The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-02-2017 Agenda Packet Tuesday, May 2, 2017 6:00 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Andy Pease PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION - MAYOR'S AWARD TO LAGUNA MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS (HARMON – 10 MINUTES) 2. PRESENTATION - PLATINUM AWARD FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT PRESENTED BY ASHLEY TRIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DAVENPORT INSTITUTE AT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY (HARMON – 10 MINUTES) PROCLAMATIONS 3. PROCLAMATION - MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK (HARMON – 5 MINUTES) Presentation of a proclamation to Carrie Gallagher, representing the San Luis Obispo City Clerk's Office, declaring May 7-13, 2017 as "Municipal Clerks Week." Packet Pg 1 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 2, 2017 Page 2 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. 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Recommendation Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2017 (GALLAGHER) Recommendation Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of February 21, 2017. 6. MARSH STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (GRIGSBY/MCGUIRE) Recommendation Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, certifying the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project.” Packet Pg 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 2, 2017 Page 3 7. HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUEST TO REASSIGN LEASE FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1090 AND 1092 ORCUTT ROAD, AND 1105 LAUREL LANE (CODRON/WISEMAN) Recommendation Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a reassignment of the Lease Agreement for City owned property located on Orcutt Road from the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to SLO 55 Limited Partnership. 8. WATER METER STANDARD AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SPECIFICATION NO. 91456 (MATTINGLY/HENDERSON) Recommendation 1. Adopt a City standard for water meters sized 3/4 inch, 1 inch, 1 1/2 inch, and 2 inch; and 2. Approve a Request for Proposal under Specification No. 91456 for annual purchase of water meters; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract for water meter purchases not to exceed the annually budgeted amount as approved by Council. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 9. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ISSUANCE OF A TAX-EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATION TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION OF 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 3680 BROAD 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 incurring of a tax -exempt obligation by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of providing financing for the development of Iron Works Apartments” located at 3680 Broad Street. Packet Pg 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 2, 2017 Page 4 10. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ISSUANCE OF A TAX-EXEMPT BOND TO ACQUIRE AND REHABILITATE 55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1092 ORCUTT ROAD, 1102 IRONBARK, AND 1363 PISMO 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. 2. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the incurring of a tax-exempt obligation by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of Laurel Creek, Ironbark and Pismo Buchon Apartments.” 11. PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17: ZONING REGULATIONS, ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROVISIONS WITH A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CODRON/WISEMAN – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation Introduce an ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code associated with accessory dwelling units with a statutory exemption from environmental review (CODE-0107-2017).” 12. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2016 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT (GENP-0244-2017) (CODRON/OROZCO – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation As recommended by the Planning Commission, accept the 2016 General Plan Annual Report. Packet Pg 4 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 2, 2017 Page 5 LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2) ADJOURNMENT The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100. Packet Pg 5 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 6 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, February 21, 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 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. 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 TO REVIEW A COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY PREPARED TO INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE OF CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY FEES Assistant City Manager Johnson, Special Projects Manager Carloni along with Nicole Kissam from NBS Government Finance Group provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Fire Marshal Maggio responded to questions from Council regarding fire inspection fees. Parks and Recreation Director Stanwyck responded to Council questions including but not limited to golf course fees. Public Comments: Jerry Ridux, Director of the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund, spoke in support of an increase in appeal fees however suggested a waiver in the case of very controversial appeals. Packet Pg 7 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 2 Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, requested consideration for low and medium recovery fees for the Sun in Fun Program noting she believes this should be considered a child program; she noted opposition to the increase in appeal fees. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, noted opposition to an increase in appeal fees; she spoke regarding the difference between non-profit and for-profit. Jim Duenow, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to an increase in appeal fees. Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, noted opposition to an increase in appeal fees. ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file the study session to review a cost of service fee study prepared to inform a proposed update of citywide user and regulatory fees. RECESS Council recessed at 5:12 p.m. to the Council Hearing Room at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 for the Closed Session. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. ---End of Public Comment--- CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Katie Lichtig, Christine Dietrick, Nickole Sutter Represented Employee Organizations: None Unrepresented Employees: Unrepresented Management Employees Unrepresented Confidential Employees B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: No. of potential cases: One. Exposure to litigation based on assertions of unfair labor practices and conflicts of interest of the Human Resources Director (similar allegation have been made against the City Packet Pg 8 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 3 Attorney) related to the conduct of a confidential personnel investigation of claims against the City Manager and Fire Chief. A redacted version of the writing reflecting the threat is available for public review pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.5. RECESSED AT 6:00 P.M. TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M. Packet Pg 9 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 4 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 6:02 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 Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire led the Pledge of Allegiance. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Dietrick stated no reportable action for Closed Session items A and B and noted that the only staff members present during item B discussions were herself and Director of Human Resources, Monica Irons. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Steve Delmartini, spoke in support of appeal fee increase. ---End of Public Comment--- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 2 thru 7 ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 4-1 (CHRISTIANSON NO) to approve Consent Calendar Item 8 as amended to exclude Bishop Peak and limit times of use that mirror maximum summertime hours. 2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. Packet Pg 10 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 5 3. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 3, 2017 CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of January 3, 2017 4. ADOPTION OF A RECREATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Y.M.C.A. CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Recreation Partnership Agreement between the City and the San Luis Obispo County Y.M.C.A. Public Comments: Monica Grant CEO of San Luis Obispo County YMCA, asked for Council’s support to approve the recommended agreement. ---End of Public Comment--- 5. ADOPTION OF SLO TRANSIT’S REVISED TITLE VI PLAN 2017-2020 CARRIED 5-0, to adopt SLO Transit’s Title VI Plan for 2017-2020 6. AMGEN TOUR OF CALIFORNIA CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file the report regarding the Amgen Tour of California bike race coming through the City on May 16, 2017, and the plans to accomplish this using C ity staff resources to be reimbursed by the event. 7. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3063-PHASE 1, 3987 ORCUTT ROAD (TR/ER 114-14) CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No 10772 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Final Map for Tract 3066-Phase 1 (3761 Orcutt Road, SBDV-0067-2014)” authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement, Private Drainage Easement Agreement and a Restrictive Covenant for Open Space. 8. PROJECT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE EVALUATION Item pulled by Council Member Christianson for separate consideration CARRIED 4-1 (CHRISTIANSON NO), to receive and file the Project Plan for Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation as amended. Public Comments: Greg Bettencourt, spoke in support for an evaluation study regarding appropriate hours of use for Open Space. Gail Karacsony, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to additional hours of use for Open Space areas and noted support for the continuation of the current regulation. Packet Pg 11 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 6 Connor Culhane, President of Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers, spoke in support of Council moving forward with additional hours of use. Kathy Ap Roberts, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to night hiking in any open spaces, encouraged Council not proceed with the proposed Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation. Julie Frankel, spoke in opposition to the proposed Open Space Hours of Use Evaluation; she noted the risk of fire due to nighttime hiking. Bill Waycott, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of limited nighttime hiking. Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of dawn to dusk hiking only. Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, noted support for limited night hiking. ---End of Public Comment--- PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 9. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3095 AND ASSOCIATED EXCEPTIONS, TREE REMOVALS, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO CREATE 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO DETENTION BASIN LOTS, AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS ON THE IMEL RANCH PROPERTY WITHIN THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WHICH TIERS OFF THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (3777 ORCUTT ROAD) Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Scott provided an in- depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Opened Public Hearing: Applicant: Travis Fuentes of Ambient Communities provided plan specifics, he noted unanimous Planning Commission approval and introduced Todd Smith to speak on behalf of the project. Todd Smith, Cannon Engineering, noted the many years in the making from approval to annexation, he spoke regarding the goals, visions and objectives of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Council Member Pease recused herself from this item upon learning that RRM Design Group was speaking on behalf of the applicant; she stated that her firm is concluding work with RRM Design Group and feels that no true conflict exists, however recused herself in an abundance of caution and exited the dais at 7:09 pm. Packet Pg 12 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 7 Randy Russom, RRM Design Group speaking on behalf of the applicant spoke regarding height exception noting that they are requesting a full 30ft due to concerns of the 25ft height limit. Todd Smith, Cannon Engineering, noted prior project approval from both the Planning Commission and City staff, he noted the attendance of the applicants’ full team and stated that they are available to answer questions. Public Comments: Ed Garay, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the location of a park being placed on a portion of his property and added that he firmly rejects the project if this is accurate, he noted having spoken to Mr. Fuentes who assured him that the park has been removed from the plans although it remains in tonight’s presentation; additionally, he referenced the recent discovery of protected nesting bald eagles in trees at the property. Jeanne Helphenstone, spoke in support of the tentative tract map and encouraged Council to approve the project. Steve Delmartini, spoke in support of the 30ft height limit exception with the exception of lots 14 and 15. Charlene Rosales, speaking on behalf of San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce spoke in support of the vesting tentative tract map. ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 4-0 (PEASE RECUSED) to: adopt Resolution No 10773 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 and granting exceptions for height on lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 (limited to 27 feet), road design, rear yard setbacks (limited to lots 6, 8, 9 and 10), and grading and development of access, drainage, and stormwater facilities within the creek setback (SBDV/ER-2586-2016)” authorizing approval of the project and associated grading, improvements, and tree removals as amended to include a condition of a 30 ft height exception except for lots 14 &15. Council Member Pease returned to the dais 7:30 pm. 10. 2017 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM City Attorney Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comment--- Packet Pg 13 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 8 ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 10774 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing the City Legislative Action Platform for 2017 and appointing the Council Member and staff person to act as liaison between the City of San Luis Obispo and the League of California Cities”; and as amended to support uniformity of regulations at the State and Federal level to protect airports and study adoptions of appropriate public safety exemptions and to change item 67 re:Prop 1 funding striking the first part of the sentence and beginning with encouraging the resources agency and its departments to expedite the remaining bond fund to take advantage of… 2. Provide direction to staff on the scope and application of the legislative platform related to advocacy for non-legislative items or particular projects; and ; 3. Appoint the Mayor, City Attorney and City Manager to act as the primary legislative liaisons between the League of California Cities and the City of San Luis Obispo. By consensus, Council directed staff to return for discussion on future legislative platform items such as marine sanctuaries or oil trains. RECESS Council recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:07 p.m., with all Council Members present. 11. 2016-17 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW Assistant City Manager Johnson and Interim Finance Director Bradford, provided an in- depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding unfunded liabilities and encouraged fiscal responsibility. ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Receive and discuss an update of changes in the financial position as referenced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year attachment sections A and B based on revised projections for all funds for the 2016-17 fiscal year, and 2. Receive an update on Status of Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives as referenced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year attachment Section C. Packet Pg 14 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 21, 2017 Page 9 12. GENERAL FUND FIVE-YEAR FISCAL FORECAST: 2017-22 City Manager Lichtig and Interim Finance Director Bradford with the use of a Power Point presentation provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo noted his appreciation for the level of attention given to this issue by staff; he noted costs and deficits and spoke regarding existing and growing debt. ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council received and filed the results of the General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast for 2017-22; and concurred with the Activation of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan. 1. Review and discuss the results of the General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast for 2017- 22; and 2. Concur with the Activation of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan. LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Gomez reported attending the Downtown Association monthly meeting and noted that they are seeking backing for a Jumbotron for use in conjunction with the Amgen Tour road closure, to be held at 3pm on May 16. Mayor Harmon reported having spoken at both the Careers in Political Science and Change in Status Quo Events which were held at Cal Poly, she noted attending a meeting “Of Normal” regarding marijuana legislation, she presented at the Chamber of Commerce on the Legislative Action Committee, she noted her involvement in a climate working group that may be interested in formalizing their relationship with the City in the future. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 15 5 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 16 5 Meeting Date: 5/2/2017 FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Michael J. McGuire, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: MARSH STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project. DISCUSSION Background The Marsh Street Bridge, constructed in 1909, is a critical transportation component of this major arterial roadway for the City’s downtown. In 2008, required maintenance inspection conducted by the California Department of Transportation determined an accelerating decline in the overall efficiency of the bridge. In June 2011, the City contracted with Dokken Engineering, one of the City’s pre-qualified on- call engineering consultants, to begin a structural assessment of the bridge, leading to the preparation of an Alternatives Study Report of the Marsh Street Bridge to discuss rehabilitation alternatives and compare those alternatives to complete replacement. On September 24, 2012, the three bridge alternatives were presented to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) who unanimously approved replacement of the bridge (attachment A), subject to the condition that the replacement bridge retain the historical features and context of the existing bridge to the greatest extent feasible. On January 22, 2013, the City Council conceptually approved the removal and replacement of the Marsh Street Bridge, and to proceed with design of a new fully-replaced bridge (attachment B). Since then, Dokken Engineering has proceeded with preparation of design documents along with the environmental review phase of the bridge replacement, including procurement of the required permitting from state and federal regulatory agencies. Draft Environmental Impact Report In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared a Notice of Preparation for the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was submitted to the California State Clearinghouse on March 10, 2015 for distribution to other regulat ory agencies that might like to comment on the project. This Notice provided a project overview, the purpose and need of the project, a project description, and a summary of known environmental issues which would require impact analysis in the EIR. The required 30-day comment period ran between March 10, 2015 to April 8, 2015, with no comments received from other agencies. Packet Pg 17 6 The draft EIR for the project was prepared and circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies and organizations. As required by CEQA, a public review period of 45 days was initiated, beginning on February 12, 2016 and ending on March 28, 2016. A Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the draft EIR was circulated to State agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. A Notice of Availability of the draft EIR was mailed to organizations and parties expressing interest in the project, as well as property owners located within 500 feet of the project area. The Notice of Availability was also published in The Tribune newspaper. On March 2, 2016, staff conducted a publicized meeting at the San Luis Obispo City/County Library for the public to gain information on the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement project and, if desired, to give comment on the project. Two written comments were received from members of the public, both comments were in regards to non -environmental impact issues. Those comments and responses to the comments are contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Also, a story regarding the project was featured in the March 10, 2016 edition of the SLO City News. A verbal comment presented to staff at the meeting was a concern for the impact of the new bridge on flood control for downtown. Staff’s response is that the flood control necessary is outside of the scope of this bridge project and that with the installation of the new bridge nearly matching the dimensions of the existing bridge, there would be no change to the channel flow characteristics. Final Environmental Impact Report The City Council is being asked to adopt a resolution (attachment C) certifying