developer shall install one additional streetlight along the Luneta Drive frontage to the satisfaction of the City. All associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires shall be installed per City Engineering Standards. Off-site street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be required along roadways leading to and from the proposed development to complete the necessary improvements. 23. Record drawings shall be provided for Luneta Drive public street improvements prior to final inspection approvals. 24. The building plan submittal shall include all required parking lot improvements, dimensions, space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes, drainage, pavement marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and Driveway Standards and disabled access requirements of the CBC. 25. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles, etc. shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required and proposed covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a standard size vehicle. Packet Pg. 236 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 26. The building plan submittal shall show all parking spaces that are adjacent to a post, column, or wall shall be one additional foot in width per City Engineering Standard 2220. 27. The building plan submittal shall include complete details showing the existing parking easement area serving 555 Ramona to be preserved. The plan shall show and dimension the planter area, vehicle overhang, and parking bay width per City Engineering Standards. 28. The existing neighboring parking easement area (555 Ramona) shall include tree plantings within diamond planters or finger planters to support compensatory tree plantings, if allowed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and City Arborist. 29. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. 30. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All wire services to the new structures shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 31. The final domestic and irrigation service configuration including the Luneta median irrigation meter shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City. The engineer of record shall schedule a meeting with the City prior to developing final plans. 32. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines. The plan shall consider historic run-on or run- off tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 33. The building plan submittal shall show and detail the neighboring storm drain easement and improvements for reference. 34. The building plan submittal shall include a drainage report in accordance with the Waterway Management Plan. The drainage report shall include a summary of the bulleted items found in Section 2.3.1 of the manual. 35. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites. Packet Pg. 237 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 36. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals. 37. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 38. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. 39. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. The City Arborist supports the proposed tree removals with the compensatory tree plantings shown on the landscape plan and identified in the mitigation measures of the initial study. 40. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The plans shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Tree species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards. 41. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Packet Pg. 238 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Transportation Division - Public Works Department 42. The developer shall install all necessary street frontages along Luneta per City standards. Said improvements along Luneta shall may be deferred by the Director of Public Works until to allow the City Council to consider an amendment to the City’s Circulation Element eliminating the Luneta Street connection. If such an amendment is approved, the Director of Public Works may waive or modify this pursuant to Council direction. At a minimum the Developer will be required to complete bicycle and pedestrian improvements, landscaping and other miscellaneous improvements to Luneta that completes the terminus of the public rights of way as determined by the Public Works Director takes action on the disposition of the Luenta Street connection. 43. Prior to building permit the applicant shall enter into a covenant agreement to design and install their Luneta St. frontage improvements per the final configuration to be adopted by the City Council. Utilities Department 44. A separate meter shall be provided for the Sandford House as it is proposed to be used as amenity space (non-residential uses). 45. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 46. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required by under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. 47. Any private sewer services that cross one proposed parcel for the benefit of another shall provide evidence that a private utility easement appropriate for those facilities has been recorded prior to final Building Permit. 48. Landscaping in the proposed median shall be irrigated from the project’s landscape meter. 49. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared drought emergency (estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum applied water allowance or (MAWA)). 50. The project is required to implement off-site sewer rehabilitation (private lateral repair/ replacement) consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the initial study. Packet Pg. 239 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Fire Department 51. Provide riser rooms with exterior door access for fire sprinkler risers in each building show on floor plans. Code Requirements Building Division – Community Development Department 52. Any project submitted for building permit application after January 1st, 2017 will be subject to the 2016 California Code series. Modify applicable code series notes on plans. Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017. ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ______________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Packet Pg. 240 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 241 16 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 4, 2017 (71 PALOMAR AVENUE, APPL- 0158-2017) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 27, 2016, with a four-two vote recommending the ARC approve the project, subject to the findings and conditions of CHC Resolution No. CHC-1009-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 30, 2017, with a four-one vote approving the project, subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1002-17 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on January 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 4, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0158-2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-0158-2017) of the Architectural Review Commission decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH 2193-2015), based on the following findings: Packet Pg. 242 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project does not respect site constraints and is not compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The project design is inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the architectural style, character, and scale of the new multi-family development are incompatible with the neighborhood and adjacent development. 3. The project design is inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the architectural design of the multi-family development does not complement the character, height and scale of the historic Sandford House. 4. The proposed modifications to the Master List Historic Sandford House and site which includes rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning are inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. 5. The proposed construction of the new, 33-unit apartment buildings is inconsistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is not subordinate to and compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the Master List Historic Sandford House. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support thereof, the City Council does hereby deny application APPL-0158-2017. Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017. ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Packet Pg. 243 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ ______________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 244 16 R-1 R-1 R-4 C-C R-1 R-4-PD R-4-PD R-1-PD R-1 R-4 R-4 R-1 R-1 R-4 R-2 R-4-PD R-1 R-1 C/OS-20 C-C-SFR-1 RAMONA FOOTHILL SERRANO LUNETAVERDE PALOMARBRESSIPENMANELM VICINITY MAP ARCH-2193-201571 PALOMAR AVENUE ¯ Packet Pg. 245 16 Packet Pg. 24616 Packet Pg. 24716 Packet Pg. 24816 Packet Pg. 24916 Packet Pg. 25016 Packet Pg. 25116 Packet Pg. 25216 Packet Pg. 25316 Packet Pg. 25416 Packet Pg. 25516 Packet Pg. 25616 Packet Pg. 25716 Packet Pg. 25816 Packet Pg. 25916 Packet Pg. 26016 Packet Pg. 26116 Packet Pg. 26216 Packet Pg. 26316 Packet Pg. 26416 Packet Pg. 26516 Packet Pg. 26616 Packet Pg. 26716 Packet Pg. 26816 Packet Pg. 26916 Packet Pg. 27016 Packet Pg. 27116 Packet Pg. 27216 Packet Pg. 27316 Packet Pg. 27416 Packet Pg. 27516 Packet Pg. 27616 Packet Pg. 27716 Packet Pg. 27816 ''Packet Pg. 27916 ' ' W WWW' 'Ashley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETN264.4 FF - PODIUM DECK253.0' FF - 2ND LEVEL PARKING DECK244.0' FF - 1ST LEVEL PARKING DECK264.2 FS268.5 FF267.3 FG267.8 FG264.3 FSPALOM A R A V E N U E LUNETA DRIVE(258.7 EG)(253.0 EG)(244.4 EG)51,900 SF AREAEARTHWORK:16,000 CY CUT50 CY FILL20' MAX CUT5' MAX FILLLID STORMWATERREQUIREMENTS, TIER 2PROJECT UTILIZES:xUNDERGROUND RETENTIONxDISCONNECTED DOWNSPOUTSxVEGETATED SWALESxOPEN CELL BLOCK PAVING273.1 TW/FS264.3 TW(264.3 EG)264.3 TW(258.6 EG)264.2 TWSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:LIMITS OF PODIUM DECK/PARKING AREA ROOFREMOVE EXISTING RETAINING WALLPROPOSED 5' MAX RETAINING WALLEXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAINNOT USEDNOT USEDEXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAINEXISTING AC PAVEMENT AND AC DIKELANDSCAPE MEDIANRELOCATED HISTORICAL STRUCTUREPROPOSED DRAIN INLET. SEE SHEET C3.1 FOR UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEBIO-FILTRATION RAIN GARDENSIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD 3410.DRIVEWAY PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110, 2120 AND 2130.EXISTING PARKING LOTEXISTING DROP INLET TO REMAIN20' WIDE DRIVEWAY RAMP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110 AND 2120.LIMITS OF INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE RAMPEXISTING TREES TO REMAINTRANSFORMER PAD123478991012121212126'S/W12'TRAVEL LANE12'MEDIAN12'TRAVEL LANE6'EXISTS/W1PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 4' HORIZONTAL1" = 4' VERTICAL13(272.3 TC)MATCH EXIST(274.3 TC)(273.7 TC)271.6 TC270.5 TC(271.2 TC)267.6 TC(268.3 TC)(264.9 TC)(263.3 TC)MATCH EXIST251.7 BSW250.3 BSW248.5 BSW247.1 BSW246.2 FS@ DWY246.2 FS@ DWY253.0 FS@ DWY253.0 FS@ DWY141515161617186.0%13.8%12.1%4.8%191918.00'244.0 FS@ DWY244.0 FS@ DWY20(5.3%)(6.5%)3.5%3.5%PROPOSED 4' MAXRETAINING WALL(CUT WALL)PROPOSED 5' MAXRETAINING WALL(FILL WALL)2'SAWCUT(VARIES)(VARIES)VARIES3.5%2122268.4 FS268.0 FF268.0 FF268.5 FF268.5 FF264.8 FG264.3 FG267.8 FG267.9 FG1111111111111111111111268.4 FS265.4 FS266.9 FGBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FBUILDING EBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING G1~266.5 FG264.3 FG264.0 FS265.4 FG266.7 FGPacket Pg. 28016 ' ' ' 'SSW WWWSSSSSSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSAshley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNPALO M A R A V E N U E UNDERGROUNDRETENTIONCHAMBERS, SIZEAND TYPE TBD, TYPTIE INTO EXIST6" SEWER(1) NEW 2" DOMESTICMETER. SITE TO BESUBMETERED BEYONDTHIS POINTTIE INTO EXIST10" WATERCLEANOUT, TYPSTORM DRAINOVERFLOWS TOSTREET VIASIDEWALKUNDERDRAIN4" FIRE WATER,DDCV AND FDCASSEMBLY,LANDSCAPESCREENED(EXIST FIREHYDRANT)~75' FROM PL~150' FROM PL(EXIST FIREHYDRANT)REUSE (1) EXISTDOMESTIC METER, AND(1) EXIST IRRIGATIONMETER.NEW PADMOUNTEDTRANSFORMERLUNETA DRIVELANDSCAPE IRRIGATION NOTES:INSTALL WATER METER FOR CITY REGULATED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATIONINSTALL IRRIGATION SERVICE ASSEMBLY PER CITY STANDARD DETAIL 8560INSTALL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PER CITY STANDARD DETAIL 8520, LOCATION APPROXIMATEIRRIGATION SERVICEEXISTING PG&E POWER POLEEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE WATER LINEEXISTING SEWER MAIN4" PVC SLEEVE21344567889HDPE STORM DRAIN,SIZES VARY, TYPHDPE STORM DRAIN,SIZES VARY, TYPSDR 35 PVCSEWER, SIZEVARIES, TYP264.4 FF - PODIUM DECK253.0' FF - 2ND LEVEL PARKING DECK244.0' FF - 1ST LEVEL PARKING DECK268.5 FF268.0 FF268.0 FF268.5 FF269.0 FFBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FBUILDING EBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING GPacket Pg. 28116 Packet Pg. 28216 Filing Fee Tree Appeal: $113.00 0 All Other Appeals: $281 .00 CITYOP Sffn IAIIS OBISPO Received by: FEB 0 8 2017 SLO CITY C .. RK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION ~~.s~ Ma.ttli~.s ~()~ Ui·o~J.O </;1 /?4'owtfVt-,,~0 'l.3 1~ Name Mailing Address and Zip Code bl-r Lunet-~ /Jr, gLLJ ?3 Fax ' ./?tJ. Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: /lrtth1f e~tur~L fev1~ {!677J/#116.s~t:>n (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was render~ ..3.9: .Zo Ir 3. The application or project was entitled: V ~-II.IL.. _ SL D A lfe tl -2.L 93 -2.olfi" 4. I discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Jev.erv ~ aT t/Ar/~. on march ,to/t, ame and Department)~es 9~/Yt!e, (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom : SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1of3 . ' Packet Pg. 283 16 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification , all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $281', which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 1 O minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal Is schedµled for a public hearing before the City Council. 7n cl: ,;f;/N l.,A QAtwcv Fi1 (,ZLJ1r I (Date) (Signature of Appellant) / Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $113. 2) The above-named appellant has already paid the City $281 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for---------------------- cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) 07116 update Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 284 16 February 8, 2017 Attachment to Appeal to City Council City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Appeal to the City Council to Overturn the Architectural Review Commission Approval of the 71 Palomar Project (ARCH 2193-2015) on January 30, 2017 Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members: On January 30, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a resolution to grant final approval to the proposed 71 Palomar project (ARCH 2193-2015) based on 9 findings. We wish to appeal the ARC decision. This project has not been properly analyzed and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the environment as well as adverse effects on health and safety. We recommend that it not move forward toward development as currently designed. Over the course of the appeal process, we anticipate that many concerned citizens will come forward to provide additional information. Initially, we have identified the following issues to support the appeal: 1 The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is flawed as we will show below and in subsequent written and oral argument. Because the IS/MND is flawed and the Project is not exempt from CEQA the Initial Study must be redone or the project must be rejected. Packet Pg. 285 16 2 The Arborist Reports are flawed and cannot be relied upon. They misidentify trees; inadequately assess their health; fail to adjust their health assessment for simple remedies (e.g., adequate watering); and do not identify the many significant trees that are scheduled for removal so that decision makers can assess the value of these trees themselves. The ARC Agenda Report argues that there are no significant trees scheduled for removal. Since "significant tree" is not a defined term in the city's lexicon, we ask that Council Members visit the site and determine this for themselves. Note that moving the historic house to its proposed location will result in the removal of a 95 ft. tall Norfolk Island Pine which is clearly a "significant tree" because as Dr. Matthew Ritter has written: "the tallest national champion A. heterophylla in Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall" and that: "There are between 20-30 mature individual A. heterophylla in San Luis Obispo ... and the individual at 71 Palomar is the 2nd tallest in San Luis Obispo". 3 The Biological studies are limited, and the proposed mitigations outlined in the IS/MND are fatally flawed. The project does not comply with CEQA, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty, and the City's own General Plan including but not limited to the Conservation and Open Space Element and the Land Use Element. The Rincon Peer Review mitigations for removal of bio-resources associated with the 17 eucalyptus trees are significantly lacking when compared to those mitigations included in the San Luis Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report. 4 The Aesthetics Evaluation is inadequate which can be demonstrated using photographic evidence and upon visual inspection from Council members. An unbiased study will Packet Pg. 286 16 show that the project is not in compliance with the Land Use Element that requires that the City shall preserve, protect and enhance the City's neighborhoods (2.1); that residential developments preserve and incorporate as amenities, natural site features such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants (2.3.7); and that the City shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, preserve Natural, Historic and Cultural Features and maintain mature trees on-site to the maximum extent feasible (2.3.9). Ultimately, we urge Council members to see this site for themselves and make up their own minds. 5 The Historic Sandford House should not be moved. Relocation from the original foundation compromises the integrity of the historic resource and degrades the setting, feeling and association which are criteria under the City historic preservation ordinance {14.01). In addition, if the property is moved, it will be disqualified from eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places, even if it is moved from one location on its original site to another location on the same property. The developer has failed to provide any documentary evidence to support a need to relocate the house which continues to serve as a residence. The proposed development significantly alters the topography which should remain in its natural state, and fails to avoid over- excavation. The removal of trees would permanently obliterate the cultural landscape, is in-conflict with preservation of our Urban forest and detrimental to neighborhood wellness. Packet Pg. 287 16 6 The parking proposal is clearly inadequate as the 33 units as currently designed will house close to 150 residents. The city's existing models are not adequate to address the occupancy, and thus, the likely automobile population resulting from this project. We urge Council members to carefully examine the projected occupancy of each room in the proposed project. Please note that each bedroom is oversized and designed to accommodate a partition. Thus, for example, each two-bedroom apartment is likely to have at least 4 residents. In addition, most of these residents are likely to own a car and the proposed project's 63 parking spaces are woefully inadequate, and thus, pose a terrible burden on an already over-burdened neighborhood that already has a parking district. The project's parking proposal is clearly inconsistent with the city's Land Use Element which requires that new development provide adequate off- street parking to match the intended use and is inconsistent with the Circulation Element that requires that the City facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses (14.1.2). 7 The IS/MND does not adequately address the likely issues resulting from the 150 new neighborhood residents and their visitors. We have significant concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists (including seniors from the Villages Residence) at the Palomar and Ramona, Ramona and Broad, Palomar and Serrano, and Serrano and Broad street intersections. These intersections are particularly sensitive and the existing models have significantly Packet Pg. 288 16 underestimated likely occupancy and traffic flow and thus, a significantly refined traffic and safety study is required. In addition, adding 150 people into this condensed space without a noise buffer is a significant degradation to the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood and because the noise is not necessarily sustained, it will likely not be an enforceable noise violation. The overall concern is that adding additional density to an already overcrowded neighborhood will likely add many additional unintended consequences associated with high density neighborhoods. Finally, please note that while the project itself will only displace 7-10 individuals, the impact will extend beyond the property causing further overturn of family occupied houses to high density rentals due to the degradation of neighborhood wellness. 8 Many of the neighborhood's utilities are already overburdened (e.g., natural gas, sewer, water, etc.). We cannot afford to add to this burden without significant capital investment. 9 The ARC was erroneously instructed that California State Law prohibited them from making any requirement that would result in a reduction in the overall density of the project. For example, the Committee was not allowed to consider requiring a reduction in massing to protect the prominence of the historic home if it would reduce density. We will demonstrate in future correspondence and verbal testimony that many of the instructions given to the ARC as to just what was in their purview were not consistent with Packet Pg. 289 16 state law. Thus, at a minimum, the ARC must reconsider this application without the illegal constraints. In summary, we are urging the Council to either: a. uphold the appeal and deny the project or, b. uphold the appeal and completely redo the Initial Study and return the project to the Tree Committee and the ARC. We reserve the right to provide additional information and evidence pertaining to this appeal. Packet Pg. 290 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 71 Palomar Avenue BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2193-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant LR Development Group Representative Thom Jess, Architect Historic Status Master List Submittal Date 10/16/2015 Complete Date 5/20/2016 Zoning R-4 (High Density Residential) General Plan High Density Residential Site Area 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to reposition, rehabilitate, and adaptively reuse the Master List Historic Sandford House as part of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project. The project includes the repositioning of the Historic Sandford House for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.) and constructing six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom apartments). The project is also proposing to remove 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 34 trees on the project site and 76 off-site. The project includes 63 parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue and 66 bicycle parking spaces. Per the City’s current General Plan policies and conditions of the Meeting Date: January 30, 2017 Item Number: 1 RC ARC1 - 1Packet Pg. 291 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 2 subdivision, the project is also proposing to connect Luneta Drive to Palomar Avenue. Other alternatives are being considered in place of the road connection and conditions of approval are included to allow for implementation of these alternatives in the event such policies are modified in the near future. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and has already been given direction from the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The project includes a 25% density bonus and includes four, very-low affordable studios which is consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations and State Law. The applicant is not requesting any exceptions or concessions to the development standards for a R-4 zoned lot. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Commission is tasked with the following: 1. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 4, CHC Resolution) and take final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards. 2. Review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. 3. Review and take action on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7). 2.0 BACKGROUND March 28, 2016: The CHC reviewed a proposal for a 41-unit multi-family development with four multi-level buildings. The proposal also included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and provided the following direction to the applicant: 1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of-way and the new development; and 2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence; Figure 1: View of the Sandford House from Palomar Avenue ARC1 - 2Packet Pg. 292 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 3 3. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. June 27, 2016: The CHC reviewed a revised proposal for the subject site that included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House and proposed a newly designed 33-unit multi-family development in response to the CHC direction. The CHC voted 4:2 recommending the ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards with a series of conditions (see Attachment 4, CHC Resolution). The CHC provided the following recommendations to ARC: 1. The ARC shall evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and give great consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees. 2. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for the ARC to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure. 3. The project shall remove the smooth panel horizontal elements around the windows on Buildings A and B. August 1, 2016: The ARC participated in a conceptual review on the proposed project in order to provide feedback to the applicant (Attachment 6, ARC Conceptual Review Minutes). The ARC provided the following list of directional items: Tree Removal and Landscaping The ARC deferred directional comments on tree removal and landscaping until they have more information. The ARC requested the following information be included for their review: 1. Provide a tree survey, biological report, wildlife habitat information, bird survey and an aesthetics analysis. 2. Review the trees individually and collectively. 3. Discussion on the historic siting and location of plantings. 4. Vintage of the trees (Were they planted during the period of significance?). 5. Carefully consider the use or need of water as a part of the new landscaping plan. 6. Provide details on the landscape plans that show exactly how vegetation will be planted along the northern property line. Materials and Architectural Elements 1. Provide durable materials – include details on plans of the fit and finish of all the materials on all (4) sides of the project. 2. Provide details of the exterior light fixtures. 3. Consider using lighter colors. ARC1 - 3Packet Pg. 293 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 4 Scale and Massing 1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta. Consider putting single level structures at Luneta. 2. Provide individuality between the buildings. 3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford House. 4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes. 5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project, especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner, sheet A3.5). 6. Pedestrian circulation between buildings appears too close. Provide wider walkways between the buildings. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting Table 1: Site Information Site Size 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Present Use & Development Residential; Master List Historic Sandford House Land Use Designation High Density Residential (R-4) Topography Elevation: Min. 245 feet; Max. 270 ft. Slope: ~11% slope Current Access From Luneta Drive Surrounding Use/Zoning North, East & West: R-4 (High Density Residential) South: R-1 (Single Family Residential) 3.2 Project Description: The applicant is proposing the following (Attachment 3, Project Plans):  Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;  Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;  Repositioning the house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its current location;  Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);  Removal of 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 34 trees;  Construction of six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom apartments);  63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and  Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians.  Materials include: smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, and wood balcony railings. ARC1 - 4Packet Pg. 294 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 5 3.2 Project Statistics Table 2: Project Comparison to R-4 Zoning Standards Item Proposed R-4 Zoning Standards Setback Front Yard 16 feet 15 feet Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 10 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 35 feet 35 feet Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43% 60% Density Units (DU) 36.561 28.56 (24 DU per acre) Parking Spaces 2 Vehicle 63 61 Bicycle (long-term) 66 66 Bicycle (short-term) 22 4 Notes: 1. 28.56 DU x 25% density bonus for providing 7% very -low affordable housing units (4 studio units) 2. Chapter 17.90.040 (Standard Incentives for housing projects) includes parking ratio of 1 space per studio and 1 - bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom residential units. 3.4 Historic Background In 1983, the Historic Sandford House was added to the Master List of Historic Resources on the basis of architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report). The report notes the “Sandford House retains several of the notable characteristics which reflect Colonial Revival style, including symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway and neoclassical portico.” The Historic Evaluation Report has identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930. Figure 2: East elevation (top) and South elevation (bottom) views ARC1 - 5Packet Pg. 295 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 6 The Historic Sandford House was likely constructed in 1895 (no records have been found with the exact date of construction). Reginald Wills-Sandford, (for whom the house is named), and his wife Mary Woods Sperry owned the property from 1895 to 1899. In 1930 the solarium was added and integrated into the south side of the Historic Sandford House (see Figure 2). The addition of the solarium is considered to be historically significant as it contributes to the architectural style and character of the house (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Section 6.2.1). In the 1950’s other additions and accessory structures were added to the property. These non- historic alterations included: two single-story stucco clad additions to the rear (north side) of the main structure, a 2-story addition, a detached garage, and a secondary residential building. In 1970, the garage was converted into sleeping quarters and a carport was added (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Sections 5.2 and 6.2.1). 3.5 Policy Background 3.5.1 Land Use Element The subject property has been identified in the Land Use Element (LUE) as High Density Residential. High Density Residential is defined as attached dwellings in two and three story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of development is appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and nodes (Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards, Land Use Element). LUE Policy 2.2.6. states that the City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all residents. Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but often include one or more of the following characteristics:  A mix of housing type styles, density, and affordability.  Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale.  Nearby services and facilities including schools, parks, retail (e.g., grocery store, drug store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or other public facilities.  A tree canopy and well-maintained landscaping.  A sense of personal safety (e.g., low crime rate, short police and emergency response times).  Convenient access to public transportation.  Well-maintained housing and public facilities. Additionally, the LUE states the City shall promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas (LUE Policy 2.2.7). 3.5.2 Housing Element The Housing Element (HE) includes several policies that encourage infill residential development, housing for all financial strata, and the promotion of higher residential density ARC1 - 6Packet Pg. 296 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 7 where appropriate.1 The City has outlined in HE Goal 2 that housing should be in-line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period (see Table 3). The project is proposing to construct four very-low income units which are some of the more challenging units to be provided within a private development. The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status and encourages housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing Element further states:  That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and extremely low income households (Policy 2.17); and  That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance (Program 6.19). Table 3: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units approved, under construction or built (January 1, 2014 to October 11, 2016) Income Category A B A-B New Construction Need (RHNA) Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built Remaining RHNA Need, Dwelling Units Extremely-Low (< 31% of AMI) 142 5 137 Very Low (31-50% of AMI) 143 53 90 Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 81 98 Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 95 107 Above Moderate (>120% of AMI) 478 4781 0 TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7121 432 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 2016 1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA. Actual above moderate units = 1,350. 3.5.3 Major City Goal Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over 2015-17 financial year. The goal states: Implement the Housing Element, 1 Housing Element Policies: Policy 2.2: Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period. Policy 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Policy 7.1: Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that respects the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. Policy 7.2: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on -site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed -use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. ARC1 - 7Packet Pg. 297 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 8 facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options, including support for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share. 3.5.4 State Housing Density Bonus Law California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. In addition to a density bonus, by providing a certain percentage of affordable units within a project (as outlined in Section 17.90.060 of the Zoning Regulations), a developer may receive alternative incentives or concessions for the project such as exceptions to height limits, setback and parking requirements and deferral or waiver of fees. For this project, the developer is setting aside four units for very- low income (7%) which equals a State mandated 25% density bonus in accordance with State law and the City’s Zoning Code. The developer has not requested any incentives or concessions and, except for density limits, the proposed project is fully consistent with all development standards. Government Code section 65915(e)(1) states, in pertinent part: In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by [the Density Bonus Law]. 