the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project FEIR (Council Reading File) which describes the project, project impacts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant or acceptable levels. The Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project FEIR follows the CEQA requirements to identify the significant environmental impacts of a project and to avoid or mitigate the impacts, if feasible. Overall, the Bridge Project will not have significant environmental impacts. However, the demolition of the historic existing bridge has no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce impacts to below a level of significance (Council Reading File). A Statement of Overriding Considerations and other Mitigation measures and monitoring program have been developed. The Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledges that impacts to Cultural Resources cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. The reason why the impact to Cultural resources cannot be mitigated to less than significant is that the historic bridge needs to be removed to build the new bridge. Realistically, there is no way to replace the bridge with another historic structure. Therefore, the mitigation measures are included in order to celebrate, document and retain the original bridge’s history, however, these mitigations measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant – hence the need for a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Next Steps Following the City Council’s certification of the FEIR, temporary property acquisition will begin Packet Pg 18 6 to obtain the portions of private property surrounding the bridge and creek for the purposes of construction space and to maintain vehicular and pedestrian access to those businesses adjacent to the bridge. At the same time, permits will be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Army Corp of Engineers and other jurisdictional agencies. Also, the construction documents for the bridge replacement will be fully completed for approval by Caltrans. Once these tasks have been completed, staff will return to the City Council for approval to advertise for the construction of the project, followed by approval to award the project construction. Construction is tentatively scheduled to start in April, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action at this time. Certification of the EIR obligates the City to follow the appropriate requirements of the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during project construction. Costs associated with the MMRP will be incorporated into updated project costs and be included in the bid proposal for construction. The cost of construction for the replacement of the Marsh Street Bridge is estimated to be $7,625,000, of which approximately 90% will be funded by the Federal Highway Bridge Program. The remaining 10% will be City matching funding which will be a combination of General Funding and Local Revenue Measure G. ALTERNATIVES Deny certification of the project EIR. Council could choose not to certify the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project EIR. While CEQA specialists prepared the document and it meets all CEQA requirements, should Council choose this alternative, staff requests specific direction as to what changes the Council requires in order for the EIR to be acceptable for certification. The Marsh Street Bridge Replacement project right-of-way acquisition phase and ultimately, project construction, cannot move forward without a certified EIR. Construction of the project, scheduled to begin in April 2018, would be delayed until the following year. Attachments: a - CHC Resolution b - Marsh St Bridge CAR c - Resolution Marsh Street Bridge EIR Certification d - Exhibit A - Marsh Street Bridge Mitigation Monitoring Program e - Council Reading File - Final EIR f - Council Reading File - Findings of Fact Packet Pg 19 6 RESOLUTION NO. CHC-1003-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVE THE PROJECT TO REMOVE AND REPLACE THE MARSH STREET BRIDGE, CHC 103-12 WHEREAS, the replacement of the Marsh Street Bridge has been identified as a necessary project within the 2011-2013 Capital Improvement Plan; 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 September 24, 2012, for the purpose of reviewing the project for consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards; 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 applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee makes the following findings: Findings 1. The removal and replacement of the Marsh Street Bridge is necessary to address structural deterioration and to allow the continued use of the bridge and is a logical approach to ensure the continued safety of the bridge into the future. 2. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards because the design, finish, and appearance of the new bridge are very similar to the original construction and does not constitute a departure from the original design. 3. Since the project involves the removal of a historic structure, the project is not exempt from environmental review. CEQA documentation will be required prior to project approval. Section 2. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend the Community Development Director approve the project to remove and replace the City Hall Steps subject to the following conditions: Packet Pg 20 6 Resolution No. CHC-1003-12 Page 2 1. The original bridge plans shall be referenced to reconstruct the bridge in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for reconstruction. Existing concrete railings shall be reconstructed with original design theme while taking into account current code requirements. 2. Light poles similar to those included in the original design shall be included in the new construction. 3. A complete photo documentation of the existing bridge shall be completed prior to any demolition work. The photo documentation shall be consistent with City standards and be prepared in conjunction with the Historic American Engineering Standards. 4. A plaque shall be placed on the new bridge construction recognizing the former work of John B. Leonard and noting that the bridge is a re-construction of the original bridge. 5. CEQA documentation including, but not limited to, an initial study of environmental review shall be completed prior to approval of the project by the Community Development Director. On motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Taylor, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Committee Members Hill, Taylor, Brajkovich, Pavlik, Costello, and Dandekar NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Committee Member Kalkowski The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24th day of September, 2012. Kim Murry, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee Packet Pg 21 6 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Michael J. McGuire, Engineer III SUBJECT: MARSH STREET BRIDGE PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 90480 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve the removal and replacement of the Marsh Street Bridge as identified in Alternative 3 of the Alternatives Study Report by Dokken Engineering, and proceed with design for “Marsh Street Bridge Repair, Specification 90480”. 2. Appropriate $148,642 of Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Grant funding to the project account in the amounts of $15,847 to the design phase, $22,132 to the environmental review phase and $110,663 to the property acquisition phase. 3. Approve the transfer of $19,258 from the CIP Completed Projects account to the project account in the amounts of $2,053 to the design phase, $2,868 to the environmental review phase and $14,337 to the property acquisition phase. 4. Authorize the Finance Director to amend the current contract with Dokken Engineering by $594,452.28 to include all design, environmental services and property acquisition services for the “Marsh Street Bridge Repair, Specification No. 90480”. DISCUSSION Background The Marsh Street Bridge, near the intersection of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets, was built in 1909 and over the years has received occasional minor repair work by City maintenance staff. More intense maintenance was scheduled as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan to replace heavily damaged bridge rails, and to patch and seal the deck. As a condition to use federal bridge funding for the work, a structural review was completed. The review indicated the bridge deterioration was too significant to be ameliorated only by maintenance and that more intensive rehabilitation work and possibly replacement of key structural components would be required. A maintenance inspection conducted by the State of California Department of Transportation in 2008 supported this finding with the overall bridge efficiency rating dropping nearly 30 points since 2004, to a rating of 64 out of 100, indicating an accelerating decline. In June 2011, the City contracted with Dokken Engineering, one of the City’s pre-qualified on- call civil engineering consultants, to begin a structural assessment of the bridge, leading to the preparation of an Alternatives Study Report of the Marsh Street Bridge to discuss rehabilitation alternatives and compare those alternatives to complete replacement. Historical Significance With the potential for significant reworking, or possible replacement of the bridge, research was completed regarding its historical significance. There is no historical register designation for the Marsh Street Bridge by the City or County, but Caltrans recognizes that the bridge is significant in the area of engineering. The Marsh Street Bridge was designed by John B. Leonard, one of the Jan. 22, 2013 B1-1Packet Pg 22 6 Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480) Page 2 foremost reinforced concrete bridge designers in early twentieth century California. Over his career, Leonard designed about 45 bridges throughout California and Nevada. While a number of Leonard’s bridges remain in Northern and Central California, the Marsh Street Bridge is one of two examples in San Luis Obispo. It is also the oldest concrete girder bridge in Southern California and among the oldest remaining structures designed by Leonard. Although the bridge is historical from an engineering standpoint, the architectural features of the bridge have been greatly compromised. As indicated in the report by Dokken Engineering, the concrete itself is deteriorating to a level that threatens the structural integrity of the entire bridge. The concrete bridge railing has been damaged or portions of it completely removed due to damage. The original light standards were removed at an unknown date and never replaced. The railings are the most visible portion of the structure and cannot be salvaged. The reinforcing steel has degraded to the point where rusting has ruptured through the concrete. A portion of the rail was also hit and had to be removed. The bridge project will replicate the styling of the existing railing, provide an upgrade relative to vehicle crash safety features, and will restore lighting on the deck as originally envisioned by the designer. The environmental review phase of the bridge replacement and procurement of the required permitting from state and federal regulatory agencies will include review of the new bridge design by the Community Development Department and will be subject to architectural review. Recommended Alternative In the Alternatives Study Report, Dokken Engineering evaluated three alternatives for addressing the condition of the Marsh Street Bridge. Alternative 1 evaluates rehabilitating the existing bridge structure, Alternative 2 evaluates removing and replacing the bridge deck and the top portion of the existing abutments and Alternative 3 evaluates complete removal of the existing bridge and construction of a new cast-in-place or precast concrete slab bridge supported on new foundations. Based on the findings in the study, Alternative 3 is recommended to provide the City a long term solution for its investment and minimize future disruption to this busy corridor. The estimated cost of Alternative 3 is $4,400,000; $3,895,320 in grant funds and $504,680 in City matching funds. This alternative will remove the existing bridge deck and abutments and replace it with a 15-foot longer bridge deck supported on tall abutments that will be supported on spread footings or piles. Placement of the abutments further apart will increase the hydraulic capacity of San Luis Obispo Creek and better protect the channel from scour during flood events. The new bridge will increase the vehicle load capacity to current design standards, and allow utilities to be protected within the bridge deck shielding them from storm damage. A new structure will provide an expected bridge life of 100 years and will be virtually maintenance-free for many years. The architectural features of the bridge visible on Marsh Street will be replicated as close as possible to the original design while conforming to current codes. While this is the most expensive alternative, the increased channel protection, traffic safety improvements, utility protection, and reduction in maintenance costs are significant benefits to the City. Therefore, the consultant and staff recommend Alternative 3. B1-2Packet Pg 23 6 Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480) Page 3 Other Alternatives Alternative 1: Rehabilitate the existing bridge structure. While Alternative 1 has the lowest construction cost ($966,000), shortest construction time and lowest impacts to traffic during construction, the concrete structure will continue to deteriorate and require patching maintenance for the remainder of the bridge’s existence. The deficient load capacity of the bridge will not be improved by rehabilitation. Reinforcement of the existing abutments may reduce the hydraulic capacity of the San Luis Obispo Creek channel under the bridge. Reduction of hydraulic capacity increases liability for the City because of possible aggravation of flooding. Also, this rehabilitation can only be expected to extend the bridge life for another 20 years, at which time additional rehabilitation or complete replacement would be required, disrupting the community again. The bridge railing will have to be completely replaced. Due to these deficiencies, Dokken Engineering considers rehabilitation of the bridge an unsuitable solution and does not recommend this Alternative. Alternative 2: Remove and replace the bridge deck and the top portion of the existing abutments. This alternative would replace the entire bridge deck with a new deck and concrete railings. Temporary shoring would need to be installed within the creek to prevent the abutments from toppling over, as the existing bridge has no deep foundations. A new bridge deck will increase the vehicular load capacity to current design standards. It is estimated this alternative will cost $2,800,000; $2,478,840 in grant funds and $321,160 in City matching funds. It is estimated to take 4-1/2 months to construct. A new bridge deck will minimize maintenance for at least 30 years and increase the bridge life-expectancy from 20 years to 75 years. The new deck configuration would accommodate utility conduits and cables within the deck for protection and security. Complex construction methods to accommodate the existing bridge abutments will cause construction and maintenance issues. New foundations added to the front of the abutments in support of the new bridge deck above will reduce the hydraulic capacity of the creek. While the new bridge deck would be virtually maintenance-free, regular maintenance would continue to be required for the existing abutments. Cost and Duration Summary Alternative Estimated Cost Duration Life Expectancy Alternative 1 $966,000 3.5 Months 20 Years Alternative 2 $2,800,000 4.5 Months 75 Years Alternative 3* $4,400,000 6.5 Months 100 Years * Recommended The Consultant provided a duration estimate of 6.5 months for Alternative 3 for the basic construction work. Past City experience indicates projects take from 1 to 2 years to complete in their entirety. This is a function of their size, staging and mitigation requirements, and includes finishing work such as re-vegetation. B1-3Packet Pg 24 6 Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480) Page 4 CONCURRENCES The replacement of this structure has the concurrence of the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (Attachment 1) and the California Department of Transportation (Attachment 2). FISCAL IMPACT The 2009-11 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-249 to 3-252, and the 2011-13 Financial Plan, Appendix B, page 3-153, identified $6,700,000 for design and construction of the Marsh Street Bridge Repair project. On May 3, 2011, Council approved the reallocation of approved grant funds for the Chorro Street Bridge project to augment necessary environmental review work required for the Marsh Street Bridge project. This action brought the total approved budget-to- date to $550,000 for environmental review, land acquisition and design work (for a total project budget of $6,950,000). The majority of funding will come from the Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) with a City-matching fund contribution of 11.47% of the project costs. Project Phase Budget To- Date Budget Expended Budget Remaining Additional Funds Required Future Costs Total Environmental Review: $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 275,000 Design: $ 250,000 $ 57,900 $ 192,100 $ 17,900 $ 210,000 Property Acquisition: $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 125,000 $ 175,000 Construction: $ 6,100,000 $ 6,100,000 Construction Management: $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Total: $ 550,000 $ 57,900 $ 492,100 $ 167,900 $6,400,000 $ 7,117,900 Project Costs The City’s Financial Plan identifies higher costs than currently estimated in the bridge study report. The Financial Plan estimates are based on previous bridge construction costs for the City and consideration of unforeseen conditions that may occur once construction starts. Given the very preliminary nature of the study, prior local cost experience, the historical value of the bridge and the need for construction contingencies to address unforeseen conditions, staff does not propose any revisions to the cost projections at this time. Project Phase Budget To- Date Budget Expended Budget Remaining Additional Funds Required Future Costs Total General Fund $ 63,085 $ 6,641 $ 56,444 $ 19,258 $ 734,080 $ 816,423 Grant (HBP) $ 486,915 $ 51,259 $ 435,656 $ 148,642 $ 5,665,920 $ 6,301,477 Total: $ 550,000 $ 57,900 $ 492,100 $ 167,900 $ 6,400,000 $ 7,117,900 Project Funding Source Of the $250,000 allocated for design work, $57,900 was encumbered to Dokken Engineering for the pre-design work of bridge assessment and the alternatives study. There remains $192,100 available in the design phase which includes preparation of plans, specifications, and construction estimate, $250,000 for environmental services and $50,000 for property acquisition B1-4Packet Pg 25 6 Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480) Page 5 activities. Additional funds in the amount of $167,900 are required as indicated in the Project Costs table above to fully fund the project phase fees by Dokken Engineering and to provide a minimum 10% contingency amount for unforeseen design conditions that may arise. Staff recommends approval to use and transfer $19,258 from the CIP Completed Projects account to the project account in the amounts of $2,053 to the design phase, $2,868 to the environmental review phase and $14,337 to the property acquisition phase, and approve the appropriation of $148,642 from the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Grant funding to the project account in the amounts of $15,847 to the design phase, $22,132 to the environmental review phase and $110,663 to the property acquisition phase. There is approximately $20,000 available in the CIP Completed Projects account to support this recommendation. Once additional funding required to complete design, environmental, and property acquisition work is approved, staff recommends amending the current contract with Dokken Engineering by $594,452.28 to include the design, environmental and property acquisition services for the “Marsh Street Bridge Repair, Specification No. 90480” (Attachment 3). On-Call Civil Engineering Services Approximately every two years , the City conducts a competitive process and issues a Request For Proposals (RFP) for certain on-call services. The City receives proposals and selects consultants or contractors, based on specific criteria, to perform specific services. Dokken Engineering is one of the City’s on-call civil engineering design consultants and is therefore eligible to be awarded this work. Dokken has submitted a proposal for this work (Attachment 3). Staff recommends amending the current contract with Dokken Engineering, in the amount of $594,452.28 to include design, environmental services and property acquisition services for the Marsh Street Bridge Repair project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Select Design Alternative 1. The City Council could choose to select Alternative 1. This alternative would provide a “band-aid” fix to the bridge and is not recommended by staff or the design consultant. While it would address repairs to the surface of the bridge, the bridge would continue to deteriorate from within and would require constant maintenance to extend the life of the bridge another 20 years. 2. Select Design Alternative 2. The City Council could choose to select Alternative 2. While this alternative would improve the vehicle load capacity to current design standards and increase the life expectancy of the bridge to 75 years, it does not fully address the lack of a sufficient foundation system for the bridge. Adding additional footings for reinforcement will narrow the creek channel, thus reducing the hydraulic capacity under the bridge. Regular maintenance would still be required for the bridge abutments and shallow footings. For these reasons staff does not recommend this alternative. 3. Deny or defer the project. The City Council could choose to defer bridge repairs or replacement at this time. Under this alternative, bridge deterioration would continue. Eventually, the bridge would become a safety hazard and unusable for both vehicular and B1-5Packet Pg 26 6 Marsh Street Bridge Alternatives Study Report (90480) Page 6 pedestrian traffic. This alternative is not recommended as this bridge is integral to a significant arterial of the City’s street system through the Downtown. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Alternatives Study Report by Dokken Engineering. ATTACHMENTS 1. Cultural Heritage Committee September 24, 2012 Meeting Minutes 2. Caltrans Concurrence Letter 3. Dokken Engineering Design Amendment Proposal B1-6Packet Pg 27 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES September 24, 2012 ROLL CALL: Present: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Hemalata Dandekar, Jaime Hill, Patti Taylor, Vice-Chair Bob Pavlik, and Chairperson Enrica Costello Absent: Committee Member Buzz Kalkowski Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, City Civil Engineer Michael McGuire and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudder ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of August 27, 2012, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 1404 Chorro Street. ARC 76-12; Review of four-unit condominium project; R-4-H zone; Koru Trust, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Committee Member Hill recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest because she lives in proximity of the proposed project. Brian Leveille, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the Cultural Heritage Committee find the proposed residential units and site improvements consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and approve the project subject to conditions based on the findings that he outlined. Committee Member Brajkovich stated that he was in favor of the new style from the other buildings in the area and he concurred with staff’s recommendations. Chairperson Costello commented she was not sure how well it fits in San Luis Obispo and would like to see comparable styles relating to the proposed structure. Mr Leveille commented he did not believe there is a building of this mass with a comparable style in the proposed neighborhood. Committee Member Dandekar commented the change with this proposed architecture seems a little abrupt or dramatic. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carol Campbell, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern with the height and mass of the proposed structure and road access from Morro Street to the new site. Attachment 1 B1-7Packet Pg 28 6 Draft CHC Minutes September 24, 2013 Page 2 Jeff Schneideright, applicant’s architect, stated the structure was designed and scaled to relate to the San Luis Obispo Mission on Chorro Street. Blake Urban, San Luis Obispo, was concerned with the mass of the building and that it will not have a favorable impact to his property. Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, clarified that the setback of the easement does not set at Mr. Urban’s actual property line. Trey Duffy, San Luis Obispo, is opposed to the project. Jaime Hill (speaking as a citizen and not as a committee member), San Luis Obispo, stated the structure is too large for the area and for the type of architecture proposed. Devin Gallagher, applicant, urged the committee to understand that the original vision of the structure was intended to feel like a chapel on the corner in context with the downtown and the relationship to the mission Astrid Gallagher, San Luis Obispo, concurred with the applicant. She pointed out several details of the project’s architecture. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Brajkovich supported the Mission design. He commented that possibly lowering the parking structure will lessen the mass of the overall height. Chairperson Costello disagreed with Committee Member Brajkovich’s statement and was concerned with the style of the proposed structure. Committee Member Dandekar is concerned with the size of the podium and believed it was too dominant. She commented that the mission is too far from the site to be connected in any way. There was a general discussion between the Committee Members regarding the design how to lessen the feel of how large the structure is by softening the podium or the parking structure and scaling down the size of the proposed structure. There were no further comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Pavlik, seconded by Committee Member Dandekar, alternative #1 continued item to a date with additional discussion or research in regard to 3.2.1 guidelines with emphasis on softening approach of podium. AYES: Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Taylor, and Pavlik NOES: Chairperson Costello Attachment 1 B1-8Packet Pg 29 6 Draft CHC Minutes September 24, 2013 Page 3 RECUSED: Committee Member Jaime Hill ABSENT: Committee Member Kalkowski The motion passed on a 4:1 vote. Committee Member Hill returned to her position on the Committee. 2. 1095 Marsh Street. CHC 103-12; Review of Marsh Street bridge replacement project; C-D zone; City of San Luis Obispo-Public Works Department, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, along with Mike McGuire, City Civil Engineer, presented the staff report, recommending the CHC give concurrence to the complete replacement of the Marsh Street Bridge based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Staff proposed three alternatives to address the bridge safety issues:  Repair the existing bridge  Replace the bridge superstructure  Replace the entire bridge structure, which staff supports this approach out of all 3 alternatives because it provides the greatest longevity and cost savings while still respecting the historic design of the bridge structure Mr. Dunsmore pointed out that alternatives 2 & 3 will require the City to prepare an environmental impact study and determination. Committee Member Brajkovich questioned if funding is available for each of the three alternatives. Mr. McGuire stated there is funding for all three alternatives because of federal funding assistance. Mr. Brajkovich voiced support of the entire bridge replacement because funds were available to replace the entire structure. There was a general discussion between Committee Members regarding the design aspects of the bridge to keep in line with the Historical context of the original design and/or keep the scale intact. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Sinoli, San Luis Obispo, was concerned with lengthening the span of the bridge and its access while under construction. Mr. McGuire noted that access to businesses will not be restricted during the bridge construction project. Design will commence in January 2013 with construction beginning in 2015 due to the studies. Mark Delaney, San Luis Obispo, commented that he was following this issue in regard to access to his business on Marsh Street during the construction project. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Attachment 1 B1-9Packet Pg 30 6 Draft CHC Minutes September 24, 2013 Page 4 There were no further comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Taylor, finding #3 adding #5 guardrail rails and pedestals raised in compliance with ADA standards amendment by Pavlik to include the environmental impact study, Committee Member Hill accepted the amendment. AYES: Committee Members Brajkovich, Dandekar, Taylor, Pavlik, Hill, and Costello NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Kalkowski The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast – Phil Dunsmore presented an agenda forecast for the upcoming meeting. 4. Committee Committee Member Hill, recommended to all Committee Members that it was important all information is provided by staff to show projects on adjacent properties. She also commented that the opinions of the Committee Members should be withheld until the public comment portion of the hearing has been closed and that prior to public comment that the CHC should focus only on technical questions for staff. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Dawn Rudder Recording Secretary Attachment 1 B1-10Packet Pg 31 6 To: GARIN SCHNEIDER- 05 Date: November 6, 2012 District Local Assistance Engineer File: 05-SLO-0000 Marsh Street over San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge No. 49C0298 From: ROBERT ZEZOFF original signed by Senior Bridge Engineer Office of Special Funded Projects, Structure Local Assistance & Structures Contract Management Program/Project & Resource Management Division of Engineering Services Subject: Type Selection The City of San Luis Obispo has requested that Caltrans Structure Local Assistance review the following scoping documents for the above-mentioned bridge. The following documents were submitted: • Alternative Study Report by Dokken Engineering, dated September 17, 2012. The following are comments from the review: 1. Structure Local Assistance (SLA) concurs with the scope of this project and the preferred alternative. Although it is possible to rehabilitate this bridge, it is not prudent. The bridge was built in 1909 and is structurally deficient with the major items being deficient barrier rails, deck deterioration, spalling and cracks in the girders and exposed reinforcement, and a substandard load rating. 2. This bridge is eligible for inclusion in the Caltrans statewide historic bridge inventory update. The bridge replacement will require valid justification, but there does not appear to be significant historic value or aesthetic characteristics. Proposed aesthetic features include ornamental lighting and open concrete architecturally aesthetic barrier rails and they will meet current ADA requirements. 3. The preferred alternative is a single-span prestressed cast-in-place or precast concrete slab bridge with seat abutments founded on pile foundations. It will be 60’ long by 69’ wide Please contact Robert Zezoff at (916) 227-9881 for any questions. c: Nathan Donnelly, Project Manager Dokken Engineering Tammy Mar, Local Assistance Engineer District 5 Eric Bost, Senior Transportation Engineer, Local Assistance - HBRRP Coordinator Winton Emmett, Senior Transportation Engineer, Local Assistance – Area Engineer Jeff DeFevere, Acting Chief, Office of SFP, SLA and SCM File Attachment 2 B1-11Packet Pg 32 6 Attachment 3 B1-12Packet Pg 33 6 Attachment 3 B1-13Packet Pg 34 6 Page intentionally left blank. B1-14Packet Pg 35 6 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE MARSH STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a publicized meeting at the City/County Library Community Meeting Room, 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 2, 2016, for the purpose of presenting the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of providing public testimony and providing feedback to staff on the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 2, 2017, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties presented at said hearing, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in a manner required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Finding. Based upon all the evidence, including, without limitation, staff reports, memoranda, technical studies, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in addition to the CEQA findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full; 1. The Draft EIR for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project was released on February 12, 2016 with a 45-day comment period that closed on March 28, 2016. The Final EIR was issued on March 30, 2017. For each identified potentially significant effect under the categories of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Recreation, mitigation measures and/or the implementation of standard project best management practices (BMPs) were included and incorporated into the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project to reduce the identified potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Only one significant unavoidable impact was identified as a result of the proposed project implementation. The demolition of the historic existing bridge has no feasible mitigation measure to reduce impacts below a level of significance. The Final EIR includes measures to reduce the Cultural Impacts but they cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Packet Pg 36 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 2. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project. 3. The City Council acknowledges that it is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15021 to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects keeping in mind the obligation to balance a variety of public objectives. The City Council further acknowledges that CEQA Guidelines Section 15043 affirms the Council’s authority to approve a project even though it may cause significant effects on the environment so long as the Council makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091) and that there are specifically identified expected benefits from the project that outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). To this end, the City Council has identified the following overriding economic, social, and other public benefits of the project, which are additional reasons that the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR can be found acceptable; these are: a. The project will improve the Marsh Street Bridge, providing a safer and long lasting transportation facility over the San Luis Obispo Creek in downtown San Luis Obispo. This new structure will be consistent with Caltrans standards, as well as local, regional, and statewide plans, for bridge infrastructure improvement. The new facility will ensure that vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements can continue along Marsh Street, a major one‐way arterial through downtown San Luis Obispo. b. Without this project, the Marsh Street Bridge would eventually have to be closed due to a public safety concern caused by bridge instability. Closure of Marsh Street at the San Luis Obispo Creek would result in a long term significant traffic impact as Marsh Street is a major one‐way arterial through the downtown area. The cost to mitigate these traffic impacts through other projects and a complete restructuring of the downtown transportation network would greatly outweigh the cost to replace the bridge. c. Maintaining this important arterial road will allow for the continued economic viability of a portion of the downtown area without a major restructuring of the City’s transportation system. Furthermore, a potential closure of Marsh Street at the project area would have significant detrimental impacts to most of the businesses along Marsh Street that rely on this major access and drive by traffic for continued viability. 4. The data to support these overriding considerations are found in the following sections of the record including: a. The Final Environmental Impact Report; b. Letters submitted by the public contained in the project files; c. Public testimony provided at this and previous project hearings. Packet Pg 37 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ 5. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed by the City Council in conjunction with their review of the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that the information and analysis in the Final EIR prepared for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council as to the environmental consequences of the proposed project, and certifies the Final EIR as adequate, complete and in compliance with CEQA statues and guidelines, and the City’s local guidelines. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA findings set forth herein, approves and adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the attached Exhibit A, and hereby certifies the Final EIR for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project. The Public Works Director is hereby directed to file a notice of determination consistent herewith. 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 38 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 39 6 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±0LWLJDWLRQ0RQLWRULQJDQG5HSRUWLQJ3ODQ Appendix B0LWLJDWLRQ0RQLWRULQJDQG5HSRUWLQJ 3ODQ 7KH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR?DVWKHOHDGDJHQF\XQGHUWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\$FW &(4$KDVGHYHORSHGD0LWLJDWLRQ0RQLWRULQJDQG5HSRUWLQJ3ODQIRUWKH0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH 5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW7KLVOLVWLVGHVLJQHGWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVLGHQWLILHGLQ WKH SURMHFW¶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acket Pg 40 6 Packet Pg 41 6 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO%LRORJLFDO(QYLURQPHQWNatural Communities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etlands and Other Waters 0HDVXUHV%,27KHSURMHFWOLPLWVLQSUR[LPLW\WR6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&UHHNDQGYDOOH\IRRWKLOOULSDULDQKDELWDWZLOOEHPDUNHGSULRUWRDQ\JURXQGGLVWXUELQJDFWLYLWLHVZLWKKLJKYLVLELOLW\(QYLURQPHQWDOO\6HQVLWLYH$UHD(6$IHQFLQJRUVWDNLQJWRHQVXUHFRQVWUXFWLRQZLOOQRWIXUWKHUHQFURDFKLQWRFKDQQHOV3ULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQSUHSDUH'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLPSOHPHQW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBBPacket Pg 426 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO0HDVXUH%,2(URVLRQ&RQWURO0HDVXUHVPXVWEHLPSOHPHQWHGGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ7RPLQLPL]HWKHPRELOL]DWLRQRIVHGLPHQWWRDGMDFHQWZDWHUERGLHVWKHIROORZLQJHURVLRQFRQWURODQGVHGLPHQWFRQWUROPHDVXUHVZLOOEHLQFOXGHGLQWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQVSHFLILFDWLRQVEDVHGRQVWDQGDUG&DOWUDQVPHDVXUHVDQGVWDQGDUGGXVWUHGXFWLRQPHDVXUHVx6RLOH[SRVXUHPXVWEHPLQLPL]HGWKURXJKWKHXVHRIWHPSRUDU\%03VJURXQGFRYHUDQGVWDELOL]DWLRQPHDVXUHVx7KHFRQWUDFWRUPXVWFRQGXFWSHULRGLFPDLQWHQDQFHRIHURVLRQDQGVHGLPHQWFRQWUROPHDVXUHV'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB0HDVXUH%,27RFRQIRUPWRZDWHUTXDOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWVWKH6WRUP:DWHU3ROOXWLRQ3UHYHQWLRQ3ODQ6:333PXVWLQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJx9HKLFOHPDLQWHQDQFHVWDJLQJDQGVWRULQJHTXLSPHQWPDWHULDOVIXHOVOXEULFDQWVVROYHQWVDQGRWKHUSRVVLEOHFRQWDPLQDQWVVKDOOEHDPLQLPXPRIIHHWIURPULSDULDQRUDTXDWLFKDELWDWV$Q\QHFHVVDU\ HTXLSPHQW ZDVKLQJ VKDOO RFFXU ZKHUH WKH ZDWHUFDQQRWIORZLQWR6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&UHHN7KHSURMHFWSURSRQHQWZLOOSUHSDUHDVSLOOSUHYHQWLRQDQGFOHDQXSSODQx&RQVWUXFWLRQHTXLSPHQWZLOOQRWEHRSHUDWHGLQIORZLQJZDWHUx&RQVWUXFWLRQZRUNPXVWEHFRQGXFWHGDFFRUGLQJWRVLWHVSHFLILFFRQVWUXFWLRQSODQVWKDWPLQLPL]HWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUVHGLPHQWLQSXWWR6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&UHHNx5DZFHPHQWFRQFUHWHRUFRQFUHWHZDVKLQJVDVSKDOWSDLQWRURWKHUFRDWLQJPDWHULDORLORURWKHUSHWUROHXPSURGXFWVRUDQ\RWKHUVXEVWDQFHVWKDWFRXOGEHKD]DUGRXVWRDTXDWLFOLIHVKDOOEHSUHYHQWHG IURP FRQWDPLQDWLQJ WKH VRLO RU HQWHULQJ 6DQ /XLV2ELVSR&UHHNx(TXLSPHQWXVHGLQDQGDURXQG6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&UHHNPXVWEHLQJRRGZRUNLQJRUGHUDQGIUHHRIGULSSLQJRUOHDNLQJHQJLQHIOXLGVDQGx$Q\ VXUSOXV FRQFUHWH UXEEOH DVSKDOW RU RWKHU GHEULV IURPFRQVWUXFWLRQPXVWEHWDNHQWRD&LW\DSSURYHGGLVSRVDOVLWH3ULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQSUHSDUH'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLPSOHPHQW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHUAnimal Species 0HDVXUH%,27KH&LW\PXVWQRWXVHKHUELFLGHVWRFRQWUROLQYDVLYHH[RWLFSODQWV'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBBPacket Pg 436 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±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±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acket Pg 446 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO0HDVXUH%,2,IGHPROLWLRQRIWKHEULGJHRUZRUNLPPHGLDWHO\DGMDFHQWWRWKHEULGJHLVSODQQHGWRRFFXUGXULQJWKHQHVWLQJVHDVRQPHDVXUHVVKDOOEHWDNHQWRDYRLGLPSDFWVWRPLJUDWRU\VZDOORZV7RSURWHFWPLJUDWRU\VZDOORZVXQRFFXSLHGQHVWVZLOOEHUHPRYHGIURPWKHH[LVWLQJEULGJHVWUXFWXUHSULRUWRWKHQHVWLQJVHDVRQ)HEUXDU\WK±6HSWHPEHUWK'XULQJWKHQHVWLQJVHDVRQWKHEULGJHVWUXFWXUHPXVWEHPDLQWDLQHGHLWKHUWKURXJKXVHRIH[FOXVLRQGHYLFHVDQGRUWKHDFWLYHUHPRYDORISDUWLDOO\FRQVWUXFWHGQHVWV$IWHUDQHVWLVFRPSOHWHGLWFDQQRORQJHUEHUHPRYHGXQWLOQHVWLQJVHDVRQLVRYHU,IDFWLYHDQGRFFXSLHGQHVWVDUHGLVFRYHUHGGLVUXSWLYHZRUNLQSUR[LPLW\WRWKHDFWLYHQHVWZLOOVWRS'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBBThreatened or Endangered Species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acket Pg 456 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±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acket Pg 466 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO0HDVXUH%,27KHQXPEHURIDFFHVVURXWHVVL]HRIVWDJLQJDUHDVDQGWKHWRWDODUHDRIWKHDFWLYLW\ZLOOEHOLPLWHGWRWKHPLQLPXPQHFHVVDU\WRDFKLHYHWKHSURMHFWJRDOV(6$IHQFLQJZLOOEHGHOLQHDWHGWRFRQILQHDFFHVVURXWHVDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQDUHDVWRWKHPLQLPXPDUHDQHFHVVDU\WRFRPSOHWHFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGPLQLPL]HWKHLPSDFWWRKDELWDWIRUWKH&5/)WKLVJRDOLQFOXGHVORFDWLQJDFFHVVURXWHVDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQDUHDVRXWVLGHRIDTXDWLFKDELWDWDQGULSDULDQDUHDVWRWKHPD[LPXP H[WHQWSUDFWLFDEOH'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB0HDVXUH%,27RFRQWUROVHGLPHQWDWLRQGXULQJDQGDIWHUSURMHFWLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ &DOWUDQVZLOOLPSOHPHQW%03V RXWOLQHGLQDQ\DXWKRUL]DWLRQVRUSHUPLWVLVVXHGXQGHUWKHDXWKRULWLHVRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FWWKDWLWUHFHLYHVIRUWKHVSHFLILFSURMHFW,I%03¶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ana catesbeianaFUD\ILVKPacifasticus leniusculus; Procambarus clarkiaDQGFHQWUDUFKLGILVKHVIURPWKHSURMHFWDUHDWRWKHPD[LPXPH[WHQWSRVVLEOH 7KHELRORJLVWZLOOEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUHQVXULQJKLVRUKHUDFWLYLWLHVDUHLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD)LVKDQG*DPH&RGH'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBBPacket Pg 476 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±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±1RYHPEHUZRUNZLQGRZ'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB0HDVXUH%,23URMHFWDFWLYLWLHVWKDWPD\DIIHFWWKHIORZRIWKHFUHHNWKURXJKSODFHPHQWRIILOOEULGJHFRQVWUXFWLRQRUGLYHUVLRQRIWKHFKDQQHOPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH2001 NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream CrossingZKHUHDSSOLFDEOH7KHJXLGHOLQHVLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWRx$ PLQLPXP ZDWHU GHSWK LQFK IRU DGXOWV DQG LQFK IRUMXYHQLOHVDWWKHORZILVKSDVVDJHx$PD[LPXPK\GUDXOLFGURSRILQFKIRUDGXOWVDQGLQFKIRUMXYHQLOHVx$YRLGDQFHRIDEUXSWFKDQJHVLQZDWHUVXUIDFHDQGYHORFLWLHVDQGx6WUXFWXUHV PXVW EH DOLJQHG ZLWK WKH VWUHDP ZLWK QR DEUXSWFKDQJHV LQ IORZ GLUHFWLRQ XSVWUHDP RU GRZQVWUHDP RI WKHFURVVLQJ'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB0HDVXUH%,2,QFKDQQHOFRQVWUXFWLRQZLOOQRWEHFRQGXFWHGDWQLJKWWRDIIRUGILVKTXLHWPLJUDWRU\KRXUV'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBBPacket Pg 486 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO0HDVXUH%,23LOHGULYLQJDFWLYLWLHVPXVWFRLQFLGHZLWKWKHOHDVWOLNHO\RFFXUUHQFHRIXSVWUHDPPLJUDWLQJDGXOWVRUGRZQVWUHDPMXYHQLOHPLJUDWLRQ-XQH1RYHPEHU7KHVPDOOHVWSLOHGULYHUDQGPLQLPXPIRUFHQHFHVVDU\ZLOOEHXVHGWRFRPSOHWHZRUNZLWKLQGLYHUWHGDUHDV'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB0HDVXUH%,2$OOZDWHUSXPSLQJRUZLWKGUDZDOIURPWKHFUHHNPXVWFRPSO\ ZLWK 10)6Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous SalmonidsZKHUHDSSOLFDEOHWRDYRLGHQWUDLQPHQWRIILVK7KHFULWHULDLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHIROORZLQJx6FUHHQGHVLJQPXVWSURYLGHIRUXQLIRUPIORZGLVWULEXWLRQRYHUWKHVXUIDFHRIWKHVFUHHQx6FUHHQPDWHULDORSHQLQJVPXVWQRWH[FHHGLQFKHVIRUIU\ILVKFDSDEOHRIIHHGLQJWKHPVHOYHVVL]HGVDOPRQLGVDQGPXVWQRWH[FHHGLQFKIRUILQJHUOLQJVL]HGVDOPRQLGVx:KHUHSK\VLFDOO\SUDFWLFDOWKHVFUHHQPXVWEHFRQVWUXFWHGDWWKHGHZDWHULQJ V\VWHP HQWUDQFH 7KH VFUHHQ IDFH VKRXOG EHJHQHUDOO\SDUDOOHOWRULYHUIORZDQGDOLJQHGZLWKWKHDGMDFHQWEDQNOLQHDQGx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acket Pg 496 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFHV0HDVXUH&8/3ULRUWRWKHVWDUWRIDQ\ZRUNWKDWFRXOGDGYHUVHO\DIIHFWDQ\FKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWTXDOLI\WKH0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH%ULGJH1R&DVDKLVWRULFSURSHUW\WKH&LW\VKDOOHQVXUHWKDW WKHUHFRUGDWLRQPHDVXUHVVSHFLILHGEHORZDUHFRPSOHWHG7KH&LW\VKDOOWDNHODUJHIRUPDW´[´RUODUJHUQHJDWLYHVL]HSKRWRJUDSKVVKRZLQJWKH%ULGJH&LQFRQWH[WDVZHOODV GHWDLOV RI LWV KLVWRULF GHVLJQ DQG HQJLQHHULQJ IHDWXUHV3KRWRJUDSKV VKDOO EH SURFHVVHG IRU DUFKLYDO SHUPDQHQFH LQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH +LVWRULF $PHULFDQ (QJLQHHULQJ 5HFRUG+$(5 SKRWRJUDSKLF VSHFLILFDWLRQV 9LHZV RI %ULGJH &VKDOOLQFOXGHD&RQWH[WXDOYLHZVVKRZLQJ%ULGJH1R&E(OHYDWLRQYLHZVF9LHZVRIWKHEULGJH¶VDSSURDFKHVDQGDEXWPHQWVG'HWDLO YLHZV RI VLJQLILFDQW HQJLQHHULQJ DQG GHVLJQHOHPHQWV7KH&LW\VKDOOPDNHDUHDVRQDEOHDQGJRRGIDLWKHIIRUWWRORFDWHKLVWRULFFRQVWUXFWLRQGUDZLQJVIRU%ULGJH&,IWKHVHGUDZLQJVDUHORFDWHGWKH&LW\VKDOOSKRWRJUDSKLFDOO\UHSURGXFHSODQVHOHYDWLRQVDQGVHOHFWHGGHWDLOVIURPWKHVHGUDZLQJVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK+$(5SKRWRJUDSKLFVSHFLILFDWLRQV,IWKH\DUHOHJLEOH LQ WKLV IRUPDW UHGXFHG VL]H ´ [ ´ FRSLHV RIFRQVWUXFWLRQGUDZLQJVPD\EHLQFOXGHGDVSDJHVRIWKHUHSRUWFLWHG LQ 6XEVHFWLRQ RI WKLV VWLSXODWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQSKRWRJUDSKHGDQGLQFOXGHGDVSKRWRJUDSKLFGRFXPHQWDWLRQ7KH&LW\ VKDOO SURPSWO\ QRWLI\ &DOWUDQV LI KLVWRULF FRQVWUXFWLRQGUDZLQJVIRU%ULGJH&FDQQRWEHORFDWHG,QWKDWHYHQWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKLVSDUDJUDSKVKDOOQRWDSSO\3ULRUWR&RQVWUXFWLRQ6DQ/XLV2ELVSR BBBBBBPacket Pg 506 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO7KH&LW\VKDOOFRPSOHWHDZULWWHQKLVWRULFDODQGGHVFULSWLYHGDWDUHSRUWIRU%ULGJH&7KLVUHSRUWZLOOSURYLGHDSK\VLFDOGHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH EULGJH GLVFXVV LWV FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG LWVVLJQLILFDQFH XQGHU DSSOLFDEOH 15+3 FULWHULD DQG DGGUHVV WKHKLVWRULFDOFRQWH[WIRULWVFRQVWUXFWLRQIROORZLQJWKHIRUPDWDQGLQVWUXFWLRQV LQ WKH 1DWLRQDO 3DUN 6HUYLFH 136HAER Guidelines for Preparing Written Historical and Descriptive Data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acket Pg 516 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO+D]DUGRXV:DVWHRU0DWHULDOV0HDVXUH+$=$QDVEHVWRVDQGOHDGFRQWDLQLQJSDLQWVXUYH\VKRXOGEHSHUIRUPHGRQWKHH[LVWLQJEULGJHVWUXFWXUHSULRUWRGHPROLWLRQ3ULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQ6DQ/XLV2ELVSR BBBBBB0HDVXUH+$=%DVHGRQWKHSUHVHQFHRIHOHYDWHGOHDGFRQFHQWUDWLRQVLQVHGLPHQWVDPSOHVFROOHFWHGIURP6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&UHHNLQDQGZLWKLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKHSURSRVHGH[FDYDWLRQDUHDDQGGRFXPHQWHGIXHOUHOHDVHVDWWKHIRUPHU<RXQJ¶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acket Pg 526 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO0HDVXUH75$),PSOHPHQWDPHGLDQRWLFHFDPSDLJQDQGQRWLI\ORFDOEXVLQHVVHV&LW\VHUYLFHVDQGHPHUJHQF\UHVSRQVHDJHQFLHVRIWKHFORVXUHDQGDQWLFLSDWHGVFKHGXOHRIFRQVWUXFWLRQ3ULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQSUHSDUH'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLPSOHPHQW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB 0HDVXUH75$)$WWKH86IUHHZD\H[LWWR0DUVK6WUHHWSURYLGHDGYDQFHGZDUQLQJRIDURDGFORVXUHDQGGHWRXUDKHDG$GGLWLRQDOO\LQVWDOO³5RDG&ORVHG´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x0LOO6WUHHW6DQWD5RVD6WUHHWx0RQWHUH\6WUHHW2VRV6WUHHWx0RQWHUH\6WUHHW6DQWD5RVD6WUHHWx+LJXHUD6WUHW2VRV6WUHHWx0DUVK6WUHW2VRV6WUHHW'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB 0HDVXUH75$)7HPSRUDULO\SURKLELWSDUNLQJRQHDVWERXQG0LOO6WUHHWDW6DQWD5RVDZLWKLQIHHWRIWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQDQGQRUWKERXQG2VRV6WUHHWDW+LJXHUD6WUHHWDQG0RQWHUH\6WUHHW'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB 0HDVXUH75$)0RGLI\SDYHPHQWVWULSLQJDWQRUWKERXQG2VRV6WUHHWDW0RQWHUH\6WUHHWDVZHOODV0DUVK6WUHHWDQG2VRV6WUHHWDVSURYLGHGLQWKH7UDIILF0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB Packet Pg 536 0DUVK6WUHHW%ULGJH5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW±(QYLURQPHQWDO&RPPLWPHQW5HFRUG 3DJH7DVNDQG%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ7LPLQJ5HVSRQVLEOH3DUW\&RPSOHWHG ,QLWLDOV1RWHVRSWLRQDO0HDVXUH75$)0RQLWRUGDLO\WUDIILFYROXPHVRI%XFKRQ6WUHHWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHDFWLYH1HLJKERUKRRG7UDIILF0DQDJHPHQW3URJUDP$VQHHGHGLPSOHPHQWDGGLWLRQDOGHWRXUVLJQDJHWRGLUHFWWUDIILFDZD\IURPWKHQHLJKERUKRRG'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB 8WLOLWLHV(PHUJHQF\6HUYLFHV0HDVXUH87/(67RPLQLPL]HLQWHUUXSWLRQVRIVHUYLFHWRXWLOLW\FXVWRPHUVDVHULHVRIFRRUGLQDWLRQOHWWHUVVKDOOEHVHQWWRDOOLPSDFWHGXWLOLW\FRPSDQLHVWRLGHQWLI\XWLOLWLHVZLWKLQWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW/HWWHUVZLOOLQGLFDWHZKHUHXWLOLW\UHORFDWLRQVDUHWREHSHUIRUPHGDQGWKHUHTXLUHGWLPHWRUHORFDWHWKHP'HVLJQSODQVZLOOEHVHQWWRLQYROYHGXWLOLW\RZQHUVGXULQJWKHSURMHFWGHYHORSPHQWSKDVH0HHWLQJVZLOOEHDUUDQJHGZLWKXWLOLW\FRPSDQLHVDVQHFHVVDU\WRGLVFXVVLPSDFWVDQGUHORFDWLRQSODQV3ULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQSUHSDUH'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLPSOHPHQW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB 0HDVXUH87/(6$7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW3ODQVKDOOEHSUHSDUHG,WZLOOHQVXUHWKDWWKHUHLVDSSURSULDWHO\GHVLJQHGGHWRXUURXWHVIRUHPHUJHQF\VHUYLFHVRQWRDOOURDGVLQYROYHGLQWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW7KHSODQZLOOEHSURYLGHGWRHPHUJHQF\SXEOLFVHUYLFHVLQFOXGLQJILUHSROLFHDQGKRVSLWDOIDFLOLWLHV3ULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQSUHSDUH'XULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLPSOHPHQW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR5HVLGHQW(QJLQHHU BBBBBB 0HDVXUH87/(6(PHUJHQF\SXEOLFVHUYLFHVORFDOODZHQIRUFHPHQWDJHQFLHVDQGORFDOEXVLQHVVHVZLOOEHQRWLILHGRIWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWWKHSODQQHGFORVXUHRI0DUVK6WUHHWGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ7KLVQRWLFHVKDOORFFXUDWOHDVWRQHPRQWKEHIRUHFRQVWUXFWLRQEHJLQV3ULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQ6DQ/XLV2ELVSR BBBBBB Packet Pg 546 Packet Pg 55 6 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 56 6 Meeting Date: 5/2/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager SUBJECT: HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUEST TO REASSIGN LEASE FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1090 AND 1092 ORCUTT ROAD, AND 1105 LAUREL LANE RECOMMENDATION Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a reassignment of the Lease Agreement for City owned property located on Orcutt Road from the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to SLO 55 Limited Partnership. DISCUSSION Background On April 29, 1991 the City executed a fifty-five year lease with the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to construct and operate rental housing, affordable to low income seniors and the disabled residents, on City owned property located at 1090 and 1092 Orcutt Road, and 1105 Laurel Lane. The City in turn, agreed to provide the property for $1 per year. The Housing Authority then requested to assign their interest in the original Lease Agreement to their affiliate, the San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation. The lease was transferred on December 1, 1992; the Housing Authority then applied for, and successfully received, $1.2 million in low income housing tax credits to finance the project. In 1994, the Housing Authority completed Marvin’s Gardens (now known as Laurel Creek Apartments), a twenty-four unit housing development dedicated to low-income residents. Shortly after completion, the Housing Authority finalized financing arrangements and reassigned the lease for the property from the San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation to Laurel Creek Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. This lease transfer was necessary so the Housing Authority (via San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation) could collect the $1.2 million in tax credits and secure the mortgage. On February 16, 2016, the Council approved the reassignment from Laurel Creek Apartments, LP back to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (Attachment B). That lease reassignment allowed the Housing Authority to be successful in obtaining low-income housing tax credits to acquire and rehabilitate Laurel Creek Apartments and gave approval to enter into an amended and restated ground lease with a lease term of 75 years. Lease Reassignment The Housing Authority is now requesting the lease be reassigned from the Housing Authority to Packet Pg 57 7 the newly formed SLO 55, LP, which is managed by the San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Attachment A). This lease reassignment is necessary for SLO 55, LP to control the property, perform the capital improvements, and then operate the property as affordable housing. Staff has reviewed the Housing Authority’s request to assign the lease to SLO 55, LP and concluded that the LP can fulfill the terms and conditions of the existing lease agreement. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the assignment so the Housing Authority and SLO 55 can move forward with the capital improvements and operations of the project. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the lease reassignment will not result in any additional costs to the City. ALTERNATIVES Do not reassign the lease to SLO 55, LP. This option is not recommended as the tax credits awarded to address the substantial capital needs would be forfeited. Attachments: a - Assignment and Assumption of Lease b - Existing Assignment and Assumption of Lease Packet Pg 58 7 Ground Lease Laurel Creek Apartments RECORDING REQUESTED BY: AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Attn: City Clerk ________________________________________________________________________ ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE This Assignment and Assumption of Lease (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of __________________, 2017, by and among the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, a public body, corporate and politic (the “Assignor”), SLO 55, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Assignee”) and the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”), with reference to the following facts: A. Assignor, as “Lessee” and the City, as “Lessor”, entered into that certain Lease Agreement (Agreement A-24-91-CC) for that certain real property situated at 1090 and 1092 Orcutt Road and 1105 Laurel Lane, City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, California, dated as of April 29, 1991, between the Assignor and City, a memorandum of which lease was recorded in the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County, California (the “Official Records”) on September 17, 1993 as Instrument No. 1993-056148 (the “Original Lease”). Assignor’s interest in the Original Lease was assigned to SLO Nonprofit Housing Corporation (“SLO”) pursuant to an assignment agreement recorded in the Official Records on November 8, 1993, as Instrument No. 1993-069666. SLO’s interest in the Original Lease was subsequently assigned to Laurel Creek Apartments, a California Limited Partnership (“Laurel”) pursuant to an assignment agreement recorded in the Official Records on October 20, 1994, as Instrument No. 1994-061783. B. Laurel’s interest in the Original Lease was thereafter assigned to Assignor pursuant to an assignment agreement recorded in the Official Records on April 4, 2017, as Instrument No. 2017015714. C. On April 4, 2017, Assignor and the City entered into an Amended and Restated Ground Lease (the “Lease”) which Lease superseded the terms of the Original Lease. D. The Assignor desires to assign to the Assignee and the Assignee desires to accept the assignment from Assignor of all of Assignor's obligations with respect to the Lease. E The consent of the City to the assignment of Assignor's rights and obligations under the Lease is required. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, of the mutual promises of the parties hereto and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties mutually agree as follows: Packet Pg 59 7 Ground Lease Laurel Creek Apartments 1. Assignment by Assignor. Assignor hereby assigns to the Assignee all of Assignor's rights, title and interest under the Lease. 2. Acceptance of Assignment. The Assignee hereby accepts the above assignment and hereby assumes, agrees and undertakes to perform all of the obligations, covenants, and agreements of Assignor under the Lease. Any reference to Assignor in the Lease shall be deemed a reference to the Assignee. 3. Payment of Obligations. The Assignee agrees that all amounts due from Assignor pursuant to the Lease from the date hereof shall be assumed by the Assignee. 4. Consent to Assignment. The City hereby consents to the assignment of the Lease from Assignor to the Assignee and hereby releases Assignor from all obligations imposed under the Lease. 5. Representations of Assignor. Assignor hereby represents and warrants that (i) it has not previously assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred any of its rights under the Lease, (ii) no event of default, or event that with notice or the passage of time or both could constitute an event of default under the Lease, has occurred that remains uncured as of the date of this Agreement, and (iii) Assignor has obtained all authorizations and approvals required by law, under its organizational documents and under the Lease to assign its rights and obligations under the Lease to the Assignee. 6. Representations of the Assignee. The Assignee hereby represents and warrants that (i) the Assignee has obtained all authorizations and approvals required by law, under its organizational documents and under the Lease to assume all of Assignor’s rights and obligations under the Lease, and (ii) that the Assignee has the financial ability and development experience to carry out the intent of the Lease and to own and operate the Project in compliance with all of the requirements of the Lease. 7. Effective Date. The assignment set forth above shall be effective as of the date of this Agreement. 8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed by different parties hereto in counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures to each counterpart were upon a single instrument. All counterparts shall be deemed an original of this Agreement. 9. Additional Documents. Assignor and the Assignee agree to execute such documents and instruments, including escrow instructions, as may be necessary to effectuate the intent of this Agreement. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Packet Pg 60 7 Ground Lease Laurel Creek Apartments IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Assignor: Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, a public body, corporate and politic By: Scott Smith, Executive Director Assignee: SLO 55, L.P., a California limited partnership By: San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, its managing general partner By: Name: Its: City: City of San Luis Obispo By:________________________________ Katie Lichtig, City Manager ATTEST: By:________________________________ Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk [SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED] Packet Pg 61 7 Ground Lease Laurel Creek Apartments 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. State of California ) County of ____________________) On_____________ before me, _____________________________, Notary Public, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared, _______________________________________________________________________, proved to me 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_____________________________ Packet Pg 62 7 Ground Lease Laurel Creek Apartments EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LEASEHOLD IN AND TO THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN SECTION 1 IN TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE DECEMBER 3, 1875, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF ORCUTT ROAD, 40 FEET WIDE, WITH THE CENTERLINE OR LAUREL LANE, 40 FEET WISE; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID LAUREL LANE NORTH 30°40’ EAST, 303.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 59°20’ EAST, 38.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 59°20’ EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30°40’ WEST, 39.89 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HENRY A. BERNARD, ET UX. RECORDED MAY 22, 1953 IN BOOK 711 PAGE 62 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 82°17’ EAST, 182.52 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND OF BERNARD AS FOLLOWS: FROM A TANGENT LINE BEARING SOUTH 19°56’ WEST, SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 175 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°18’ AN ARC DISTANCE OF 62 FEET; TANGENT TO SAID CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 20 FEET, THROUGH A CENT RAL ANGLE OF 90°, AND ARC DISTANCE OF 31.42 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF ORCUTT ROAD 40 FEET WIDE; THENCE ALONG SAID ORCUTT ROAD NORTH 89°38’ EAST, 90 FEET TO THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE COURSE RECITED AS HAVING A BEARING AND LENGTH OF SOUTH 89°38’ WEST, 197.00 FEET IN THE DEED TO CHARLES E. FREEMAN AND WIFE RECORDED MAY 1,1957 IN BOOK 890, RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO FREEMAN AS FOLLOWS: NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE 90°, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 31.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31°, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 67.63 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 175 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31°, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 67.63 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY IN A DIRECT LINE TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 7 IN BLOCK A OF TRACT NO. 208, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 49 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK A NORTH 59°20’ WEST, 312.70 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 43 IN SAID BLOCK A; THENCE SOUTH 30°40’ WEST, 90.69 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 004-961-047 Packet Pg 63 7 Packet Pg 64 7 Packet Pg 65 7 Packet Pg 66 7 Packet Pg 67 7 Packet Pg 68 7 Meeting Date: 5/2/2017 Current Water Meter Inventory Meter Size in inches Number of Meters 5/8* 6,298 3/4 4,469 1 3,488 1-1/2 409 2 368 Total water meters 5/8-2 inch 15,032 3 inch and above 104 *These meters are being replaced with 3/4 and 1- inch meters for increased fire flow capacity to meet current Engineering Standards. FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Public Utilities Director Prepared By: Marcus Henderson, Water Distribution Supervisor SUBJECT: WATER METER STANDARD AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SPECIFICATION NO. 91456 RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a City standard for water meters sized 3/4 inch, 1 inch, 1 1/2 inch, and 2 inch. 2. Approve a Request for Proposal under Specification No. 91456 for annual purchase of water meters. 