3.5.5 Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects.” “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:  Residential units only.  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of buildings that are two or more stories.  Transitional housing or supportive housing. Section 65589.5(d)(2) of the Act states that: (d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project…for very low, low-, or moderate-income households…or condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households…including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (2) The development project…as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income household…a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. ARC1 - 8Packet Pg. 298 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 9 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Multi-family and Clustered Housing Design.2 Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and is discussed in the following analysis. 4.1 General Plan – Luneta Drive Under the General Plan Luneta Dr. is currently planned to provide connectivity between Verde Dr. & Palomar Ave. The last section of the roadway needed to implement this plan is 71 Palomar’s frontage on Luneta drive. Per subdivision regulations this project is required to complete their frontage improvements allowing the roadway to be connected. During the public review process neighborhood residents raised concerns about having Luneta drive opened and subsequently the City Council directed staff to evaluate a general plan amendment to keep Luneta closed and return to Council with a recommendation. This separates the Luneta Dr. closure issue from the development project, allowing the development review process to continue on a separate track regardless of the outcome of the Luneta Dr. configuration. The projects public improvements on the Luneta frontage will still be the applicant’s responsibility, however those will be deferred until the Council reaches a decision on the potential general plan amendment and new design for the road. 4.2 Zoning Regulations Development Standards The proposed project complies with all of the development standards for an R -4 zoned lot as shown in Table 2 above. Below is a specific discussion on the proposed density bonus and parking. 4.2.1 Density: The site is zoned R-4 which allows 24 units per acre. The net size of the site is 1.19 acres which allows for 28.56 total density units (d.u.). The applicant is proposing to include 7% of the total units as affordable for very low-income which provides the development with a 25% density bonus. Per state law, projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to a 35% density bonus (Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.040, Standard incentives for housing projects). 25% of 28.56 is 7.14 (which rounds up to 8) for a total density calculation of 36.56. 7% of the original density is 1.99, and the applicant is proposing to set aside 4 studios (2 d.u.) for very-low income. As proposed, the density is consistent with State law and the City’s Zoning Regulations. 4.2.2 Parking: The Affordable Housing Incentives Parking Requirements (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.90.040.K) allows projects that include affordable units the following parking ratios: 1 space per studio and 1-bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom residential units. Using this parking ratio, the project requires 61 spaces and the project provides 63. The proposed parking is consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations. 2 CDG Section 5.4. ARC1 - 9Packet Pg. 299 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 10 4.3 Community Design Guidelines (CDG) As noted above in Section 2.0, the CHC and the ARC provided feedback regarding design elements of the proposed project. These comments as well as the CDG were used to evaluate the project (Attachment 3, Project Plans). Staff’s analysis is provided below. 4.3.1 Site Plan: The CDG’s state that multi-family projects should create a pleasant, comfortable, safe, and distinct place for residents, without the project "turning its back" on the surrounding neighborhood. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation, structure height, and should separate the units into structures of six or fewer units.3 The proposed project design consists of six separate multi-family structures; five of the buildings contain four units and one building has thirteen units. The structures along Luneta Drive maintain similar setbacks to the adjacent multi-family complex (Valencia Apartments) to the west of the site and are designed with architectural elements such as window placement and shed and gabled roofs that keep the project from turning its back to the neighborhood (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A2.2, A3.5, A3.6, A4.1, & A4.3). Clear paths to each of the units are highlighted by their placement in relation to the public right-of-way, landscaping and the Historic Sandford House (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet L-1). The proposed setbacks, height and landscaping provide privacy for the site as well as eliminate overlook into private space of neighboring property. The project’s parking area does not visually dominant the site because two levels of parking are provided under Buildings A and B. All parking for the project is accessed from Palomar Avenue eliminating vehicular access to the site along Luneta Drive adjacent to single family residences. 4.3.2 Building Design and Architecture: The CDG states that the exterior design of multi- family projects should be derived from architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood. Often, these types of projects are adjacent to single family neighborhoods, and care in design should ensure that the height and bulk of the higher density projects do not impact adjacent lower density residential areas.4 The CDG further discuss that multi-family structures consider façade and roof articulation, scale, and balconies, porches, and patios. Another important component of architectural compatibility is use of authentic and quality finish materials and architectural details. The applicant has submitted detail sheets of the finishes and architectural details of the project (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A7.0, A8.0, & CB-1). In addition to the CDG, the CHC and the ARC also provided comments related to the Building Design and Architecture. Below is an analysis and response to the guidelines and advisory body comments. Façade and Roof Articulation5: The project is consistent with the CDG and provides 3 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 A&B: Site Planning and Parking 4 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C: Multi-family project architecture. 5 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(1): Façade and Roof Articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks-like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge. Structures (including garages and carports) exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged. ARC1 - 10Packet Pg. 300 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 11 significant wall and roof articulation. The proposed architecture of the project incorporates agrarian elements such as gabled and shed roofs that complement the Sandford House and provide a more authentic architectural form. The peaked roof design reflects the rooflines of the Sandford House and creates more open space between the Historic House and the new structures. Scale and Massing6: The project is consistent with the CDG and includes several smaller buildings as opposed to a few large buildings. The individual structures are similar in height and massing to the single family residences located south of the site and have similar setbacks from the street. The six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill) have a maximum height of 35 feet from average natural grade. The Sandford House remains the prominent structure on the site because the four-story structures sit below the Sandford House due to its location on the downslope and the 2-story structures provide well-articulated roofs with a setback of approximately 40 feet from the historic house. The CHC directed that the ARC should consider a reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House. Additionally, at the conceptual review, the ARC provided feedback that the applicant should consider various architectural modifications. Below are ARC’s comments and brief discussions on how the applicant responded. 1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta and putting single level structures at Luneta. The ARC may discuss options of how the project may be further reduced in scale, but cannot require a reduction in the number of units per the State Housing Density Bonus Law (see Section 3.5.4 above). The closest single family structures include many two-story structures. Additionally, the project is immediately adjacent to other high density development that is two-stories in height. As such, the applicant has maintained two-story buildings as part of their design to be compatible with the adjacent structures. 2. Provide individuality between the buildings. 6 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(2): Scale. Because multi-family projects are usually taller than one story, their bulk can impose on surrounding uses. The larger scale of these projects should be considered within the context of their surroundings. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels (stepped-down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or visually dominate the neighborhood. Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures, and large single structures should be avoided. Figure 3: Examples of the façade and roof articulation within the project ARC1 - 11Packet Pg. 301 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 12 The applicant has included modifications to the architectural design of the buildings per the comments provided by the ARC. Building F has been modified to include hipped roofs at a 3:12 slope rather than the gable roofs at a 4:12 slope on building E, changed window patterns, bump-outs, trim patterns and colors to add individuality between the buildings facing Luneta Drive (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A4.3 & A4.1). 3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford House. By modifying the roof design of building F, the actual height of the building was lowered 2.5 feet. The highest point of the roof shifted from the face of the building to the center of the building, thus reducing the height of the face of the building significantly from approximately 28 feet to approximately 18 feet (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A4.3 & A4.1). 4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes. The modification to the design of building F also reduced the width of the two-story element from approximately half the elevation to roughly 10 feet wide. Throughout, the applicant added trim/bellyband, switched to horizontal siding and changed colors to reduce the visual height of the two story elements. 5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project, especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner). Figure 4: Added trim, horizontal siding and color changes break up the two-story plans of the unit; previous (left); revised (right) ARC1 - 12Packet Pg. 302 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 13 The project includes significant changes to the north elevation in order to increase the setbacks, break up large planes and address the northeast corner. These changes include, splitting building B into two separate masses, increasing the number of setbacks in order to avoid any long unbroken planes. The northeast corner was revised to create two separate elements on either side of the corner (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A3.5 & A3.6). 6. Provide wider walkways between the buildings. No changes were proposed for the walkways. The distance between building C/D & E/F is approximately 17 feet. The covered porches project into this width by approximately 5 feet on each side which still leaves 7 feet between the faces of the two porches. The distance between buildings B & C/D is a minimum of 13 feet. However, since the porch only projects 5 feet into the width on one side, there is 8 feet of uncovered space between the buildings. Figure 6: Revised north elevation (top); Previous north elevation (bottom). The revised façade and eaves of the structure are more articulated. Dashed lines highlight some of these changes. Figure 6: Revised east elevation (left); Previous east elevation (right). Dashe d lines highlight changes. ARC1 - 13Packet Pg. 303 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 14 Balconies, Porches and Patios7: The project includes front porch entries, common space patios and buildings A and B include a few balconies. These elements add architectural interest to the design of the structures and help to break up the massing and add human scale. As proposed the project is consistent with the CDG. Materials and Architectural Features: The ARC provided feedback on the colors, material and architectural features of the project. The applicant has included additional information within the project plans that shows the use of durable materials with details on plans of the fit and finish of all the materials, shows the proposed exterior light fixtures and has updated the plans to give a better representation of the proposed colors. 4.4 Tree Removal As noted in the project description (Section 3.2 above), the project is proposing the removal of 55 trees in order to develop the project. Removal of the trees is to allow the repositioning of the historic Sandford House, the construction of 33-residential units and to connect Luneta Drive to Palomar Ave. If the Luneta Drive connection is revised (as discussed above in Section 4.1), some of the proposed trees slated for removal may be retained. 4.4.1 Tree Regulations Chapter 12.24 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Tree Regulations. Included within these regulations is the procedure for requesting the removal of trees as part of a development project. The Code states: 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. 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; 7 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(3): The use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi-family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures. Multi -family units with individual access to the street sidewalk should have individual covered porches. ARC1 - 14Packet Pg. 304 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 15 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 review 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. The Tree Regulations do not provide criteria or establish a list of tree types that are to be preserved other than stating 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.A). The City’s General Plan has a goal to “Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species” (COSE 7.4) and has the following policy for protection of significant trees: Significant trees, as determined by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural Review Committee, are those making substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be protected. Removal of significant trees shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3. Oak Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and in open space areas shall be protected. The City Arborist supports the removal of 55 of the 59 trees and is recommending mitigation and conditions of approval in exchange for their removal. Rincon’s Arborist Report identifies that 41 trees on site are either dead or in poor or fair condition. In addition, as noted above, the General Plan supports the protection of trees within the City. The General Plan also supports infill development within the City. Historically the City has recognized the necessity for tree removals for new development in order to support General Plan policies and Major City goals such as housing. Removing older trees from the City’s urban forest and replanting with new trees provides an opportunity to integrate younger age trees into the urban forest to replace the older trees as they die off. The new tree planting will also allow for more diversity of age, species, flowering, fruiting and habitat within the urban forest. The City Arborist determined based on his review and the information provided by two certified arborists that 55 trees could be removed with sufficient mitigation that requires two trees to be replanted for every one tree removed, due to the significant loss of canopy, and that the four remaining trees be retained and considered for Heritage Tree designation. ARC1 - 15Packet Pg. 305 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 16 Staff is recommending Condition No. 10 which requires the project to retain a Blue Gum Eucalyptus at the southwest corner of the site, the Norfolk Island Pine and Canary Island Palm in front of the Historic Sandford House and the Mexican Fan Palm at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the landscape plans (Attachment 3, Sheet L-1) and each shall be considered for Heritage Tree designation. Additionally, staff is recommending Condition of Approval No. 11 which requires that the applicant plant at a minimum three 36-inch box trees and two 15-gallon trees on the project site or adjacent property on which the property owner of 71 Palomar has an access and landscaping easement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. The City Arborist has included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review mitigation measures for the tree removals.8 Mitigation is as follows: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist. With a 2:1 planting, the project will not only replace the 55 trees that are removed but will also add an additional 55 trees to the City’s urban forest for a total of 110 trees. The applicant will plant at least 34 trees on-site and 76 trees off-site. 4.4.2 Heritage Trees Section 12.24.160 of the Tree Regulations discusses that the City recognizes the important role trees have played in the history and development of San Luis Obispo and recognizes that a wide variety of trees can grow in its unique and temperate climate. As such there is a voluntary program in which property owners may submit a tree to be considered for Heritage Tree designation. Questions on the process of this program have been raised during the course of the review of this project. In June 2017 the City’s Attorney’s office composed a memo that provided an interpretation of the code and determined that the Heritage Tree designation process requires property owner consent. In the case of 71 Palomar, the property owner has not provided consent, and therefore pursuing the Heritage Tree designation is inappropriate and not allowed by our adopted code (Attachment 9, Heritage Tree Memo). 4.4.3 Cultural Landscape During the CHC review and the Tree Committee review, committee members and the public brought up the Cultural Landscape/Setting of the site. A historic evaluation of the project was 8 City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 12.24.090.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 planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. ARC1 - 16Packet Pg. 306 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 17 completed that analyzed the Historic Sandford House and its setting. In that report it was identified that, the setting for the Sandford House retains some but not all of its original integrity. The immediate area around the residence remains open space, providing a semblance of the historic setting associated with the property. The building maintains its historic orientation atop a small slope facing east over the town of San Luis Obispo. While there is no known formal garden or landscaping plan associated with the property, expansive lawns remain around the residence to the east, west, and south. More broadly, the setting has experienced significant urbanization. Since the 1960s, urbanization has slowly enclosed the property with 1970s-era apartment buildings to the north and west and modern single-family residences to the east and south. The size of the property itself has also been altered from 15.80 acres to today’s 1.17 acres. The integrity of setting is significantly diminished (Attachment 7, Initial Study – Historic Evaluation: Attachment 4). The CHC considered the Historic evaluation and public comment in their deliberations and the majority voted in support of the project and recommended the ARC give consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees. 4.4.4. Tree Committee Review On December 12, 2016 the Tree Committee was asked to receive public comment and provide individual input to staff and the ARC on the environmental document (MND) and two arborist reports during the 30-day public review period for the proposed project. Comments provided by the Tree Committee and the public are provided in the attached Draft Minutes (Attachment 11). Based on feedback received from the Tree Committee and the public, Rincon Consultants was requested to review their Arborist Report and provide any corrections or changes. The revised report is attached (Attachment 10). The revised Arborist Report did not recommend any changes to the MND. A further discussion of the environmental review and response to comments is provided below in Section 5.0. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was completed for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 7). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities/service systems will be less than significant. A MND and Addendum was completed by Oliveira Environmental Consulting in March 2016 and June 2016 following changes to the design of the project. New information was shared with staff that resulted in the Community Development Director’s decision to revisit the MND. Rincon Consultants was selected by the City as a third-party consultant to peer review the MND and to prepare an arborist report and focused evaluations on the aesthetic and biological impacts of the proposed tree removals. The Arborist Report, Aesthetic Analysis and the Biological Peer Review are included as attachments to the MND attached (Attachment 7, MND – Attachments 6, 7 & 8)). The peer review and evaluations included policy analysis of potential impacts and made recommendations for additional mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and recommended mitigation, staff updated the MND. The MND was re-released for a 30-day public review period from November 15, 2016 to December 19, 2016. ARC1 - 17Packet Pg. 307 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 18 Public comment was received on the analysis of the MND and, although not required for a MND, responses to those comments are compiled in Attachment 8. Comments were also received on the technical accuracy of the supplemental Arborist Report completed by Rincon Consultants. Rincon has reviewed their report based on those comments and submitted a revised document (Attachment 10, Revised Arborist Report). The revised report does not recommend a change in the recommendation provided in the MND. Staff has provided summaries of the potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, as well as a discussion on aesthetics below. All mitigation measures have been incorporated into project conditions of approval (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution). Aesthetics A supplemental Aesthetics Analysis was provided by Rincon Consultants that analyzed various views toward the proposed project site in conjunction with City policies and CEQA thresholds regarding viewsheds. The Aesthetics Analysis determined that the project was consistent with General Plan policies and would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be less than significant impact and does not require mitigation (Attachment 7, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6). Pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, potentially significant aesthetic impacts would occur if development of the project site would: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway; c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and/or d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Below is a brief discussion of these points. A more thorough analysis is provided in the attached Aesthetic Analysis (Attachment 7, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6). a. The project site is located in an urban area of the City characterized by residential and commercial development amongst natural features such as mature trees, and Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak. The project site is aesthetically prominent from adjacent roadways due to the existing historic structure and trees onsite, but is not within a City designated scenic vista (COSE Figure 11). When viewed from various other public viewpoints in the vicinity of the site, including public trails on Cerro San Luis and surrounding roadways, the project site blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out as visually prominent or unique and the addition of the proposed apartment buildings, would conform to views of the surrounding urban area. As such, the project would not result in a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista and this potential impact would be less than significant. b. The project is not located along any State designated scenic routes. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System (2011), the closest officially designated State scenic highway to the project site is State Route 1. The ARC1 - 18Packet Pg. 308 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 19 project site is located approximately 0.4 mile west of State Route 1 and is not visible from the highway. As such, the project would not damage any scenic resources within a scenic highway and there would be no impact. c. The Aesthetic Analysis identified that the proposed development would involve more intense structural development on the site than existing conditions, and proposes the removal of most of the existing mature trees from the site. Despite retaining some of the existing mature trees on the site, the proposed development and overall amount of trees removed would result in a less natural appearance of the site when compared to existing conditions as newly landscaped trees would be shorter in height than the proposed 35-foot structural development unlike the existing trees. Although the project would change the aesthetic character of the site, it would not significantly degrade the character as it would include high-density residential development with a maximum height of 35 feet that is consistent with adjacent high-density development and would retain the visually prominent Sandford House. Additionally, the project includes design elements such as peaked roof lines, separate structures to break up the massing of the proposed multi-level residential structures, inclusion of over 30 landscaped trees, four existing trees, and other landscape features, and agrarian style architecture to complement the Sandford House. With these design and landscape features, the project would comply with City General Plan policies aimed at preserving scenic views and the character of prominent visual features within the City, as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines which are intended to ensure that future development is consistent with the City’s expectations relating to the quality and character of site and building design, and to protect scenic resources and views, from public rights-of-way. As such, the project would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be less than significant impact. d. The project would result in development of a site that contains minimal existing sources of artificial light and where existing lights are shielded by vegetation on and around the site. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the site include streetlights along Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive, spillover lighting from surrounding single- and multi- family residential development, and light from the headlights of vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadways. Development of the project site would result in an increase in ambient nighttime lighting through the increased residential development and associated exterior lighting and interior lighting spillover. The project is required to conform to the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), the City’s Community Design Guidelines as well as City General Plan Policies 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 which include provisions for preventing light intrusion to preserve safety, and outdoor lighting stipulations to avoid light and glare impacts. As such, impacts associated with the creation of new sources of light and glare would be less than significant. Air Quality The project would generate construction-related emission exceeding San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) thresholds, and may create a dust nuisance. Air Quality Mitigation: Comply with SLOAPCD recommended mitigation below identified thresholds. ARC1 - 19Packet Pg. 309 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 20 Biological Resources Mature landscaping present at the project site provides tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat for urban-adapted avian or bat species. A Biological Assessment provided by Rincon Consultants (Attachment 7, Initial Study – Biological Peer Review: Attachment 7) identified that several large trees on the site are suitable habitat for various raptor species such as the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (on the Federal Watch List and a species of local concern), the common red-tailed hawk and the barn owl. Additionally, the State Fully Protected and local species of concern white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) could also nest at the site while foraging in the open grasslands located less than 1,000 feet to the south. White-tailed kite has been documented by the CNDDB within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site. Most of the mature landscaping would be removed prior to construction of the project, and impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially significant but mitigable. The project site also contains potential roosting habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (a State and Local Species of Special Concern). Pallid bat has been documented by the CNDDB approximately one mile south of the project site and this species may utilize the structures on the project site as roosting areas. Structures that occur within the project site that can be utilized by special status bats include the Sandford house, sheds, enclosed carports, and other living areas. The demolition of existing structures and the movement of the Historic Sandford house and the removal of the mature landscaping would happen prior to the construction of the project, and impacts to pallid bats are considered potentially significant but mitigable. No significant trees or designated heritage trees have been identified on the portion of the site to be developed. 55 small to fully mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed as part of the proposed project development. The landscape plan indicates a robust planting scheme that includes evergreen shade trees, landscape median trees (Luneta Drive median), deciduous flowering shade trees, hedges, shrubs, lawns and ground cover species. The City Arborist has reviewed the tree removals and determined that there will be a less than significant impact in the total tree canopy for the area with mitigation. Biological Resource Mitigation: Nesting Birds: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to Sep tember 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. Roosting Bats: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. ARC1 - 20Packet Pg. 310 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 21 Tree Removal: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist. Cultural Resources The proposed project and the Applied Earthworks Evaluation was reviewed by the (CHC) on March 28, 2016 and on June 27, 2016 for compliance with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The CHC determined that the proposed repositioning, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Sandford House, and the construction of the new residential units with incorporation of the mitigation measures, to be in conformance with SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and City standards. Therefore, impacts are considered to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Cultural Resources Mitigation: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan will be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan will need to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed. Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non- original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non -repairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate. Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained. Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed. Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High -pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City. Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and ARC1 - 21Packet Pg. 311 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 22 the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Waterways Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. With the implementation of the BMPs identified in the project Stormwater Control Plan, water quality impacts will be reduced. With the required incorporation of these measures, and adherence to the stormwater facilities operations and maintenance recommendations provided in the Stormwater Control Plan, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation: The project will implement the Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the proposed project including design features, recommended BMPs for water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. Utilities and Service Systems The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather capacity constrained portion of the City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2. Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements, where appropriate. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION 7.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Project Plans 4. CHC Resolution 6-27-2016 5. CHC Minutes 6-27-2016 ARC1 - 22Packet Pg. 312 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 23 6. ARC Conceptual Review Minutes 8-1-2016 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration with attachments 8. Response to Comments 9. Heritage Tree Memo 10. Revised Arborist Report by Rincon Consultants 11. Tree Committee Draft Minutes 12-12-2017 Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC1 - 23Packet Pg. 313 16 Packet Pg. 314 16 Packet Pg. 315 16 Packet Pg. 316 16 Packet Pg. 317 16 Packet Pg. 318 16 Packet Pg. 319 16 Packet Pg. 320 16 Packet Pg. 321 16 Packet Pg. 322 16 Packet Pg. 323 16 Packet Pg. 324 16 Packet Pg. 325 16 Packet Pg. 326 16 Packet Pg. 327 16 Packet Pg. 328 16 Packet Pg. 329 16 Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, January 30, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, January 30, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Wynn. ROLL CALL Present: Commission Members Brian Rolph, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, and Chair Gregory Wynn. Absent: Vice-Chair Ehdaie Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, protesting the removal of groves of trees due to the potential hardships newly planted trees would suffer in the rapidly changing climate. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, requesting more involvement of the Tree Committee in all projects involving tree removal; stated interest in affordable housing for students; suggested the City seek out developers who can work within the parameters of properties rather than make exceptions. --End of Public Comment-- APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of December 5, 2016 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROOT CARRIED 4-0-1-1 to approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission for the meeting of December 5, 2016. Page 1, last paragraph: “…in response to Commissioner Soll’s Root’s inquiry…” Page 3, paragraph 2: “Odile Aryal…” Packet Pg. 330 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 71 Palomar Avenue. ARCH-2193-2015; Review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33- unit, multi-family residential project, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review; R-4 zone; LR Development Group, applicant. Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented the staff report with use of a PowerPoint presentation. Applicant Representative Thom Jess provided a brief presentation. Public Comments: David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, reminded the Commission of information requested at the August 1st conceptual review and stated the site can better serve the community with more a thoughtful design. Pam Racouillat, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to the removal of trees and requested preservation of the natural resources on site. Jacqueline Williams, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the removal of healthy trees from the site and stated concerns over the adequacy of the arborist reports. Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, requested the public hearing be postponed pending a new arborist report. Jody Vollmer, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over the size of the proposed development reducing the residential feel of the neighborhood and requested the Commission carefully consider all negative impacts. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to postpone the public hearing, pending a proper tree inventory. James Papp, San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee, expressed support of the project. David Hafemeister, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to postpone the public hearing on basis of bad data and raised issue regarding parking spilling over into the neighborhood. James Gates, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with health and safety issues. Dr. Edward Benson, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to the removal of trees. Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, stated he does not feel the project is consistent with the General Plan in terms of preserving, restoring, and enhancing historical and cultural resources. Packet Pg. 331 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 3 Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the removal of mature vegetation. Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, provided comments in written correspondence and encouraged the Commission to reconsider mitigations, specifically related to environmental impacts. Betty DeHaan, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the historical significance of the site, safety hazards due to traffic, and lack of adequate parking. Alexis Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to high-density based upon evidence presented in written correspondence. Truitt Vance, Structural Engineer for the project, offered his expert opinion and support for the project. Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, expressed support for more housing and opined the removal of trees is not inconsistent with the development of the City thus far. Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for student housing and expressed favor toward development requesting no exceptions or variations from the City’s regulations. Cheryl Mclean, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the revised tree inventory and provided written correspondence. Roberto Monge, San Luis Obispo, requested the Commission consider the quality of life provided by the cultural landscape of the property. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project on the proposed site, urged the Commission to preserve the location of the Sanford House and require a design more compatible with the neighborhood. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding inadequate parking and the removal of trees. Scott Loosley, San Luis Obispo, stated the historical significance of the site’s landscape, expressed disagreement with the biological assessment, and urged the Commission to reconsider the relocation of the house on site. Lauren Reel, Project Developer, addressed concerns expressed by previous public comments and spoke regarding the Housing Accountability Act, stating the site is not qualified as a cultural landscape. Mr. Reel responded to issues with occupancy and stated the project is in compliance with City regulations and CEQA. --End of Public Comment--- Packet Pg. 332 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 4 Recessed at 6:48 p.m. and Reconvened at 7:00 p.m. Associate Planner Cohen, briefly clarified the official zoning of the property and referenced the PowerPoint slide to illustrate the four trees to be preserved. Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager, clarified the Luneta Drive conceptual layout, outlining two options for the public right-of way. Community Development Director Michael Codron acknowledged the genuine response from the community and responded to public comments, providing a contextual summary of the project to date. Richard Dolton, Rincon Consultants, provided an explanation of the intent of the environmental review process and stated the criteria used for the development of reports included in the agenda packet. Chair Wynn disclosed ex parte communication with Bob and Lydia Mourenza during a site tour of the external property, regarding height, biology, noise, and parking. He also had a conversation with Tree Committee Chair Matt Ritter regarding Mr. Ritter’s arborist report. Commissioner Soll disclosed she recently had a conversation with Commissioner Root regarding the project. Commission Comments and Discussion: Associate Planner Cohen responded to Commission inquiries. Commission discussion followed regarding the validity of the Rincon report and the significance of the trees on site. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere provided an explanation of the Tree Committee’s purview and a brief history of the legal requirements involved in denying a housing project, cautioning the Commission to exercise sufficient discretion. Chair Wynn restated staff recommendation, stating the applicant has complied with all requests and guidelines with no request for exceptions and expressed interest in approving the project. Following deliberation, Commissioner Soll voiced disagreement with information presented in the environmental reports, stating it is her opinion that the environmental impacts are not less than significant. Commissioners Rolph stated general support for the project, mentioning concerns with the size of the bedrooms. Packet Pg. 333 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 5 Commissioner Nemcik stated general support for the project. Commissioner Root commented on the need for revisions to zoning regulations and voiced general support for the project. Deputy Director Davidson provided information on the upcoming outreach program designed to develop updated zoning regulations. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROLPH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, CARRIED 4-1-1 to adopt the Draft Resolution approving the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sanford House property and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review on the following roll call vote: AYES: NEMCIK, ROLPH, ROOT, WYNN NOES: SOLL ABSENT: EHDAIE COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS & LIAISON REPORTS Deputy Director Davidson provided an agenda forecast. Commissioner Root expressed concerns regarding City parking regulations and stated he would like to see some revisions. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere and Director Codron responded, stating the issues will be addressed in the upcoming zoning regulations update. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 03/20/2017 Packet Pg. 334 16 Packet Pg. 335 16 Packet Pg. 336 16 Packet Pg. 337 16 Minutes I CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, June 27, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Vice -Chair Brajkovich. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah Walthert, and Vice Chair Thom Brajkovich Absent: Chair Jaime Hill Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Transportation Deputy Director Tim Bochum, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, established that City lacks sufficient response to climate change despite its prominent impacts that are discussed globally and incessantly. PUBLIC HEARING 71 Palomar Avenue. ARCH -2193-2015; Continued review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 33 -unit multi -family residential project; and, review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with addendum for project modifications since initial review; R-4 zone; LR Development Group, applicant. Committee Member Kincaid proposed making a motion to table discussion on Item 1 until report from Tree Committee is rendered. Senior Planner Leveille endorsed hearing and deliberating on Staff Report and Public Comment prior to voting on whether or not to continue Item. Senior Planner Leveille outlined background of the project, including the reminder that the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) had deliberated on and provided direction for it on March 28th. Associate Planner Cohen offered the Staff Report overview for CHC re -familiarization and Deputy Director Bochum provided specific historical background on the area's circulation before Packet Pg. 338 16 focusing specifically on the completion of Luneta Drive. Director Codron clarified that there was not another Tree Committee Hearing on this project slated at present, that one was scheduled, but upon consulting City's Ordinance, Staff found that review of Heritage Tree Designation can only be initiated and authorized by a property owner. Director Codron further stated that in the case of a development proposal, tree removal goes through specific procedures outlined in Municipal Code and, in this case, the City Arborist will be making recommendations to Planning Staff and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on disposition of trees. PUBLIC COMMENT The following spoke at length as members of the Applicant team: Loren Riehl, Principal Thom Jess, Architect Truitt Vance, Structural Engineer Barry Price, Historic Preservationist Chip Tomati, Arborist Jim Burroughs, Landscape Architect David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, related several facts about Sandford House that contradict information provided in Staff Report. Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Director of SLO Housing Trust Fund in recommendation of approval for project. Jody Vollmer, San Luis Obispo, requested preservation of property in its entirety and not allow historic site to be destroyed or modified. Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, presented slide show and urged Committee to view property in totality as a cultural landscape. Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the viewpoint of the Agenda Correspondence which refuted facts presented in Staff Report. Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighbor of site in favor of denying the project outright due to its obtrusiveness. Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighbor who lives across street from 71 Palomar and who had been heartened by CHC action at prior Review Hearing in finding project had contained too much massing to approve. Al Lipper, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of fellow neighbors' comments and addressed the issue of Luneta Drive as a through -street being of fuller consideration independent of the project. Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 339 16 Kit Gould, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of maintaining the Sandford House's stately presence and its open space's mature trees. David Scarry, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the development's intention to improve the quality of the Sandford House. Gary Nichols, San Luis Obispo, voiced support of project's preservation of House and the opening of Luneta Drive. Roberto Monge, San Luis Obispo, commented on the increase in density of this specific neighborhood to be an intolerable scenario for its residents. Elizabeth De Haan, San Luis Obispo, indicated that even though the project is beautifully designed, the altered neighborhood would resemble another Isla Vista; commented that 71 Palomar would be of high significance to Cal Poly Architecture Department as an academic feature. Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, informed that Sandford House was the founding cornerstone of the Broad Street & Foothill neighborhoods; reminded that both Housing and Preservation of Cultural Resources share equal footing in importance within General Plan community goals. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced full support of the research and the assertions regarding the historical significance of the Sandford House and remains convinced the structure should not be relocated. Kirk Lemon, San Luis Obispo, spoke as president of Delta Tau Alumni Corporation on the past efforts to restore House and its Foundation having exhausted funds; voiced support of current proposal. James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, opined that the project is over -planned and over -built for the specific site and does not befit the quality of the Sandford House's historic architecture or setting; advocated for modifying project further, maintaining as many of its trees as possible and not moving the structure. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, voiced satisfaction with project's design and support for further housing but stated that cutting down 47 of 51 existing trees is immoral. Danny Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, spoke as one-time Cal Poly student who has been able to sustain income sufficient to reside in City and supports the building of more housing for those following same path. Mike Clark, San Luis Obispo, spoke as candidate for City Council who has been approached by various neighborhood groups to discuss preservation and wellness topics; shared experiences on tour of "diamond in rough", 71 Palomar, and his distress in learning trees would be cut down and house relocated to pave way for student housing. Minutes—Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 340 16 Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, spoke as owner and resident of home in neighborhood since 1974; voiced opposition to relocating Sandford House from off its foundation; urged Committee to vote in favor of both denying project and for site's designation as cultural landscape. Tambra Morgan, spoke from perspective of visitor to San Luis Obispo; presented historical narrative of her own extensive familial lineage as it was affiliated with Sandford House; spoke in opposition to site being altered in any fashion. End of Public Comment Acting Chair Brajkovich called for a short recess. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Committee Member Papp, in response to unfounded accusations surfacing and circling around the various issues of this project, reiterated the four-part primary responsibility of Committee: 1.) To provide logical and evidence -based decisions over emotional ones; 2.) To stay within its purview; 3.) To follow universe of practice in both region -centric regulations and national preservation practices; and 4.) To respond to established precedent in consistent fashion. Committee Member Papp further stated that the fate of the Sandford House would either be its de -listing, which could be a justifiable conclusion to make, or demolition -by -neglect, unless a developer offered to rehabilitate it; stated that there is no compelling reason that the site could currently be considered a Cultural Landscape in the context of Historical Significance. In response to Committee Member Kincaid's inquiry, Director Codron informed that it was planned for City Arborist to make presentation of findings following a collaborative review of historical perspective of property with Project Arborist. Committee Member Larrabee shared viewpoint that surrounding Sandford House with a large- scale development would denigrate the site to such an extent that it would be impossible to unwind the action, and then yet another cultural resource would vanish forever; voiced disagreement that the only way to preserve House would be to greenlight this particular project at this particular time; opined that the property had not been properly marketed to a buyer with vision to do something creative with it during a time when owners were enjoying low property taxes, and now that their organization is no longer affiliated with Cal Poly, it is now attempting to strictly capitalize on a hot real estate market before any downturn. In response to Director Codron's determination of Committee's stance on Applicant's reduction in massing for House to achieve prominence, Committee Member Larrabee stated dissatisfaction and indicated a preference for a more respectful treatment of property which honored the community by providing more of a buffer between a high-density neighborhood and an established one. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 341 16 Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to find the proposed rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Sandford House Property as part of a 33 -unit multi -family residential project consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; with the added Condition #1: The ARC should evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and give great consideration to the City Arborist's recommendations for protection of trees; on the following 4:2:0:1 roll call vote: AYES: Kincaid, Papp, Baer, Brajkovich NOES: Larrabee, Walthert ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hill Acting Chair Brajkovich called for short recess. 2. 570 Higuera Street, ARCH -2699-2016; Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and the construction of a new 2,880 square foot commercial building within the Downtown Historic District with a Categorical Exemption from environmental review; C -D zone; SLO Creamery LLC, applicant. Associate Planner Cohen provided Staff Report. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Committee Member Papp inquired whether there was historical record of board and batten use on the site. PUBLIC COMMENT Applicant Representative Damien Mavis indicated that revisions had been made to improve project with some degree of detailing. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Acting Chair Brajkovich read excerpts from the single received piece of Agenda Correspondence regarding noise issues. Committee Member Papp reminded Chair that these issues were not in Committee's purview. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission to find the new commercial building, remodel and rehabilitation to the Master List Golden State Creamery at 570 Higuera Street consistent with the City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; on the following 6:0:0:1 roll call vote: Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 342 16 AYES: Kincaid, Papp, Larrabee, Baer, Walthert, Brajkovich NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hill 3. 694 Islay Street. HIST 3168-2016: Review of a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement for the Master List historic Kimball House with a Categorical Exemption from environmental review; R -2-H zone; John Poremba, applicant. Senior Planner Leveille made brief Staff Report presentation regarding the property improvements proposed and the Mills Act Contract process and expectations. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Acting Chair Brajkovich & Committee Members Papp and Baer asked a few qualifying questions about the Mills Act process. PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the City Council to approve an Historic Property Preservation Agreement for the Master List Kimball House located at 690 Islay Street; on the following 6:0:0:1 vote: AYES: Papp, Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Walthert, Brajkovich NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hill ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 10/24/2016 Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 343 16 Packet Pg. 344 16 Packet Pg. 345 16 Packet Pg. 346 16 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s October 21, 2016January 10, 2017 Rincon Project Number: 16-03127 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Attention: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Subject: Arborist Report for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project for the City of San Luis Obispo Dear Ms. Cohen: This Arborist Report was prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo’s 71 Palomar Avenue Project. It was prepared to meet the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance for tree removals, per Section 12.24.090 E - Tree Removal with a Development Permit. The proposed project involves implementation of a 33-unit multi-family residential project on a property located on a 1.32-acre parcel at 71 Palomar Avenue. The property currently contains the Master List Historic Sandford House, a secondary residential building, a remodeled garage with adjacent carport, expansive lawns, and many mature trees. The project would rehabilitate, relocate, and reuse the historic Sandford House, remove non- historic structural elements, remove almost all of the trees on the site, and replant trees. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the trees and location of the project components. A separate arborist report was prepared by A&T Arborists (dated June 8, 2016) for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project. This report is not associated with that June 2016 report and is a separate report providing analysis based on data collected by Rincon Consultants. Tree numbers from the A&T report are generally consistent with the numbers in this report. City of San Luis Obispo’s Tree Ordinance Per Section 12.24.090 E of the City’s Municipal Ordinance, removal of trees for projects with a development permit is allowed assuming the following documentation is provided: 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 Heritage Trees Per Section 12.24.160 Heritage Trees, any healthy tree within the city limits may be proposed as a heritage tree. Also per the ordinance, heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic interest or trees of an unusual species or size. Heritage trees are protected and maintained by the city. The City’s Heritage Tree Page Packet Pg. 347 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 2 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s (http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917d a8bbc7) maps trees that have been proposed and designated as heritage trees by the City. No tree located on the project site has been designated by the City as a heritage tree. It should be noted that this is a voluntary program. Methodology Rincon’s International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, Stephanie Lopez, was on site September 15, 2016 to collect data for the trees at the 71 Palomar site. The trees were not evaluated for heritage status. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the city by the applicant at the time of the survey. All trees located within the study area were mapped and visually evaluated for health based on the criteria in Table 1. The evaluation was conducted for the above ground portion of the trees only. Table 1: Overall Condition Rating Criteria Rating Structure Excellent In addition to attributes of a ‘good’ rating, the tree exhibits a well -developed root flare and a balanced canopy. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and is aesthetically pleasing. Good Trunk is well developed with well attached limbs and branches; some flaws exist but are hardly visible. Good foliage cover and density, annual shoot growth above average. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and has minor aesthetic flaws. Fair Flaw in trunk, limb and branch development are minimal and are typical of this species and geographic region. Minimal visual damage from existing insect or disease, average foliage cover and annual growth. Poor Limbs or branches are poorly attached or developed. Canopy is not symmetrical. Trunk has lean. Branches or trunk have physical contact with the ground. May exhibit fire damage, responses to external encroachment/obstructions or existing insect/disease damage. Dead Trunk, limbs or branches have extensive visible decay or are broken. Canopy leaves are non-seasonally absent or uniformly brown throughout, with no evidence of new growth. In addition, the following information was gathered: Scientific and common name, Geographic location of each tree using a Trimble® Geo 7x handheld GPS with integrated rangefinder. Diameter of all trees at 54 inches above natural grade (i.e., Diameter at Breast Height [DBH])) using an English unit diameter tape or caliper. Trees were considered multiple trunks if a split occurred at or below DBH. Where deformity occurs at DBH, measurement was taken immediately below or above deformity, as close to 54 inches above natural grade as possible. Visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread; and General health observations. Tree numbers correspond directly to those in the A&T Arborists report for trees #1-49. Data was collected for 59 trees. This number of trees varies from the A&T Arborists report because data was collected for recently planted trees and oak tree saplings/volunteers. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the data collected for all 59 trees. Packet Pg. 348 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 3 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 1 Canary Island Palm Phoenix canariensis 50 25 1 38 Good N Ivy at base of trunk, but healthy 2 Norfolk Island Pine Araucaria heterophylla 965 0 40 1 30 Fair Y Lower branches of canopyCanopy in competition with other canopies 3 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 20 2 9 10.5 Good Y 3A Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 20 10 1 11 Good Y 4 Norfolk Island Pine Araucaria heterophylla 60 35 1 29 Good N Some tip die back on branches 5 Willow Salix sp 15 15 3 4 2 3 Fair Y Sparse canopy 6 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 30 4 7 8 7 7 Good Y 7 Mexican Fan Palm Washingtonia robusta 50 15 1 19 Good N 8 Avocado Persea americana 10 10 2 4 9 Poor Y 9 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 30 1 49 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 10 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 30 1 45 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 11 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 25 1 20 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 12 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 30 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 13 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 35 1 26 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 14 Canary Island Pinealm PinusPhoenix canariensis 55 15 1 18 Fair Y Dead branches fronds in canopy, canopy in competition with other canopies Packet Pg. 349 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 4 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 15 Canary Island Pinealm Phoenix Pinuscanariens is 45 20 1 17 Good Y 16 Atlas Cedar Cedrus atlantica 35 25 1 16 Good Y 17 Gray Pine Pinus sabineana 35 25 1 12.5 Good Y Canopy in competition with other canopiesSuppressed 18 Atlas Cedar Cedrus atlantica 35 20 1 13.5 Good Y 19 Atlas Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodaraatlantic a 40 35 1 15 Fair Y 20 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 20 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 21 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 25 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 22 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 60 25 1 51 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 23 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 40 20 1 23 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 24 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 60 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 25 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 20 1 30 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 26 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 25 1 36 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 27 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly Packet Pg. 350 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 5 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 28 Privet Ligustrum lucidum 20 20 1 11 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on trunk 29 Privet Ligustrum lucidum 25 30 4 5 6 8 5 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on trunk 30 Shamel Ash Fraxinus udhei 45 35 1 26 Good Y 31 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 25 1 19.5 Fair Y Sparse canopy 32 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 45 1 16.5 Good Y 33 Painted Blue gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus deglupta saligna 55 40 1 18 Fair N Previously topped 34 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 60 40 1 38 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 35 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 80 35 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 36 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 75 45 1 44 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 38 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 80 35 1 46 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 38 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 75 55 1 72 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 39 Olive Olea europaea 35 35 1 19 Fair Y Major branch removed previously 40 Myoporum Myoporum sp 15 10 2 3 3 Dead Y Standing dead 412 Myoporum Myoporum sp 20 20 2 4 3 Poor Y Splitting bark on trunk 42 Olive Olea europaea 35 35 2 18 15 Good Y 43 Stone Pine Pinus pinea 35 40 1 27 Poor Y Stressed 44 Olive Olea europaea 30 40 1 16 9 Fair Y Packet Pg. 351 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 6 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 45 Olive Y Removed, not present 46 Narrow –leafed peppermintIronba rk Eucalyptus nicholiicerba 25 25 1 17 Fair Y 47 Acacia Acacia sp 30 35 1 11 Fair Y 48 Monterey Pine Pinus radiata 35 25 1 13 Good Y 49 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 15 20 1 6 Poor Y Broken stem, trunk splitting 50 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3.5 Good Y Recently planted 51 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted 52 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 53 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 54 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 55 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 56 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 57 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted 58 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 5 5 1 3 Fair Y Sapling, under privet canopy Packet Pg. 352 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 7 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 59 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10 10 1 4 Good Y Sapling Packet Pg. 353 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 8 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Observations The tree survey was conducted in September of 2016 when flowers and fruit of trees were not evident. Species of trees were determined based on the plant material that was present at the time of the survey.. Trees #50-59 were recently planted or are saplings/volunteers and data had not been collected on them previously. Tree #45, an olive tree, was not observed and was assumed removed. The majority of the trees are in fair to poor condition. Some of them are stressed due to lack of water, competition with neighboring trees, pests, or have been topped and now have limbs with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are noted in Table 2. Tree Removals and Plantings The removal or retention of trees noted in Table 2 is based on the current design plans prepared by Summers/Murphy and Partners dated June 16, 2016. Based on that plan, four (4) trees will be retained onsite and 55 (12 of which are small, 6 inches or less DBH), will be removed. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows that over 30 trees will be planted on the property as part of the proposed project. The City’s tree ordinance does not require mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings. The tree ordinance provides the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council the ability to require replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that the replacement trees shall be planted and maintained per the tree regulations. While the City’s tree ordinance allows for mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, the ordinance does not establish a regulatory requirement for mitigation plantings, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings. The City Arborist has recommended removal of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the 2:1 replacement planting would be sufficient mitigation for this project. Due to the number of trees and total loss of canopy the city arborist recommends a 2-1 ratio to be planted on site, adjacent to the site and planting opportunities as near to the site as possible. Conclusion The proposed project would remove 55 trees and replant over 30 trees. To be compliant with the City’s tree ordinance the removals will be reviewed by the City Arborist. There are currently no designated heritage trees on the site. Rincon did not evaluate the trees for heritage status because no such proposal was provided by the applicant. The City’s Heritage Tree Program is voluntary, and none of the trees at the site are currently so designated. The City’s Heritage Tree webpage provides information about the currently designated heritage trees in the City. Based on the available information from that page, the heritage trees are associated with historic buildings/events/properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size. While several tall healthy trees are present, none of the trees have unusual character nor are they of unusual size for their species. The Norfolk Island pines are Packet Pg. 354 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 9 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s approximately 70 feet in height but can reach as high as 160 feet. The healthy Canary Island palm is approximately 50 feet in height but can reach as high as 75 feet. Furthermore, per the Applied Earthworks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 2016) prepared for this project, “the original historical landscape and setting have been materially altered by prior development… As a result, the integrity of the historic landscape and setting have been substantially diminished by prior development.” The City Cultural Heritage Committee during their review of the project did not find that the landscaping elements present contributed to the historic nature of the property. Based on these assessments, the trees at the site do not meet the historical context criteria to be classified as heritage trees. It is our opinion that the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance. Tree Protection Recommendations Standard practices for protecting trees during construction are recommended for those trees that will be retained on site. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) should be protected during construction to ensure that the construction activities will not negatively impact the trees. The Critical Root Zone is the extent of the dripline of the tree’s canopy and 5-foot buffer. Fencing should be established at the perimeter of the CRZ for the duration of the project. The fencing should be temporary, a minimum of 4-feet high, and constructed of durable material with stationary posts set at no greater than 10-foot intervals. The fencing should effectively: 1) keep the foliage, crown, branch structure and trunk clear from direct contact and damage by equipment, materials or disturbances; 2) preserve roots and soil in an intact and non-compacted state; and 3) easily identify the CRZ. If work needs to occur within the CRZ, a certified arborist should be on site to monitor the activities and advise about impacts to the CRZ in order to avoid negative effects to the trees’ health and stability. A site specific tree protection plan will be required by the city. The Tree Protection Plan will be completed by a certified arborist and approved by the city arborist for the trees to be retained onsite, prior to commencement of project activities. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this important project. If you have questionsquestions, please contact us at 805-547-0900. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Stephanie Lopez Certified Arborist #WE-10-442A, TRAQ Packet Pg. 355 16 12 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 141516 1718 19 20 2122 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 474849 50 51525354555657 58 59 3A Luneta Dr Palo m a r A v e Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2016. Figure 1Rincon Consultants, Inc. Tree Locations ±0 6030 Feet Acacia Ash Atlas Cedar Avocado Blue Gum Eucalyptus Canary Island Palm Coast Live Oak Coast Redwood Deodora Cedar Gray Pine Narrow-leafed Eucalyptus Mexican Fan Palm Monterey Pine Myoporum Norfolk Island Pine Olive Blue Gum Eucalyptus Pittosporum Privet Stone Pine Willow olive removed Tree Species Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo - 71 Palomar Project Packet Pg. 356 16 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Chief Deanna Cantrell Prepared By: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION FORMALLY SETTING FORTH THE CITY’S CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND DECLARING SAN LUIS OBISPO AS A WELCOMING CITY TO ALL PERSONS, IRRESPECTIVE OF IMMIGRATION STATUS RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Council direction, consider a Resolution that sets forth the City’s current policies and practices relating to Federal immigration enforcement cooperation and declaring the City as a welcoming city to all persons, regardless of their immigration status. DISCUSSION The proposed Resolution recognizes that the City of San Luis Obispo has a history of inclusion and that the City wishes to “foster trust and cooperation” between the City, our Police Department, and immigrant communities. The resolution (1) calls upon all City residents, departments and employees to report acts of “bullying, discrimination and hate violence,” and (2) states that “City employees, including members of the San Luis Obispo Police Department, shall not directly enforce Federal civil immigration laws and shall not use city monies, resources or personnel to investigate, question, detect, or apprehend persons” solely for federal immigration violations, unless required by state or federal law. This essentially articulates the City’s current practices relating to Federal Immigration enforcement. Background The City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Police Department are committed to providing services to the community equally, fairly and without discrimination toward any individual or group. It is currently the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to treat all persons equally, with dignity and respect, regardless of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability status. The San Luis Obispo Police Department’s mission is to “maintain a safe city… while preserving the rights of all through a commitment to service, pride and integrity.” To achieve that mission, the San Luis Obispo Police Department has not participated in the direct enforcement of immigration laws. Moreover, the practice at the San Luis Obispo Police Department is to not ask people their status in the United States, whether they are contacted as victims, witnesses or suspects. Public safety is the primary mission of local law enforcement, not immigration. The San Luis Obispo Police Department lacks the authority and jurisdiction to enforce federal Packet Pg. 357 17 immigration law. In keeping with its public safety mission, the San Luis Obispo Police Department strongly believes that undocumented immigrants who commit violent and serious offenses against members of our community should be subject to the immigration laws of this country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) not only enforce immigration, but focus on organized crime, human trafficking, narcotics and weapons investigations, and national security and failing to partner with any federal partner could result in lowered public safety. As a result of this broader mission of the Federal agencies, there are times when the San Luis Obispo Police Department should and does participate in law enforcement activities with these Federal agencies to fulfill its mission to “maintain a safe city….”. On March 7, 2017, the Council directed staff to bring forward at a future meeting a resolution formally setting forth the City’s current policies and practices relating to Federal immigration enforcement cooperation and declaring San Luis Obispo as a welcoming city to all persons, irrespective of immigration status. The proposed Resolution is a general statement of principles and affirmation of existing practices. The Resolution states that the City should be safe for all community members, regardless of immigration status; should encourage trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement; and should not use its resources to directly enforce Federal immigration laws. The term “sanctuary city” generally refers to local jurisdictions that in some way limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, typically by refusing to honor detention requests from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) (Brookings Institute, February 24, 2017). Most often, such requests are directed to Counties and large cities that operate jails, which the City does not. The President, through an Executive Order issued in January, ordered, in relevant part, as follows: “Sec. 9 Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. (a) …the Attorney General and the Secretary1, …to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary fo r law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, …to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law [emphasis added]. (b) … the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed 1 Refers to Secretary of Homeland Security. Packet Pg. 358 17 by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens. (c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction. **** Sec. 18 (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. At this point, the criteria that may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate “sanctuary jurisdictions” is unclear, as is the scope and extent of grant funding that may be targeted. The Order itself expressly defines jurisdictions that “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373” as sanctuary jurisdictions, subject to grant withholding under the Order. That section reads as follows: 8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. (b) Additional authority of government entities … no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a … local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status…: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such inform ation from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity. While the section prohibits local restrictions on the requests for, exchanges of, or maintenance of immigration status information, there is nothing in the law that prohibits local restrictions on use of local resources to inquire into, investigate or collect (rather than maintain) immigration status information from individuals. Obviously, a jurisdiction cannot share information that it does not collect. Thus, staff has crafted the recommended Resolution to focus on issues of inquiry and collection of immigration information from individuals to avoid potential conflict with the federal law referenced in the Order. In that manner, the City avoids falling within the definition Packet Pg. 359 17 of a sanctuary jurisdiction expressly articulated in the Order, while clearly asserting its resource and enforcement priorities and inclusive community values. What is significantly more ambiguous is what might constitute “a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law” for purposes of grant withholding. A Federal interpretation of that language purporting to compel any direct or proactive local immigration enforcement activity would likely run afoul of the Federal constitution on 10th amendment grounds. Further, to the extent that the Order may be asserted to support the withdrawal of past funding not specifically conditioned on compliance with Federal immigration law or restrictions on prospective federal funding with no nexus to immigration issues (i.e., transit funding), the Order would be highly constitutionally suspect under recent US Supreme Court authority (National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act). At the same time, the state legislature is considering specific rules to limit law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Senate Bill 54, the “California Values Act” proposes new rules for cities, counties and school districts which limits information that can be provided to immigration authorities. Specifically, the law would repeal requirements that arresting agencies report immigration information to Federal officials and prohibit State and local law enforcement agencies from participating in enforcement of Federal immigration law. Additionally, Senate Bill 54 would prohibit detaining an individual based on an immigration hold and directs the Attorney General to publish model policies within three months. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378. FISCAL IMPACT The potential fiscal impact of passing the Resolution is uncertain. The Resolution by itself does not generate any costs or revenues. The primary area of uncertainty relates to President’s Executive Order should the Resolution be construed to mean that the City of San Luis Obispo has declared itself a “sanctuary jurisdiction”. Federal law does not require the City to enforce federal immigration laws. But the President, through his Executive Order, has directed the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to identify “sanctuary jurisdictions” and deprive them of Federal grant funds. At this point, it is unclear how broadly the Federal government will identify “sanctuary jurisdictions” and which funds will be targeted. A lawsuit filed by the City/County of San Francisco on January 31, 2017 challenges this Exe cutive Order. San Francisco’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that San Francisco is in compliance with 8 U.S.C. section 1373, which prohibits restrictions on communicating with Federal immigration authorities Packet Pg. 360 17 about a person’s immigration status, or in the alternative, that “Section 1373 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to state and local Sanctuary City laws such as San Francisco’s.” The City receives various federal funds including Community Development Block Grant, Federal Transit and Transportation Funds, and Public Safety Funding. These funds are outlined below for reference: Program City Fund Name (e.g. General Fund, Water Fund, etc.) Federal Fund Type (e.g. FAST Act, CDBG, Fed Grant Name) Description One-Time Amount Ongoing Amount Transit Operations Transit Fund Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Grant funds for transit operations and capital purchases/projects $ 1,614,500 Transit Operations Transit Fund Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Grant funds for transit operations and capital purchases/projects $ 1,424,554 Transit Operations Transit Fund Federal Transit Authority (FTA)3 busses $ 1,125,000 CIP Engineering General Fund Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grant funds for bike/pedestrian projects (i.e. Railroad Safety Trail - Taft to Pepper) $ 3,244,000 Community Development General Fund Community Development Block Grant Homeless Services, Affordable Housing, Infrastructure $ 442,462 Police Law Enforcement Grant Fund DOJ -Edward Byrnes Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Grant funding (non-competitive grant) $ 15,000 Police Law Enforcement Grant Fund DOJ (funded under the DOJ Appropriations Act, 2016 (PL 114-112) Grant Funding (competitive grant) - Body Worn Cameras $ 74,060 Police General Fund U. S. Dept. of Justice, Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Reimbursement for duty vests. Reimburses at 50% of cost. $ 12,000 Fire General Fund US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Reimbursement for personnel and equipment mutual aid wildland fires $ 300,000 Fire General Fund FEMA - 1)Assistance to Firefighter grants 2) Fire Prevention grants 3) Local Hazard Mitigation plan or project Typically for equipment or fire prevention program or hazard mitigation Varies Fire General Fund National Fire Academy and/or Emergency Management Institute (both are under FEMA) Provides reimbursement for eligible participation in training and education programs, including those on the campus of the National Fire Academy in Maryland. Varies CIP Engineering General Fund Highway Bridge Program (HBR) Grant funds for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement project. $ 7,385,970 TOTAL: $ 11,829,030 $ 3,808,516 ALTERNATIVES The City Council could decide to alter the draft Resolution or decide not to adopt a Resolution. Attachments: a - Draft City of San Luis Obispo Resolution Packet Pg. 361 17 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. ____________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, FORMALLY SETTING FORTH THE CITY’S CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND DECLARING SAN LUIS OBISPO AS A WELCOMING CITY TO ALL PERSONS, IRRESPECTIVE OF PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS OR IMMIGRATION STATUS WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is made up of diverse individuals, both native born and immigrants, whose collective cultures, religions, backgrounds, orientations, abilities and viewpoints join to form a community that prides itself on being a place that welcomes persons and families of all walks of life; and WHEREAS, recent Executive Orders and statements of federal officials have created a sense of uncertainty and fear among many communities in San Luis Obispo, across our State and across the Nation; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo assures all members of its community that the City supports them, will do all it can to maintain and improve their quality of life, and will not tolerate acts of hate, discrimination, bullying, or harassment; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo City Council wishes to declare that San Luis Obispo is a safe place for immigrants from all countries, and of all races, religions, ethnicities, disabilities, and sexual and gender identities, including the estimated 9,000 undocumented immigrants in SLO county (Public Policy Institute of California, 2013) and their loved ones; and WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo’s immigrant families contribute to the economic and social fabric of the City by establishing and patronizing businesses, contributing to arts and culture, and achieving other accomplishments which benefit not only themselves and their families, but the entire community; and WHEREAS, it is the City Council's desire to ensure that its immigrant residents participate in civic life and daily activities and engage constructively with law enforcement and other City services without fear of being arrested or reported to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency solely due to their immigration status; and WHEREAS, many children who are native to the United States or are undocumented immigrants have been separated from their families by United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency due to their parents' or their personal immigration status; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to treat all persons equally, with dignity and respect, regardless of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability status; and Packet Pg. 362 17 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to all community members by enforcing the law equally, fairly and without discrimination toward any individual or group, regardless of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability status; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Police Department recognizes the need for a safe community and values a positive and trusting relationship with all community members they are sworn to protect; and WHEREAS, to encourage crime reporting and cooperation in the investigation of criminal activity, all individuals, regardless of their immigration status, must feel secure that contacting or being addressed by members of law enforcement will not automatically lead to immigration inquiry and/or deportation actions initiated by the local police; and WHEREAS, the enforcement of civil immigration laws by local police agencies raises many complex legal, logistical and resource issues for cities, including the potential to undermine the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo Council is greatly concerned about public safety in San Luis Obispo and the mission of the San Luis Obispo Police Department is to maintain a safe city by working in partnership with the community to protect life and property, prevent and reduce crime, and improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods, while preserving the rights of all through a commitment to Service, Pride and Integrity, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The San Luis Obispo City Council calls upon all City residents and all City Departments and employees to speak out against acts of bullying, discrimination and hate violence and report any alleged hate crimes to appropriate law enforcement agencies. SECTION 2. City officials and employees, including members of the San Luis Obispo Police Department, shall not directly enforce Federal civil immigration laws and shall not use city monies, resources or personnel to investigate, question, detect, or apprehend persons based on uncertainty regarding immigration status or solely on a possible violation of immigration law, unless required by State or Federal law. SECTION 3. The City of San Luis Police Department has adopted and implements Police Department policy 443.2 regarding immigration violations which states “It is the policy of the San Luis Obispo Police Department that all members make personal and professional commitments to equal enforcement of the law and equal service to the public. Confidence in this commitment will increase the effectiveness of the Police Department in protecting and serving the entire community and recognizing the dignity of all persons, regardless of their immigration status.” The practice is that the Police Department does not ask people their status in the United States whether being contacted as victims, witnesses or suspects. Packet Pg. 363 17 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ SECTION 4. Nothing herein is intended, nor shall it be construed, to direct non- compliance with state or federal law. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. 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. 364 17 Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager SUBJECT: TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE 36 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE LOCATED AT 3175 VIOLET STREET RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 2. Adopt a resolution allowing the issuance of a tax -exempt bond by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) to finance 36 affordable multi-family housing units at 3175 Violet Street. DISCUSSION Background The Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (“HASLO”) is requesting that the Council hold a public hearing regarding the issuance of a tax -exempt debt obligations to finance the development of Courtyard at the Meadows, a 36-unit multi-family affordable housing development located at 3175 Violet Street (“Project”). Although there is no financial participation (or liability, direct or indirect) by the City in approving the issuance of this “conduit” financing, Council conduct of a public hearing and approval of the reissuance is required under federal regulations for tax-exempt financing. The Housing Authority is committed to providing much needed additional affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo. The primary funding source for this project will be low income housing tax credits awarded by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). These tax credits are then purchased by investors who become a limited partner. California statue does not allow housing authorities to be a party in these partnerships, so HASLO will hold its interest through its related entity the San Luis Obispo Non-profit Housing Corporation (“SLONP”). SLONP will serve as the sole Managing General Partner for Courtyard at the Meadows. The partnerships have a 15-year compliance period over which the tax credits are earned. After the 15 years, the limited partner has the option to seek a buyer for its interest. The project will feature an affordability requirement for a minimum of 55 years. Packet Pg. 365 18 Project Summary 1. Courtyard at the Meadows will consist of 100% of the units to be rented to households at 60% Area Median Income and below for a minimum of 55 years. The project consists of 36 units: 9 one bedroom units, 18 two bedroom units, and 9 three bedroom units. 2. Estimated total development costs are projected to be $11.6 million. Of this, an amount not to exceed $10 million in tax exempt bond financing will be utilized to finance the project development. 3. A resolution (Attachment B) has already been approved by the Housing Authority’s Board of Directors setting forth HASLO’s official intent to incur the tax-exempt obligation in order to finance construction of the project. 4. The issuance of the Bond requires that the Council conduct a public hearing regarding the financing of the Project under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”), and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The TEFRA public hearing allows Council to adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the issuance by HASLO of the debt obligations, in order to finance development of the affordable housing units. No City Liability for the Financing There is no City liability in approving the issuance of conduit financing. The bonds are payable solely from the payments by the borrower on a loan made to it (the “Borrower Loan”) by HASLO from the proceeds of the bonds. The rental payments by tenants in the Project are the source of revenue used by the borrower to repay the borrower loan. The City has no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the project or for the repayment of the bonds or the repayment of the Borrower Loan. The documents for the bonds clearly provide that the bonds are payable solely from payments on the Borrower Loan made by the borrower. Outside of holding this hearing and adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City with respect to the bonds will be required. City’s Conduit Financing Policy While the Council is not obligated to approve this request, it would be consistent with past City actions regarding conduit financing. Under the City’s debt financing and management policies, consideration of a request for conduit financing is generally a two-step process: 1. First asking the Council if they are interested in considering the request and establishing the ground rules for evaluating it; and then 2. Return with the results of this evaluation and recommending approval of appropriate financing documents if warranted. Given the Council’s prior approval of conduit financing to HASLO in the past, and due to the close and ongoing relationship between the City and HASLO; staff finds that HASLO is capable of achieving the public purpose of providing these debt obligations to finance much needed affordable housing using tax exempt bonds. Packet Pg. 366 18 City’s Past Experience with Conduit Housing Bonds The City has approved eleven “conduit” housing bond issues in the past as reflected in the following summary, with the majority being issued by HASLO. There have been no financial difficulties with any of these bond issues. 1. 1985. 168-unit apartment development on Southwood Drive (refinanced in 1993). 2. 1998. 30-unit development (all affordable for seniors and persons with disabilities) on Brizzolara Street. 3. 1999. 122-unit apartment development by the De Vaul Ranch Company, of which 26 units will be affordable: 24 for “very-low” and 2 for “moderate” income households. 4. 2002. 19-unit senior apartment development at 433 Pacific Street (Pacific and Carmel). 5. 2005. 40 affordable one-bedroom units for seniors as well as one manager’s unit in an existing historic single-family residence at 2005 Johnson Avenue (“Del Rio Terrace”). 6. 2009 and 2011. 8-unit housing project at 1468 East Foothill Boulevard for the University Board of the Santa Barbara Presbytery. 7. 2012. 120-unit apartment project affordable to low and very-low income households located at 1550 Madonna Road. 8. 2013. 19-unit apartment project affordable rental apartment facility for seniors located at 433 Pacific (“Carmel Street Apartments”). 9. 2013. 40-unit affordable rental apartment facility for seniors located at 2005 Johnson Avenue (“Del Rio Terrace”). 10. 2015. Rehabilitation of 55 affordable rental units located at 1092 Orcutt Road, 1102 Ironbark, and 1363 Pismo Street. 11. 2016. 46-unit affordable apartment development at 3680 Broad Street (“Iron Works”). Next Steps After the TEFRA public hearing and adoption of the Resolution of the Council approving the issuance of the debt obligations, HASLO or its managing general partner will apply for low income housing tax credits and tax exempt bonds in Summer of 2017. There will be no further actions required by the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is exempt from environmental review per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines because the action is in regards to financing a future affordable housing project. The financing activity in question will not have a significant impact on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution No. 10512) was approved for Tract 2353 (Serra Meadows), which included the future development of the Project. The project was found to be in conformance with the MND at time of entitlement. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts to the City associated with this matter. As noted above, the City has no liability, directly or indirectly, for the financing. Packet Pg. 367 18 ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not approve the issuance of bonds by HASLO. The project has already received all necessary entitlements. Due to lack of liability for repayment of the Bonds by the City, this option is not recommended. 2. Defer consideration of the request. Due to the critical need for tax exempt bond financing in order to construct the apartments, this option is not recommended. Attachments: a - Council Resolution b - Housing Authority Board Resolution No. 19 (2016 Series) Packet Pg. 368 18 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE 36 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS LOCATED AT 3175 VIOLET STREET WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (the "Authority") is authorized by Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, as amended (the "Act"), to incur indebtedness and to make loans for housing purposes specified in the Act; and WHEREAS, the Authority has expressed an interest in establishing a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”) and in assisting the Borrower in constructing the Courtyard at the Meadows affordable rental project at 3175 Violet Street (referred to in this Resolution as the “Housing Facility”); and WHEREAS, such assistance will involve the issuance by the Authority of debt obligations (which may be in the form of a loan evidenced by a note or tax-exempt revenue bonds, and referred to in this Resolution as the “Bonds”) in the amount not to exceed $10,000,000, and a loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower; and WHEREAS, all housing units in the Housing Facilit y will be rented to persons and families of low or very low income as required by the Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, the Bonds will be considered to be a "qualified exempt facility bonds" under Section 142(a) of the Code; and WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that the "applicable elected representative" with respect to the Authority approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds following the holding of a public hearing with respect thereto; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that the City Council is the "applicable elected representative" to approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds because the Housing Facility is located within the City; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing by the Council regarding the financing of the Housing Facility has been duly given as required by the Code; and WHEREAS, the Council has held the public hearing at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard on all matters relative to the location, operation and financing of the Housing Facility, including the Authority's issuance of the Bonds and subsequent lending of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to pay costs of the construction by the Borrower of the Housing Facility; and Packet Pg. 369 18 Resolution No. ______ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ WHEREAS, the City will not be a party to any of the agreements or other documents related to the Bonds and the financing of the Housing Facility, the City will have no liability or responsibility related to the repayment or administration of the Bonds, and the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the Housing Facilit y will not impose any legal, financial or moral obligation on the City; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest, for the public benefit and in furtherance of the public purpose of the City that the Council approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds for the aforesaid purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby approves the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds for purposes of the Code. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the above actions will not have a signification impact on the environment, as defined by Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act, and is exempt from environmental review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution No. 10512) was approved for Tract 2353 (Serra Meadows), which included the future development of the Project. The project was found to be in conformance with the MND at time of entitlement. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Packet Pg. 370 18 Resolution No. ______ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Upon motion of _______________ seconded by _______________ and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this ______ day of ____________ 2017. Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 371 18 RESOLUTION NO. 19 (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING FORTH THE AUTHORITY'S OFFICIAL INTENT TO INCUR A TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATION IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF COURTYARD AT THE MEADOWS APARTMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (the "Authority") is authorized by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 34200) of Part 2 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, as amended (the "Act") to incur indebtedness and to make loans for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of multifamily rental housing facilities located within the area of operation of the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Authority expects to enter into agreements necessary to sell multifamily housing revenue bonds or otherwise incur indebtedness (referred to in this Resolution as the "Bonds") and to lend the proceeds of the Bonds to a limited partnership to be established by the Authority (the "Borrower") that will use proceeds of the loan to acquire and construct a 36 unit affordable rental housing facility to be located at 408 Prado Road in the City of San Luis Obispo (the "Housing Facility"); and WHEREAS, the Authority, in the course of assisting the Borrower in financing the Housing Facility, expects that the Borrower, once it is formed, may pay certain expenditures (the "Reimbursement Expenditures") in connection with the Housing Facility prior to the date of issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, Section 1.150-2 of the United States Treasury Regulations (the "Treasury Regulations") requires that the Authority declare its official intent to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditures for the Housing Facility with proceeds of a subsequent tax-exempt borrowing if the proceeds of the borrowing are to be used to finance the Reimbursement Expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Authority wishes to declare its intention to authorize the issuance of the Bonds for the purpose of financing costs of the acquisition and construction by the Borrower of the Housing Facility (including reimbursement of the Reimbursement Expenditures) upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the Authority, the Borrower and the purchaser of the Bonds, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000; and WHEREAS, Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 limits the amount of multifamily housing bonds that may be issued in any calendar year by entities within a state (the "state ceiling") and authorizes the governor or the legislature of a state to provide the method of allocation within the state; and WHEREAS, Chapter 11.8 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the California Government Code governs the allocation of the state ceiling among governmental units in the State of California having the authority to issue private activity bonds; and WHEREAS, Section 8869.85(b) of the California Government Code requires a local agency desiring an allocation of the state ceiling for a particular financing to file an application with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee ("CDLAC") for such an allocation, and CD LAC has certain policies that are to be satisfied in connection with any such allocation; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest, for the public benefit and in furtherance of the public purposes of the Authority that the Authority declares its official intent to issue the Bonds to finance the Housing Facility and to authorize the Executive Director to take all actions necessary to apply to CDLAC for an allocation of tax-exempt bond authority for the Bonds. Packet Pg. 372 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, that: 1. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is necessary and desirable to provide financing for the acquisition and construction by the Borrower of the Housing Facility (including reimbursement of the Reimbursement Expenditures) by the issuance and sale of the Bonds pursuant to the Act in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000. 2. This Resolution is being adopted by the Authority for the purpose of establishing compliance with the requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations. In that regard, the Authority declares its official intent that the Authority use proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditures. This action is taken expressly for the purpose of inducing the Borrower to undertake the acquisition and construction of the Housing Facility. 3. The Executive Director of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to apply to CD LAC for an allocation of the state ceiling of private activity bonds for the Bonds in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000, and to take any and all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate in connection with such application, including but not limited to the payment of fees, the posting of a performance deposit and the provision of certificates. 4. The law firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP is hereby designated as bond counsel to the Authority for the Bonds. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with such firm for its services related to the Bonds in a form acceptable to the Executive Director; provided that any and all compensation to such firm is contingent upon the successful issuance of the Bonds. 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the issuance of the Bonds shall only occur on terms that are satisfactory to the Authority, and subject to the adoption by the Authority of a resolution approving the documents providing for the terms of the Bonds. 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Commissioner Souza and on the following roll call vote: , seconded by Commissioner Chubon AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Souza, Chubon, Booker, La Rue, Beck None Commissioners Steinberg, Reed None The foregoing Resolution was duly adopted and passed this 8th day of December, 2016. ATTEST: -2 -Packet Pg. 373 18 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 374