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract for water meter purchases not to exceed the annually budgeted amount as approved by Council. DISCUSSION Overview Engineering Standards are central to a uniform design and functionality of City infrastructure. While many pieces of equipment have been standardized throughout the Utilities Department, water meters have not. This report serves to underscore the need for standardizing water meters, details the selection process, and covers the requirements for sole source purchasing. Background The City is responsible for the maintenance and replacement of over 15,000 water meters and installation of new water meters as required for new development. The City relies on water meters to accurately measure the amount of water consumed to correctly bill water users and as a tool to estimate water losses in the system. Wastewater charges are also tied to water consumption measured by the water meter. Meter Standardization The City utilizes the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards for its water distribution system operation. When responding to Request for Proposals, manufacturers must comply with these standards where applicable, in order to submit a proposal. Packet Pg 69 8 Modern Meters Water loss in a distribution system, also known as “unaccounted for water ,” is the difference in the amount of water that leaves the Water Treatment Plant and the total amount captured by all water meter reads. Although industry-wide meter accuracy has been identified as a potential cause of apparent water loss, the lack of significant data on meter accuracy at low flow rates has caused the amount of water that is unaccounted for to be largely ignored. The May 2010 AWWA Journal addresses the accuracy of various meter types at low flows as follows: “It is generally understood that meter accuracy at low flow rates tends to decrease rapidly. Because energy transfer from the water to the meter’s sensing element is small at lower flows, any increase in friction can cause slowing or even the complete stop of a meter’s registration. The volume of water used at these very low flow rates is larger than many water providers realize. In fact, approximately 16% of all domestic water consumption occurs at flow rates < 1 Gallon Per Minute…the increased revenue and ability to account for water supplies make the low-flow accuracy of residential water meters an essential factor in selecting a water meter.” The June 2016 AWWA Journal further addresses this: “With rapid advances being made in metering technology, understanding how technologically advanced meters perform is important to those making decisions about which technology to use in their systems. As accurate water measurement has become a significant focus of this limited resource, advances have been made to improve mechanical meters and to develop electronic meters to increase measurement accuracy at low flows.” Given the information contained in these reports and others, a water meter’s ability to accurately monitor low flows is a priority in meter selection. The ability for the water meter to be compatible with remote meter reading technology is another consideration in selection. The City has no immediate plans for a conversion to any type of automatic meter reading system; however, selection of an asset as significant as water meters must be made with a view to future shifting technologies, business models and best practices. Staff recommends being prepared for the potential for an automatic meter reading system conversion at some future juncture as part of meter selection considerations. Request for Proposal With the 2015-17 Financial Plan, the City Council approved an ongoing capital improvement project to systematically replace the City’s aging water meters. To identify the best meter for the replacement of the inventory, staff recommends releasing a Request for Proposals. This will allow the City to invite vendors in for further investigation of those water meters that meet the City standard, as well as gauge availability and manufacturer reliability. The expectation is that the vendors will showcase their product, allowing the City’s Water Distribution crew to test the Packet Pg 70 8 product with a hands-on approach to the selection process. Sole Source With the release of a Request for Proposal the City will be able to select the appropriate water meter to uniformly meet the needs of the Water Distribution System. Water meter manufacturers are represented in North America by various regional vendors. Upon selection of the water meter and vendor and execution of a purchase contract, the intent will then be for the water meter specifications to be wrapped into the City’s Engineering Standards. The uniformity of water meters has numerous benefits which justify a sole source purchasing plan in the future. Most significantly, having a uniform type of water meter will allow for greater familiarity when performing maintenance and/or repairs which will promote greater efficiencies and lower costs associated with purchasing and stocking parts from several different manufacturers. This will in turn provide greater customer service and better overall maintenance of this component of the water distribution system. Once approved for addition to the Engineering Standards, new meter installations will be performed by contractors during new development of sites along with the adjoining infrastructure, to be inspected per Public Works Engineering Department guidelines. The City will purchase sufficient stock of these water meters and provide them to contractors, as requested, at the City’s cost. This will shift the responsibility of initial installation to the development and resolves any delay in installation that may now be experienced due to purchasing, staffing, and scheduling constraints. It will also allow staff additional time to spend in replacement of aging infrastructure rather than in new installation. Adopting a water meter standard will allow the City to purchase sufficient stock to facilitate the goals of the previously approved Water Meter Replacement Capital Improvement Plan as well as meet the needs of development within the City. It should also provide cost savings through economies of scale as purchasing in large quantities from a single vendor should result in reduced pricing. Once the vendor is selected through the RFP process, this request meets the requirements of a sole source purchase per Municipal Code 3.24.060.D. FISCAL IMPACT City Council approved the funding for the replacement of water meters with the 2015-17 Financial Plan – Capital Improvement Plan page 3-45. The project allocates $165,000 annually to the replacement effort. Council approved $29,700 in the 2015-17 Financial Plan for purchase of water meters related to new development, to be reimbursed per existing fee schedules. ALTERNATIVES The City Council could decide against a water meter standard and the release of a Request for Packet Pg 71 8 Proposals. This strategy would not allow for a systematic approach to the replacement of the inventory and would keep a variety of meter types in the system. Attachments: a - Water Meter RFP - Spec #91456 b - Water Meter Standardization c - Distribution System Improvements CIP Packet Pg 72 8 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Notice Requesting Proposals for Water Distribution System Cold Water Meters The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for cold water meters pursuant to Specification No. 91456. All proposals must be received by the Finance Division by 5:00 pm Thursday June 1, 2017 when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Division in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting Marcus Henderson- Water Distribution Supervisor at (805) 781-7035. City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710 Packet Pg 73 8 Specification No. 91456 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Description of Work 1 B. General Terms and Conditions 3 Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions 6 Contract Term Estimated Quantities Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Unrestrictive Brand Names Start and Completion of Work Accuracy of Specifications D. Agreement 9 E. Insurance Requirements 11 F. Proposal Submittal Forms 12 Proposal Submittal Summary References Packet Pg 74 8 -1- Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department is responsible for the maintenance and replacement of over 15,000 cold water meters. The Department relies on water meters to accurately measure the amount of water consumed in order to correctly bill its customers. With the current rates structure, wastewater charges are also directly tied to water consumption measured by the water meter. Accuracy of the meter instills confidence in the rate payer that water and sewer usage will be billed as accurately as possible and it provides the Utilities Department with detailed water consumption and billing data for its ongoing operation. Current Cold Water meter inventory Meter Size Number of Meters Meter Size Number of Meters 5/8”* 6,298 2” 368 3/4” 4,469 3” and above 104 1” 3,488 1 1/2” 409 * these meters are being replaced with ¾” and 1” meters. The adoption of a purchasing contract will ensure the City’s cold water meter infrastructure is reliable, efficient, and accurate. Through this process the City will be able to select the appropriate water meter to meet the needs of the majority of the Water Distribution System. Upon selection of the water meter and vendor and execution of a purchase contract the intent will then be for the water meter specifications to be approved for addition to the City’s Engineering Standards. This will streamline the purchasing, replacement, and installation process and will serve to unify the distribution system away from the multiple manufacturer, type, and technology model that has previously been utilized. The current approved budget for these programs is $165,000 annually for replacement and $29,700 for new installations. The City is requesting proposals including hands-on demonstrations for the purchase of water distribution system cold water meters, which shall include the following features. These criteria apply to 3/4”, 1”, 1 1/2’ and 2” meters: 1. All Water Meters Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be manufactured by a reliable, established company b. Be manufactured in the U.S.A. c. Be made of an alloy, stainless steel, or composite material d. Comply with AWWA C700 Standard Specifications for cold water meters where applicable e. Be certified to the National Conference on Weights and Measures regulation standards f. Comply with NSF/ANSI Standard 61 where applicable g. Be accurate to +/- 1.5% of manufacturer’s normal flow range h. Be provided by manufacturer with company reliability assessment i. Be provided with a manufacturer’s warranty against material and workmanship defects of no less than 20 years j. Be AMI/AMR/AMA compatible 2. All Water Meter Maincases Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be clearly marked with manufacture’s trade name, nominal size and direction of flow Packet Pg 75 8 -2- b. Be stamped with a serial number between the inlet or outlet port of the maincase c. Be guaranteed free from manufacturing defects d. Be equipped with maincase bolts that shall be non-magnetic stainless steel to prevent corrosion e. Be sized where 3/4” meters will be 7 1/2” in length f. Be sized where 1” meters will be 10 3/4” in length g. Be sized where 1 1/2” meters will be 13” in length h. Be sized where 2” meters will be 17” in length 3. All Water Meter Registers Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Have the manufacturer’s trade name and a serial number permanently stamped on the register box b. Be equipped with a permanently sealed register or encoder c. Measure in Cubic Feet to a minimum of two decimal places d. Have a lens positioned above the register box to allow for runoff e. Have an easy to read display 4. All Water Meter Connections Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be equipped with meter threads made of an alloy, composite, or stainless steel material b. Be equipped with the coupling nut and spud thread type connection for 3/4” and 1” meter sizes c. Be equipped with the elliptical flange joint type connection for 1 1/2” and 2” meter sizes 5. All Water Meter Deliveries Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be delivered to the City Corporation Yard at 25 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, CA b. Be readily available with a lead time of no more than 4 weeks c. Be available at a competitive market cost Packet Pg 76 8 -3- Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of proposer, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted. 3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing: a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating. b. Scope of coverage and limits. c. Deductibles and self-insured retention. The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer’s insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E. 4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any proposer for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the proposer's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price. 5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. 6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals. 7. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City. Packet Pg 77 8 -4- 8. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. 10. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications. 12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution. Packet Pg 78 8 -5- Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information: Submittal Forms a. Proposal submittal summary. b. Certificate of insurance. c. References d. Company reliability assessment. Qualifications e. Experience of your firm in performing similar services. f. Meter specification sheet. g. Availability of supply. h. Warranty Information. i. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. Compensation j. Proposed per unit and large quantity pricing. Proposal Length and Copies k. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. l. Five copies of the proposal must be submitted. 2. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee based on the following criteria: a. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. b. Demonstrated ability to fulfill requirements of specifications sheet. c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully providing the inventory required by the City. d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Proposed approach to fulfilling orders. f. References. g. Proposed compensation. h. Hands on demonstration of equipment. As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation. Packet Pg 79 8 -6- 3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: a. Issue RFP 5/3 b. Receive proposals 6/1 c. Complete proposal evaluation 6/14 d. Conduct finalist interviews/ Hands-on demonstration 6/20 e. Finalize staff recommendation 6/23 f. Award contract 6/27 g. Execute contract 7/6 4. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 5. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 6. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted. 7. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Proposers are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal. To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal. In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor Packet Pg 80 8 -7- shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcon tractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute. Packet Pg 81 8 -8- Section D FORM OF AGREEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for Water Distribution System Cold Water Meters per Specification No. 91456 WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said cold water meters]. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said water distribution system cold water meters. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91456 and Contractor's proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the City’s specification and this Agreement and the Contractor’s proposal, the terms of the City’s specification and this Agreement shall prevail, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing water distribution system cold water meters as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor payments based upon the actual quantities ordered and received by City and the unit prices bid by Contractor. 4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council of the City. Packet Pg 82 8 -9- 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contractor Name Address 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ________________________________ By:_____________________________________ City Clerk City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR ________________________________ By: _____________________________________ City Attorney Packet Pg 83 8 -10- Section E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Supply and Equipment Contracts The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the products and materials supplied to the City. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the Contractor. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001). Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability policy is to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: products and completed operations of the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 2. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage. The Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. Packet Pg 84 8 -11- PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91456, which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full: Description Quantity Unit Price Total ¾” cold water meter 1” cold water meter 1 ½” cold water meter 2” cold water meter TOTAL BASE PRICE Sales tax @ 8.25% Other (provide detail below) TOTAL $ Delivery of equipment to the City to be within __21_____ calendar days after contract execution and written authorization to proceed.  Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________. Firm Name and Address Contact Phone Signature of Authorized Representative Date Packet Pg 85 8 -12- REFERENCES Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: . Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications. Reference No. 1 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 2 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 3 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Packet Pg 86 8 -13- STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.  Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes  No   If yes, explain the circumstances. Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. ______________________________________ Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative Packet Pg 87 8 PROPOSERS LIST WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM COLD WATER METERS—SPECIFICATION NO. 91456 National Meter and Automation, Inc. P.O. Box 8339 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Ph. 707-575-0700 Fx. 707-575-3786 Aqua Metric 4050 Flat Rock Drive Riverside, CA 92505 Ph. 951-637-1400 Fx. 951-637-1500 Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. 8732 Fruitridge Road Sacramento, CA 95826 Ph. 916-388-7125 Fx. 916-381-7445  NOTE: Not to be included with Proposer's Package when mailed or handed out. This should be included and referenced as an attachment to the Council Agenda Report. Packet Pg 88 8 Water Meter Standard These criteria apply to 3/4 inch, 1 inch, 1 1/2 inch, and 2 inch meters. All meters 3 inch and larger must be approved on a case by case basis as appropriate for the application. 1. All Water Meters Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be manufactured by a reliable, established company b. Be manufactured in the U.S.A. c. Be made of an alloy, stainless steel, or composite material d. Comply with AWWA C700 Standard Specifications for cold water meters where applicable e. Be certified to the National Conference on Weights and Measures regulation standards f. Comply with NSF/ANSI Standard 61 where applicable g. Be accurate to +/- 1.5% of manufacturer’s normal flow range h. Be provided by manufacturer with company reliability assessment i. Be provided with a manufacturer’s warranty against material and workmanship defects of no less than 20 years j. Be AMI/AMR/AMA compatible 2. All Water Meter Maincases Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be clearly marked with manufacture’s trade name, nominal size and direction of flow b. Be stamped with a serial number between the inlet or outlet port of the maincase c. Be guaranteed free from manufacturing defects d. Be equipped with maincase bolts that shall be non-magnetic stainless steel to prevent corrosion e. Be sized where ¾” meters will be 7 1/2” in length f. Be sized where 1” meters will be 10 3/4” in length g. Be sized where 1 1/2” meters will be 13” in length h. Be sized where 2” meters will be 17” in length 3. All Water Meter Registers Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Have the manufacturer’s trade name and a serial number permanently stamped on the register box b. Be equipped with a permanently sealed register or encoder c. Measure in Cubic Feet to a minimum of two decimal places Packet Pg 89 8 d. Have a lens positioned above the register box to allow for runoff e. Have an easy to read display 4. All Water Meter Connections Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be equipped with meter threads made of an alloy, composite, or stainless steel material b. Be equipped with the coupling nut and spud thread type connection for ¾” and 1” meter sizes c. Be equipped with the elliptical flange joint type connection for 1 ½” and 2” meter sizes 5. All Water Meter Deliveries Must Meet the Following Requirements: a. Be delivered to the City Corporation Yard at 25 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, CA b. Be readily available with a lead time of no more than 4 weeks c. Be available at a competitive market cost Packet Pg 90 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Project Description Replacement of water distribution pipes, mainlines, water meters, fire hydrants, and related infrastructure is an ongoing program for appropriate water distribution and fire protection. The City has identified opportunities to consolidate water distribution zones to simplify operations, reduce pumping needs, and eliminate pump stations that would otherwise require replacement. Related construction projects will cost $2,300,000 in 2015- 16, $2,945,000 in 2016-17 and $8,794,000 for years three through five combined including the cost of design and construction management services. Maintenance and replacement projects for water meter and fire hydrant infrastructure are done throughout the year and are an ongoing effort. Funding for the replacement of water meters, water meter boxes, and fire hydrants will cost $190,000 in years 2015-16 and 2016-17, and $610,000 for years three through five.  Maintenance/Replacement  New project  Fleet Replacement  New Fleet Request  Council Goal List: Infrastructure Maintenance Need and Urgency The City operates a complex water distribution system that is comprised of sixteen distribution zones, ten potable water storage tanks, two reservoirs, five hydro‐pneumatic tanks, eight pump stations, 21 pressure reducing valves (PRVs) and 184 miles of pipe with diameters ranging in size from four inches to 30 inches. Some City water distribution lines are undersized and deteriorating due to age. The expected useful life of a water pipeline is approximately 50 years, which corresponds with a replacement schedule of approximately two percent of the distribution system each year. Listed projects include replacing undersized mains in areas requiring increased fire flows, replacing aging mains that have experienced multiple failures requiring expensive emergency repairs, and projects to improve distribution system operations. Projects were selected and prioritized to have the greatest impact in reducing disruptions to water service and improving fire flows. Trench repairs and raising valve cover s are routine activities associated with street paving. These projects occur on an as-needed basis, routinely several times per year. Water meters and fire hydrants are a vital component of the City’s water distribution and fire safety system. Their upkeep is an ongoing effort with a portion of the inventory of almost 15,000 meters and 1,867 hydrants being replaced annually. Packet Pg 91 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Readiness to Build  Study complete or  n/a  Equipment purchased or  n/a  Property owned or property agreement in place  n/a  Environmental approval and permits complete or  n/a  Specifications or construction documents complete  n/a  IT Steering Committee review  n/a Environmental Review and Permits Required  Environmental Review  n/a  Building Permit  n/a  Waterway Permits (Fish & Game, Water Quality, Army Corps)  n/a  Railroad  n/a  Other: (Enter the title and agency of any other needed permits)  n/a Operating Program Number and Title: 55160 Water Distribution Water Fund Project Phasing and Funding Sources  Continuing, ongoing or master account project Initial Project Costs by Phase Budget to Date 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Design $250,000 $125,000 $225,000 $135,000 $127,000 $862,000 Construction on-going $1,710,000 $2,405,000 $2,408,000 $2,200,000 $1,420,000 $10,143,000 Construction Management $150,000 $225,000 $225,000 $205,000 $127,000 $932,000 Meter /Hydrant Replacement $190,000 $190,000 $195,000 $205,000 $210,000 $990,000 Total $0 $2,300,000 $2,945,000 $3,053,000 $2,745,000 $1,884,000 $12,927,000 Packet Pg 92 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Detail of ongoing costs and alternatives to ongoing costs including return on investment information: Replacing aging infrast ructure will potentially reduce ongoing maintenance as well as emergency repair costs. Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 years Budget to Date 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Water Fund $2,217,500 $2,862,500 $2,968,000 $2,657,500 $1,794,000 $12,499,500 Sewer Fund $82,500 $82,500 $85,000 $87,500 $90,000 $427,500 Total $0 $2,300,000 $2,945,000 $3,053,000 $2,745,000 $1,884,000 $12,927,000 Project Funding by Source Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives  Reduced project is feasible – Cost of reduced project:  Project can be phased – Number of years for phasing: Project Team Assignment Program Estimated Hours 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 Project Management Utilities Project Manager 800 800 800 800 800 Project Support Utilities, Water, Water Distribution Supervisor and Staff 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Environmental Review Community Development 8 8 8 8 8 Project Proponent Utilities, Water, Water Division Manager 80 80 80 80 80 Packet Pg 93 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Site List Based on the information currently available, projects have been prioritized and are listed in priority order. As additional information becomes available, projects in future years may be re-prioritized. In some cases, unanticipated use of contract design and inspection services may be required due to various reasons, which could increase project costs. This may re sult in the need to shift projects to future budget years to work within established funding levels and maintain priority order. 2015-2016 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost 2015-2016 Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) $150,000 Casa - Murray to Deseret (increase to 12”) Stenner (Murray to end) Chorro (intersection of Chorro/Meinecke and Chorro/Murray) Murray - Santa Rosa to Hathway Pacific – Nipomo to Higuera (increase from 10” to 12”) Boysen - Santa Rosa Street to N. Chorro Street 8 900 $1,560,000 8 580 8 100 8 1,350 4 2,100 1,200 Total: 6,230 Construction Management (contract services) $150,000 Serrano Zone Consolidation (Study and Design Phase) $100,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A $125,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $25,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $165,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $25,000 Total $2,300,000 Packet Pg 94 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 2016-2017 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost 2016-2017 Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) $125,000 Mountain View - Hill Street to Broad Street (increase from 6” to 8”) Hill Street - Lincoln Street to 525 Hill Street (increase from 4” to 8”) West Street – Chorro Street to Lincoln Street (increase from 6” to 8”) Lincoln - Chorro to West (increase from 4” to 8”) 212 San Miguel to Santa Ynez San Miguel - Santa Ynez to Buena Vista Buena Vista - McCollum to 392 Buena Vista (increase from 4” to 8”) Higuera – Toro to Johnson 7 360 $1,255,000 7 220 7 730 7 1,520 8 640 8 620 8 450 4 480 Total: 5,020 Construction Management (contract services) $125,000 Serrano Zone Consolidation (Construction, Phase 1) Construction Management (contract services) 7 3,800 $1,000,000 $100,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A $125,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $25,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $165,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $25,000 Total $2,945,000 Packet Pg 95 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 2017-2018 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost 2017-2018 Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) $125,000 Chorro Street – Broad Street to Upham Street El Paseo – Flora to El Cerrito (increase from 8” to 10”) El Cerrito – El Paseo to end Wilding - Iris - Sierra - Boulevard Del Campo - 4 1,000 $1,258,000 1 290 1 670 1 600 1 320 2 1,500 2 650 Total: 5,030 Construction Management (contract services) $125,000 Serrano Zone Consolidation (Construction, Phase 2) Construction Management (contract services) 7 3,800 $1,000,000 $100,000 Ferrini Zone Consolidation (Design Phase) 7,8 $100,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A $125,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $25,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $170,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $25,000 Total $3,053,000 Packet Pg 96 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 2018-2019 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost 2018-2019 Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) $135,000 Craig (increase from 6” to 12”) Craig – Patricia to Jeffrey (increase from 4” to 8”) Christina – Warren to Craig (increase from 4” to 8”) Jaycee (8”) Westmont – Jeffrey to Stanford La Canada – Tolosa to Cerro Romauldo (inc. from 4” and 6” to 8”) Cerro Romauldo – Patricia to Los Cerros 7 260 $1,350,000 7 750 7 600 7 1,350 8 500 7 850 7 1,080 Total: 5,390 Construction Management (contract services) $135,000 Ferrini Zone Consolidation (Construction Phase) Highland – Hwy. 1 to Patricia (increase from 6” and 8” to 12”) Construction Management (contract services) 2,800 $700,000 $70,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A $125,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $25,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $175,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $30,000 Total $2,745,000 Packet Pg 97 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 2019-2020 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost 2019-2020 Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) $127,000 Patricia – Cerro Romauldo to Highland 7 1,130 Patricia – Highland to Fel Mar 7 270 Highland – Fel Mar to 113 Highland 8 280 La Entrada – Hermosa to San Jose 7 880 La Entrada – San Jose to Foothill 7 1,420 La Entrada – Catalina to Foothill 7 1,100 Total: 5,080 1,270,000 Construction Management (contract services) $127,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A 125,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $25,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $180,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $30,000 Total $1,884,000 Packet Pg 98 8 Meeting Date: 5/2/2017 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 A TAX-EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATION TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION OF 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 3680 BROAD 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; and 2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) allowing the issuance of a tax-exempt loan by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo to finance construction of 46 affordable housing units at 3680 Broad Street. DISCUSSION Previous Council Approval On April 19, 2016, the Council held a Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing regarding the issuance of a tax-exempt bond to finance the construction of 46 affordable dwelling units in the City and approved Resolution No. 10707 (Attachment B). The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) then applied and successfully obtained Low Income Housing Tax Credits in the Summer of 2016 to move forward with the project. However, with the recent Federal Administration changes, the value of those tax credits decreased and caused investors across the Country to freeze or cancel investments into affordable housing projects. Due to this, HASLO was forced to postpone construction of Iron Works until the spring of 2017. Since TEFRA hearings expire after one year, HASLO has requested the City Council hold a new TEFRA hearing so they can finally close escrow on or near May 15, 2017, and begin construction. Background & Request for TEFRA Hearing 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 bond to finance the construction of Iron Works Apartments, 46 affordable housing units located at 3680 Broad Street. 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. Packet Pg 99 9 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 the Housing Authority will hold its interest through its related entity San Luis Obispo Non-profit Housing Corporation (SLONP). SLONP will serve as the sole Managing General Partner for Iron Works Apartments. 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. Project Summary 1. Iron Works Apartments 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 46 units: 12 one bedroom units, 19 two bedroom units, and 15 three bedroom units. 2. Estimated total development costs are projected to be $14.9 million. Of this, it is anticipated that roughly $10 million in tax exempt bond financing will be utilized to finance the project development. 3. 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 approving the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds, in order to maintain purchase and rehabilitate the three housing facilities. 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 the Authority 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 other 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 the Project. 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. Packet Pg 100 9 2. And then returning with the results of this evaluation and recommending approval of appropriate financing documents if warranted. Given the Council’s prior approval for this TEFRA hearing in April 2016, and past successful approval to conduit financing to HASLO; staff recommends that the Council find HASLO capable for achieving the public purpose of providing affordable housing financed partially through tax exempt bonds. 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. 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. 2016. 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 Bonds, HASLO can move forward with closing escrow on or near May 15, 2017 Packet Pg 101 9 and begin construction on Iron Works shortly thereafter. There will be no further actions required by the City. 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not approve the issuance of bonds by the Authority. The project has already received a TEFRA approval which has expired, all necessary entitlements, as well as multiple City loan commitments, and will close escrow shortly. 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 to construct the apartments, this option is not recommended. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution b - Resolution No. 10707 (2016 Series) Packet Pg 102 9 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INCURRING OF A TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATION BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF IRON WORKS APARTMENTS 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, Iron Works Apartments, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”) intends to develop Iron Works Apartments, a 46 unit affordable housing project to be located at 3680 Broad 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 approximate amount of $10,000,000, and a loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower; and WHEREAS, a portion of the housing units in the Housing Facility 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 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 Council of the City is the “applicable elected representative” to approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds because the Housing Facility will be 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 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 acquisition, construction and development by the Borrower of the Housing Facility; and 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 Packet Pg 103 9 Resolution No. ______ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ responsibility related to the repayment or administration of the Bonds, and the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the Housing Facility 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 furtheranc e 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. Approval of Issuance of Bonds. 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 Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the above action will not have a significant impact on the environment, as defined by §15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt from environmental review. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 104 9 Resolution No. ______ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 105 9 RESOLUTION NO. 10707 (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INCURRING OF A TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATION BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IRON WORKS APARTMENTS 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 to develop Iron Works Apartments, a 46 unit affordable housing project located at 3680 Broad 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 approximate amount of 10,000,000, and a loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower; and WHEREAS, a portion of the housing units in the Housing Facility 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 Project has been duly given as required by the Code; and R 10707 Packet Pg 106 9 Resolution No. 10707 (2016 Series) Page 2 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 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 Facility 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 significant impact on the environment, as defined by §15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Upon motion of Council Member Christianson seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh, Christianson and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carpenter and Mayor Marx NOES: None ABSENT: None R 10707 Packet Pg 107 9 Resolution No. 10707 (2016 Series) The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of April 2016. cl== O? Mayor an Iarx A TTT7Orr. Interim City Clerk ristine Dietrick t Attorney Page 3 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 ( Lee PiTcU, MMC Interim City Clerk R 10707 Packet Pg 108 9 Meeting Date: 5/2/2017 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 A TAX-EXEMPT BOND TO ACQUIRE AND REHABILITATE 55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1092 ORCUTT ROAD, 1102 IRONBARK, AND 1363 PISMO 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 (Attachment A) allowing the issuance of a tax-exempt loan by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to acquire and rehabilitate Laurel Creek Apartments, Ironbark Apartments, and Pismo Buchon Apartments. DISCUSSION Previous Council Approval On April 19, 2016, the Council held a Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing regarding the issuance of a tax-exempt bond to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of 55 affordable dwelling units (the SLO 55 project) in the City and approved Resolution No. 10706 (Attachment B). The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) then applied and successfully obtained Low Income Housing Tax Credits in the Summer of 2016 to move forward with the project. However, with the recent Federal Administration changes, the value of those tax credits decreased and caused investors across the country to freeze or cancel investments into affordable housing projects. Due to this, HASLO was forced to postpone construction of SLO 55. Since TEFRA hearings expire after one year, HASLO has requested the City Council hold a new TEFRA hearing so they can finally close escrow on May 15, 2017 and move forward with rehabilitation of the 55 affordable dwelling units. Background & Request for TEFRA Hearing 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 loan to acquire and rehabilitate 55 units of affordable housing. The units are located within the Laurel Creek Apartments (1092 Orcutt Road), Ironbark Apartments (1102 Ironbark), and Pismo Buchon Apartments (1363 Pismo). Although there is no financial participation (or liability, direct or indirect) by the City in Packet Pg 109 10 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. HASLO was the original developer for Laurel Creek Apartments, Ironbark Apartments, and Pismo Buchon Apartments. The primary funding source for each of these projects was the low- income housing tax credits awarded by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). California statue does not allow Housing Authorities to be a party in these partnerships, so the Housing Authority transferred its interest to San Luis Obispo Non-profit Housing Corporation (SLONP). SLONP serves as the sole Managing General Partner. The partnerships have a 15-year compliance period over which the tax credits are earned. After 15 years, the limited partner has the option to seek a buyer for its interest. Laurel Creek Apartments, Ironbark Apartments, and Pismo Buchon Apartments have all passed the 15-year compliance period, and the limited partner, WNC & Associates, wishes to dissolve the partnership and sell its interest in the properties. All the properties have capital improvement needs of approximately $1,820,000 that must be addressed in the near future. HASLO wishes to purchase the partnership interests in Laurel Creek Apartments, Ironbark Apartments, and Pismo Buchon Apartments, work with SLONP to form a new partnership. Project Summary 1. Laurel Creek Apartments is a 24-unit affordable rental apartment complex located at 1092 Orcutt Road. Laurel Creek Apartments was placed into service in June 1994 as is in need for approximately $1,200,000 in capital improvements. 2. Ironbark Apartments, located at 1102 Ironbark, has 20 affordable rental units and was placed into service in November 1995. Approximately $20,000 per unit in capital improvements is needed for the site, for a total of $400,000. 3. Pismo Buchon Apartments are located at 1363 Pismo Street. The affordable housing complex has 11 rental units and was placed into service in 2000. Approximately $220,000 is needed in capital improvements for this complex. 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 approving the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds, in order to maintain purchase and rehabilitate the three affordable housing facilities. 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 the Authority 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 other obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or for the repayment of the Packet Pg 110 10 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 cons istent with past City actions regarding the Project. 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. 2. And then returning with the results of this evaluation and recommending approval of appropriate financing documents if warranted. Given the Council’s prior approval for this TEFRA hearing in April 2016, and past successful approval to conduit financing to HASLO, staff recommends that the Council find HASLO capable for achieving the public purpose of maintaining and providing affordable housing financed partially through tax exempt bonds. 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. 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 Packet Pg 111 10 433 Pacific (“Carmel Street Apartments”). 9. 2013. 40-unit affordable rental apartment facility for seniors located at 2005 Johnson Avenue (“Del Rio Terrace”). 10. 2016. 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 Bonds, HASLO will close escrow on or near May 15, 2017 and begin rehabilitation work on the units. There will be no further actions required by the City. 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not approve the issuance of bonds by the Authority. Given that the Council had approved a TEFRA hearing one year ago, and that HASLO will be closing on the property in less than three weeks, the re-approval of this hearing is crucial in making sure this project moves forward. 2. Defer consideration of the request. Due to the critical need for tax exempt bond financing in order to rehabilitate these units, this option is not recommended. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution b - Resolution No. 10706 (2016 Series) Packet Pg 112 10 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INCURRING OF A TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATION BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF LAUREL CREEK, IRONBARK AND PISMO BUCHON APARTMENTS 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, SLO 55, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”) intends to acquire and rehabilitate the following three apartment facilities (collectively referred to in this Resolution as the “Housing Facilities”): Laurel Creek Apartments, located at 1092 Orcutt Road in the City, Ironbark Apartments located at 1102 Ironbark Street in the City, and Pismo Buchon Apartments, located at 1363 Pismo Street in the City; 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 approximate amount of $5,600,000, and a loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower; and WHEREAS, a portion of the housing units in the Housing Facilities 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 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 Council of the City is the “applicable elected representative” to approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds because the Housing Facilities are all located within the City; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing by the Council regarding the financing of the Housing Facilities has been duly given as required by the Code, and 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 Facilities, including the Authority's issuance of the Bonds and subsequent lending of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to pay costs of the acquisition and rehabilitation by the Borrower of the Housing Facilities; and Packet Pg 113 10 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 Facilities, 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 Facilities 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. Approval of Issuance of Bonds. 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 Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the above action will not have a significant impact on the environment, as defined by §15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt from environmental review. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 114 10 Resolution No. ______ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 115 10 RESOLUTION NO. 10706 (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INCURRING OF A TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATION BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF LAUREL CREEK, IRONBARK, AND PISMO BUCHON APARTMENTS 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 acquiring and rehabilitating the following three apartment facilities (collectively referred to in this Resolution as the "Housing Facilities"): Laurel Creek Apartments, located at 1092 Orcutt Road, Ironbark Apartments located at 1102 Ironbark Street, and Pismo Buchon Apartments, located at 1363 Pismo Street; 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 approximate amount of 6,000,000, and a loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower; and WHEREAS, a portion of the housing units in the Housing Facilities 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 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 Facilities are all located within the City; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing by the Council regarding the financing of the Projects has been duly given as required by the Code, and 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 Facilities, including the Authority's issuance of the Bonds and subsequent lending of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to pay costs of the acquisition and rehabilitation by the Borrower of the Housing Facilities; and R 10706 Packet Pg 116 10 Resolution No. 10706 (2016 Series) Page 2 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 Facilities, 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 Facilities 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. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the above actions will not have a significant impact on the environment, as defined by § 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review. SECTION 2. Action. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for purposes of the Code. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Upon motion of Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Council Member Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh, Christianson and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carpenter and Mayor Marx NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of April 2016. aor--*4 Mayo ] Marx Interim City Clerk R 10706 Packet Pg 117 10 Resolution No. 10706 (2016 Series) VA a8.011Iab7_M7MI : m Page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set inand affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this day of Y/A akl 0 I Lee F Fri+ e, MMC Interim City Clerk R 10706 Packet Pg 118 10 Meeting Date: 5/2/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17: ZONING REGULATIONS, ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROVISIONS WITH A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to amend Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code (Attachment E) with a statutory exemption from environmental review. SUMMARY On September 27, 2016, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 2299 ("AB 2299") and Senate Bill 1069 ("SB 1069") into law, both of which became effective on January 1, 2017. These two bills amended various sections of the California Government Code related to second dwelling unit (“SDU”) regulations, which are now referred to as “accessory dwelling units or “ADUs.” The new laws regulate parking, type and size of units, approval process and timelines, and water and sewer utility requirements. One of the primary purposes of the legislation is to facilitate the creation of these units to assist with the state housing crisis. The Community Development Department prepared a draft Ordinance to amend the City’s Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.21.010 for compliance with these new state laws. The Planning Commission has reviewed the draft ordinance and recommended adoption with some modifications that are outlined below. BACKGROUND California Government Code Section 65852.2 requires local governments to use a ministerial (i.e. by-right) process for the review of ADU applications, subject to certain development standards. As required, in 2003 the City Council adopted the City’s existing Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 17.21.010) to allow SDUs in all single-family residential zoning districts subject to certain criteria (e.g. minimum lot size requirement, owner-occupancy requirement, various development standards such as size, setback, and height limits, etc.), except where prohibited by the Ordinance. With the passage of the two new bills, the amended State Law invalidates a local agency's existing SDU ordinance if it does not comply with all of the requirements of the newly adopted state standards by January 1, 2017. Since the City’s existing SDU ordinance is inconsistent with the new bills, the Community Development Department is proposing to amend the City's existing Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Chapter 17.21.010 of the Zoning Regulations), and other applicable sections, to align with the amended state law. This will allow the City to continue to regulate the development of ADUs in a manner that is consistent with local housing policies and objectives to the degree allowed under the new state law. Packet Pg 119 11 Planning Commission Review On February 28, 2017, the Planning Commission evaluated staff recommended amendments to ADUs (Attachment D). The Planning Commission supported these amendments, recommending adoption to the City Council, with the exception of: 1) ADU size, 2) not allowing ADUs on multi-family zoned parcels, and 3) providing a reasonable “compliance period” for the owner occupancy requirement. These recommendations are further outlined in the discussion section below, and incorporated into the draft Ordinance (Attachment D). DISCUSSION AB 2299 and SB 1069 amended various sections of the California Government Code that regulates ADUs, making considerable changes to the ability of local municipalities to regulate such units (Attachment C). These changes can be categorized into four topic areas, which include: parking, type and size of units, approval process and timelines, and utility requirements; it is important to note that some of these state provisions cannot be further restricted or otherwise modified by the City. The notable provisions of AB 2299 and SB 1069 are as follows:  Replaces the term "Secondary Dwelling Unit" with "Accessory Dwelling Unit;”  An ADU can either be attached to the existing dwelling, located within the living area of the existing dwelling, or detached and located on same property as the existing dwelling;  No parking can be required if an ADU meets specified criteria (i.e. ½ mile proximity to a public transit stop, type of ADU, location within historic district, unavailability of a required on-street parking permit, and proximity to a shared car service); o If an ADU does not qualify for parking exemption, only one parking space can be required per ADU or bedroom (does not have to be a covered space);  No setback can be required for an existing garage that is converted into an ADU, and no more than five feet of side or rear yard setback can be required for an ADU constructed above an existing garage;  An ADU cannot be considered as a new residential use for the purpose of calculating certain utility charges, and cities cannot require a new or separate utility for certain types of units. However they can count as new residential units to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocations.  ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required in the primary residence.  For ADUs which are contained within the existing space of a single family residence or an accessory structure, no new or separate utility connections can be required and no connection fees or capacity charges can be imposed. Main Amendments and Planning Commission Recommendations All of the recommended Zoning Regulation amendments can be viewed in the legislative draft (Attachment A). Proposed amendments are shown with new language in underlined text and proposed deleted language is shown in strikethrough. Specific sections that contain larger revisions are discussed below. Packet Pg 120 11 1. Size Requirements The legislation set a strict requirement that the minimum size of an accessory dwelling units must be 150 square feet, defined as an “efficiency unit” by Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. This statute of the Health and Safety Code overrides the current Building Code which requires a minimum of 220 square feet. The topic of setting a maximum size is widely debated among Cities throughout the State; however, guidance from the City Attorney’s Office identifies that the legislation allows a jurisdiction to limit the maximum size of ADUs so long as the size restriction does not unreasonably restrict the development of ADUs. The City’s existing (now invalid) SDU ordinance required second units to be no greater than 450 square feet and must be in a studio unit configuration. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission believed the limitation of 450 square feet was too restrictive and therefore could be burdensome on the development of ADUs. The Commission recommends the size of ADUs be as follows: a maximum of fifty percent of the existing livable square footage of the primary residence up to 800 square feet. In addition, the applicant can apply for an ADU to be up to 1,200 square feet with a Director’s approval.1 Staff Response: Support Planning Commission recommendation to allow the maximum size of an ADU to be a maximum of fifty percent of the existing livable square footage of the primary residence up to 800 square feet; with a 1,200 square foot maximum to be considered through a Director’s Action process. A Director’s Action requires a checklist to be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department, and has a six week review timeline. In the event the City Council chooses to limit the maximum size to 450 square feet, it is recommended that the Council include findings in the Ordinance specifying how this size limitation does not unreasonably restrict the development of ADUs (i.e. main burden is parking requirement, the City is composed of smaller lots and other site constraints which don’t lend itself well to larger ADUs, etc.) 2. Allowed Locations for ADUs The legislation requires that ADUs be allowed in all residential zones. Under the City’s previous secondary dwelling unit regulations, secondary dwelling units could be allowed in all residential zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) and Office (O) zones. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended disallowing ADUs in the Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) and High Density Residential (R-4) zones to promote greater density uses on those parcels and discourage underutilizing those parcels. 1 It should be noted that AB 2299 and SB 1069 require review of an ADU application to be ministerial. Staff ’s recommendation is to have a pure ministerial process for ADUs up to 800 ft2 in compliance with AB 2299 and SB 1069, and a discretionary review process for ADUs between 800 ft2 and 1200 ft2.. A Director’s Action Checklist (Administrative Approval Permit) shall be submitted for review, and must include all items on the checklist, which is available on the City’s website. Items on the checklist include providing a site plan which identify how the unit complies with water management plans, fire safety, creek setbacks, and other requirements. Packet Pg 121 11 Staff Response: After full legal review of the legislative language, staff recommends not incorporating the Commission’s recommendation and continuing to allow ADUs in all residential and office zones. The language of the new Government Code suggests that in order to comply with this law, the City must allow an ADU to be permitted in any residential zone where the primary use of the parcel is a single-family residence. 3. Parking Requirements SB 1069 and AB 2299 requires jurisdictions to establish the following maximum parking standards for accessory dwelling units: Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking, including on an existing driveway or in setback areas, excluding the non-driveway front yard setback. Parking is not required in the following instances:  The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of public transit, including transit stations and bus stations.  The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.  When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.  When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. Staff Response: Since all but 135 parcels within the City limits met the above criteria (Attachment B), staff is recommending removing the parking requirement to further promote development of ADUs. In terms of development standards, meeting parking requirements is a main barrier that prevented most properties from being able to meet the previous ADU development standards. It is not possible for most otherwise qualifying residential properties to meet parking requirements for ADUs since they do not have space for the additional required parking space under current standards. In addition, the legislation states that replacing required parking for the existing residence may be located in any configuration (tandem, uncovered, within existing driveways) on the same lot as the ADU when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. These new parking requirements are reflected in the amended chapter, which were supported by the Planning Commission. 4. Utility Connections SB 1069 and AB 2299 requires that all impact fees be charged proportionate to the impact of the ADU. In addition, for an ADU in existing accessory spaces or within the existing primary structure, a local agency may not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection between the ADU and the utility, and the City may not impose a connection fee. However, for other ADUs, the City may require a new utility connection subject to a connection fee and impact fee proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU. Packet Pg 122 11 Staff Response: Since the Planning Commission and staff are recommending square footage of ADUs be increased to allow up to 800 square-foot accessory units, the Utilities Department is reviewing an appropriate impact fee for units of that size. Utilities is currently reviewing their fee structure according to AB 1600 and will use this opportunity to analyze and establish a new tier fee for these accessory dwelling units. The timeframe of establishing this fee is still unknown. 5. Owner Occupancy The City’s existing secondary dwelling unit ordnance required that the property owner must reside in either the primary dwelling or the ADU on site; only one of the units may be rented. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City continue this and require owner occupancy to establish an ADU on the property. Planning Commission Recommendation: While the Commission recommended keeping the owner occupancy requirement of the ADU ordinance, they also recommended incorporating a “hardship provision.” Since the owner of the property must live in either the existing primary residence or the ADU, should the property be inherited by a family member who cannot reside in one of the units, or some other similar circumstance, the Commission recommended a one year grace period to allow the unit to either sit vacant or have both units on the property be rented while the owner arranges to sell the property or move into one of the units on the property. Staff Response: Support Planning Commission recommendation of creating one year grace period to be incorporated in the Covenant Agreement for Owner Occupancy. 6. Increase Site Coverage from 40 to 50% Planning Commission Recommendation: Increase the allowable building coverage from 40 to 50 percent to accommodate the development of accessory dwelling units. Staff Response: All residential zones except for the Low Density Residential Zone (R-1) currently allows fifty percent lot coverage or more (i.e. the High Density Residential Zone (R-4) allows a sixty percent lot coverage). Staff has analyzed the Planning Commission’s recommendation and believes that allowing more lot coverage in the R-1 zones could result in a change in the traditional pattern of development that would introduce more buildings into areas that are normally backyard spaces. Therefore, staff does not recommend increasing the allowable coverage to fifty percent for R-1 zones to preserve neighborhood compatibility and remain consistent with policies in the General Plan. 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 amendments are consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the adoption of an ordinance to implement Packet Pg 123 11 Government Code section 65852.2 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Similarly, the ministerial approval of ADU applications would not be a "project" for CEQA purposes, and environmental review would not be required prior to approving individual applications. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may modify certain amendments to Zoning Regulation Chapter 17.10.020 Accessory Spaces so long as they are concurrent with Government Code Section 65852.2. 2. The Commission may continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff. Attachments: a - Legislative Draft of Zoning Regulation Amendments b - Parking Requirement Overview Map c - HCD Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation Memo d - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 2.22.17 e - Draft Ordinance Packet Pg 124 11 Chapter 17.21: Accessory Spaces Sections: 17.21.010 Secondary Accessory Dwelling Units 17.21.020 Guest Quarters 17.21.030 Accessory Structures 17.21.010 Secondary Accessory Dwelling Units. A. Purpose. 1. This section is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.150) and (.2), which allows the city to perform administrative architectural review and apply specific development standards to secondary dwelling units in residential zones.The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in a manner that is consistent with requirements set forth in California Government Code Sections 65852.2, as amended from time to time. 2. The city intends to regulate secondary dwelling units as permitted by Section 65852.2(a) of the State Government Code, and other applicable sections. The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and programs of the city Housing Element of the General Plan by providing for and regulating secondary dwelling units. 3.2. Implementation of this section is meant to expand housing opportunities by for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of smaller and affordable rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Secondary dwelling units are intended to provide livable housing at lower cost while providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants. B. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases have the meanings given them in this section: 1. “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or detached dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all provisions of this section. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit. An Accessory Dwelling Unit also includes the following: a. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code . b. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. 1. “Administrative use permit” is defined as defined by Chapter 17.58 of this code. 2. “Director” means the director of the Community Development Department or his designate. 3. “Director’s Action” means the required submittal of an Administrative Approval Application and review by the Community Development Director. 3. “Nonconforming lot” is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code. 4. “Nonconforming use” is defined as defined by Chapter 17.10 of this code. 5. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. Passageways are not required for detached accessory dwelling units. 5.6. “Primary unit” means an the existing single-family residential structure on the site. that conforms with all zoning regulations in effect, including this section. Packet Pg 125 11 1. Secondary dwelling unit” means an attached or detached dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all provisions of this section. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is sited. 2. Studio means a one-room dwelling unit with not more than 450 square feet of gross floor area as defined in Section 17.100. C. General Requirements. 1. Application. Where this section does not contain a particular type of standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply. 2. Areas Where Secondary Accessory Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon meeting the requirements of this section, accessorysecondary dwelling units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and O, when the primary use on the site is a single-family dwelling. 3. Areas Prohibited. Secondary dwelling units shall not be allowed on non-conforming lots Secondary Accessory dwelling units shall not be established in any condominium or planned development project unless specifically addressed in the planned development ordinance as adopted or amended, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park ., and under no circumstances shall an accessory secondary dwelling unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by Chapter 2.44 of this code. 4. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or accessory secondary dwelling unit must be owner- occupied as an owner’s primary residence. 5. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where an accessorya secondary dwelling unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall prohibit joint ownership of the property where a secondary dwelling unit has been established. 6. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a secondaryan accessory dwelling unit has been established if the property is sold. All conditions of a Director’s Action (if applicable) conditions of the use permit, restrictive covenants, and other contractual agreements with the city shall apply to the property and new owners. 7. Unit Types Allowed. An accessoryA secondary dwelling unit may be either attached or, detached or located within the living area ofto the primary unit on the lot. a. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be defined as either attached to (by a minimum of one shared wall), or completely contained within, an existing single family dwelling unit. b. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be defined as new residential square footage not attached or sharing any walls with the primary existing single family dwelling unit. 7.8. Size of Secondary Accessory Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of anof the secondary accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than an efficiency unit, defined above, and shall not exceed the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit’s existing living area or eight hundred (800) square feet. four hundred fifty (450) square feet and shall meet the definition of a studio apartment as defined by Section 17.100. The Director planning commission may authorize exception to this standard up to 1,200 square feet by a Director’s Action, defined above.use permit upon finding that: a. The purpose of this section is served; b. Strict compliance with the size limitation would (a) require significant structural modifications that would not be required otherwise; or (b) adversely affect an historic or architecturally significant building. 8.9. Secondary Accessory dwelling units are limited to 1 one (1) unit per qualifying property. Packet Pg 126 11 D. Performance Standards and Compatibility. 1. Design Standards. Secondary Accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations development standards included in the underlying zone such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc. An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot., except for density requirements as defined by Zoning Regulations. a. Secondary Accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. b. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. c. Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. d. Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) e. The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two -story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced overlook. f. Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. The presence or design of the secondary dwelling unit per se, will not justify granting development exceptions. g. Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Private open space provided at ground level must have a minimum dimension in every direction of at least 10 feet or 6 feet for spaces above ground level on an elevated deck or balcony. h. Significant alterations to landform (grading in excess of 300 cubic yards) or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged for the placement of a secondary dwelling unit. i. A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary un it and adjacent properties b. ..No passageway, defined above, shall be required in conjunction with the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit. j.c. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage. k.d. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. e. Parking. Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district. Parking for secondary dwelling units may be provided within driveway areas consistent with 17.17.055 (Front yard parking). For two car garages, parking for the primary dwelling may be provided in tandem to allow one parking space in the Packet Pg 127 11 driveway for the secondary dwelling unit. Agreement to maintain garage parking for the tandem parking arrangement shall be reflected on building plans and a covenant agreement shall be recorded noting the requirement to comply with this condition and granting the City the right to inspect the premises for compliance. Secondary dwelling units located on si tes where the primary dwelling unit has a single car width driveway and garage may be provided consistent with 17.17.055.D. (Single Car Garages and Single Car Parking).No additional parking spaces shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit. i. Replacement of Required Parking for Primary Unit: When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, replacement parking spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces . f. Accessory dwelling units on listeddesignated historic properties and in historic districts shall be found consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance including Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of an secondary accessory dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. g. Where ADUs are being created within an existing structure (primary or accessory), no new utility connection or payment of impact fees shall be required. For all other ADUs, a new utility connection for the ADU and payment of impact fees shall be required. 2. Architectural Compatibility. Accessory dwelling units should be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. The accessory dwelling unit should comply with the following design standards: a. Architectural Style and Form. Architectural style and form should match or be compatible with the style and form of the primary residence on the site and surrounding structures. b. Materials. The materials of the accessory dwelling unit should match or be compatible the materials of the main building on the site. E. Procedure requirements. Prior to filing building plans with the City Building Division, the following shall be met: An accessory dwelling unit that meets the standards contained in Section 17.21.010 shall be subject to ministerial review (Building Permit) and approval without discretionary review (i.e. Use Permit, Architectural Review, etc.) or public hearing. All applications shall be permitted within 120 days of submission of a complete application which complies with all applicable requirements and development standards as set forth in this Chapter. Any application for an accessory dwelling unit that exceeds the greater of fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit’s existing living area of eight hundred 9800) square feet may apply for a Director’s Action, defined above, in which the Community Development Director may authorize an exception to that standard. A. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and architectural review ordinance. The director shall determine, upon receiving complete application, whether the project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission for review. All new development projects within Historic Districts or within properties that contain designated historic structures shall be referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee to be reviewed for consistency with Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. B. Application Contents. A Determination of Code Consistency shall be approved prior to the submittal of documents requesting construction approval. No additional application fees for architectural review shall be required. F. Owner Occupancy Packet Pg 128 11 The owner of the property must occupy either the primary residence or the accessory dwelling unit. The Director may waive this requirement for a period of up to one year based on a showing of hardship. A hardship shall include, but not be limited to, inheritance of property with an accessory dwelling unit. F.G. Additional Requirements.Covenant Agreement Owners Agreement with the City. Prior to the issuance of construction permits a covenant agreement shall be recorded which discloses the structure’s approved floor plan and status as a “secondary accessory dwelling unit” and agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied. This agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property. The covenant agreement also may contain authorization for annual inspections, and to allow the City upon reasonable time and notice, to inspect the premises for compliance with the agreement and to verify continued compliance with requirements of this section and health and safety codes. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use will terminate, and the structure will be returned to a condition compliant with applicable regulations, to the satisfaction of the Director. G. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be as provided by chapter 2.48.080 (Appeals- Architectural Review). H. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be subject to basic code enforcement action as provided in Title 1 of this code. Packet Pg 129 11 Chapter 17.22: Use Regulations Packet Pg 130 11 Packet Pg 13111 California Department of Housing and Community Development Where Foundations Begin Accessory Dwelling Unit Memorandum December 2016 Courtesy of Karen Chapple, UC Berkeley Packet Pg 132 11 Table of Contents Understanding ADUs and Their Importance ...................................................................................... 1 Summary of Recent Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit Laws ..................................................... 3 Frequently Asked Questions: Accessory Dwelling Units ................................................................. 7 Should an Ordinance Encourage the Development of ADUs? .......................................................... 7 Are Existing Ordinances Null and Void? ........................................................................................... 7 Are Local Governments Required to Adopt an Ordinance? .............................................................. 8 Can a Local Government Preclude ADUs? ...................................................................................... 8 Can a Local Government Apply Development Standards and Designate Areas? ............................. 8 Can a Local Government Adopt Less Restrictive Requirements? .................................................... 9 Can Local Governments Establish Minimum and Maximum Unit Sizes? .......................................... 9 Can ADUs Exceed General Plan and Zoning Densities? ................................................................. 9 How Are Fees Charged to ADUs?.................................................................................................. 11 What Utility Fee Requirements Apply to ADUs…………………………………………………………..11 What Utility Fee Requirements Apply to Non-City and County Service Districts? ........................... 11 Do Utility Fee Requirements Apply to ADUs within Existing Space? .............................................. 11 Does “Public Transit” Include within One-half Mile of a Bus Stop and Train Station? ..................... 11 Can Parking Be Required Where a Car Share is Available? .......................................................... 12 Is Off Street Parking Permitted in Setback Areas or through Tandem Parking? ............................. 12 Is Covered Parking Required? ....................................................................................................... 12 Is Replacement Parking Required When the Parking Area for the Primary Structure is Used for an ADU? ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Are Setbacks Required When an Existing Garage is Converted to an ADU? ................................. 12 Are ADUs Permitted in Existing Residence and Accessory Space? ............................................... 13 Are Owner Occupants Required? .................................................................................................. 13 Are Fire Sprinklers Required for ADUs? ......................................................................................... 13 Is Manufactured Housing Permitted as an ADU? ........................................................................... 14 Can an Efficiency Unit Be Smaller than 220 Square Feet?............................................................. 14 Does ADU Law Apply to Charter Cities and Counties? .................................................................. 14 Do ADUs Count toward the Regional Housing Need Allocation………………………………… ....... 14 Must Ordinances Be Submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development? ..... 15 Packet Pg 133 11 Frequently Asked Questions: Junior Accessory Dwelling Units ................................................... 16 Is There a Difference between ADU and JADU? ............................................................................ 16 Why Adopt a JADU Ordinance?…………………………………………………. ................................. 17 Can JADUs Count towards The RHNA? ........................................................................................ 17 Can the JADU Be Sold Independent of the Primary Dwelling? ....................................................... 17 Are JADUs Subject to Connection and Capacity Fees? ................................................................. 17 Are There Requirements for Fire Separation and Fire Sprinklers? ................................................. 18 Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Attachment 1: Statutory Changes (Strikeout/Underline) ................................................................. 19 Attachment 2: Sample ADU Ordinance .......................................................................................... 26 Attachment 3: Sample JADU Ordinance ........................................................................................ 29 Attachment 4: State Standards Checklist ....................................................................................... 32 Attachment 5: Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 33 Packet Pg 134 11 1 Understanding Accessory Dwelling Units and Their Importance California’s housing production is not keeping pace with demand. In the last decade less than half of the needed housing was built. This lack of housing is impacting affordability with average housing costs in California exceeding the rest of the nation. As affordability becomes more problematic, people drive longer distances between a home that is affordable and where they work, or double up to share space, both of which reduces quality of life and produces negative environmental impacts. Beyond traditional market-rate construction and government subsidized production and preservation there are alternative housing models and emerging trends that can contribute to addressing home supply and affordability in California. One such example gaining popularity are Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (also referred to as second units, in- law units, or granny flats). ADUs offer benefits that address common development barriers such as affordability and environmental quality. ADUs are an affordable type of home to construct in California because they do not require paying for land, major new infrastructure, structured parking, or elevators. ADUs are built with cost-effective one- or two-story wood frame construction, which is significantly less costly than homes in new multifamily infill buildings. ADUs can provide as much living space as the new apartments and condominiums being built in new infill buildings and serve very well for couples, small families, friends, young people, and seniors. ADUs are a different form of housing that can help California meet its diverse housing needs. Young professionals and students desire to live in areas close to jobs, amenities, and schools. The problem with high -opportunity areas is that space is limited. There is a shortage of affordable units and the units that are available can be out of reach for many people. To address the needs of individuals or small families seeking living quarters in high opportunity areas, homeowners can construct an ADU on their lot or convert an underutilized part of their home like a garage What is an ADU An ADU is a secondary dwelling unit with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and generally takes three forms:  Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure  Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure  Repurposed Existing Space: Space (e.g., master bedroom) within the primary residence is converted into an independent living unit  Junior Accessory Dwelling Units: Similar to repurposed space with various streamlining measures Courtesy of Karen Chapple, UC Berkeley Packet Pg 135 11 2 into a junior ADU. This flexibility benefits not just people renting the space, but the homeowner as well, who can receive an extra monthly rent income. ADUs give homeowners the flexibility to share independent living areas with family members and others, allowing seniors to age in place as they require more care and helping extended families to be near one another while maintaining privacy. Relaxed regulations and the cost to build an ADU make it a very feasible affordable housing option. A UC Berkeley study noted that one unit of affordable housing in the Bay Area costs about $500,000 to develop whereas an ADU can range anywhere up to $200,000 on the expensive end in high housing cost areas. ADUs are a critical form of infill-development that can be affordable and offer important h ousing choices within existing neighborhoods. ADUs are a powerful type of housing unit because they allow for different uses, and serve different populations ranging from students and young professionals to young families, people with disabilities and senior citizens. By design, ADUs are more affordable and can provide additional income to homeowners. Local governments can encourage the development of ADUs and improve access to jobs, education and services for many Californians. Packet Pg 136 11 3 Summary of Recent Changes to ADU Laws The California legislature found and declared that, among other things, allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single family and multifamily zones provides additional rental housing and are an essential component in addressing housing needs in California. Over the years, ADU law has been revised to improve its effectiveness such as recent changes in 2003 to require ministerial approval. In 2017, changes to ADU laws will further reduce barriers, better streamline approval and expand capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs. ADUs are a unique opportunity to address a variety of housing needs and provide affordable housing options for family members, friends, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others. Further, ADUs offer an opportunity to maximize and integrate housing choices within existing neighborhoods. Within this context, the Department has prepared this guidance to assist local governments in encouraging the development of ADUs. Please see Attachment 1 for the complete statutory changes. The following is a brief summary of the changes for each bill. SB 1069 (Wieckowski) S.B. 1069 (Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016) made several changes to address barriers to the development of ADUs and expanded capacity for their development. The following is a brief summary of provisions that go into effect January 1, 2017. Parking SB 1069 reduces parking requirements to one space per bedroom or unit. The legislation authorizes off street parking to be tandem or in setback areas unless specific findings such as fire and life safety conditions are made. SB 1069 also prohibits parking requirements if the ADU meets any of the following: • Is within a half mile from public transit. • Is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. • Is part of an existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure. • Is in an area where on-street parking permits are required, but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. • Is located within one block of a car share area. Courtesy of Karen Chapple, UC Berkeley Packet Pg 137 11 4 Fees SB 1069 provides that ADUs shall not be considered new residential uses for the purpose of calculating utility connection fees or capacity charges, including water and sewer service. The bill prohibits a local agency from requiring an ADU applicant to install a new or separate utility connection or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge for ADUs that are contained within an existing residence or accessory structure. For attached and detached ADUs, this fee or charge must be proportionate to the burden of the unit on the water or sewer system and may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service. Fire Requirements SB 1069 provides that fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory unit if they are not required in the primary residence. ADUs within Existing Space Local governments must ministerially approve an application to create within a single family residential zone one ADU per single family lot if the unit is: • contained within an existing residence or accessory structure. • has independent exterior access from the existing residence. • has side and rear setbacks that are sufficient for fire safety. These provisions apply within all single family residential zones and ADUs within existing space must be allowed in all of these zones. No additional parking or other development standards can be applied except for building code requirements. No Total Prohibition SB 1069 prohibits a local government from adopting an ordinance that precludes ADUs. AB 2299 (Bloom) Generally, AB 2299 (Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016) requires a local government (beginning January 1, 2017) to ministerially approve ADUs if the unit complies with certain parking requirements, the maximum allowable size of an attached ADU, and setback requirements, as follows:  The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented.  The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use and contains an existing, single-family dwelling.  The unit is either attached to an existing dwelling or located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached and on the same lot.  The increased floor area of the unit does not exceed 50% of the existing living area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet.  The total area of floorspace for a detached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet.  No passageway can be required.  No setback can be required from an existing garage that is converted to an ADU. Packet Pg 138 11 5  Compliance with local building code requirements.  Approval by the local health officer where private sewage disposal system is being used . Impact on Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinances AB 2299 provides that any existing ADU ordinance that does not meet the bill’s requirements is null and void upon the date the bill becomes effective. In such cases, a jurisdiction must approve accessory dwelling units based on Government Code Section 65852.2 until the jurisdiction adopts a compliant ordinance. AB 2406 (Thurmond) AB 2406 (Chapter 755, Statutes of 2016) creates more flexibility for housing options by authorizing local governments to permit junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) through an ordinance. The bill defines JADUs to be a unit that cannot exceed 500 square feet and must be completely contained within the space of an existing residential structure. In addition, the bill requires specified components for a local JADU ordinance. Adoption of a JADU ordinance is optional. Required Components The ordinance authorized by AB 2406 must include the following requirements: • Limit to one JADU per residential lot zoned for single-family residences with a single-family residence already built on the lot. • The single-family residence in which the JADU is created or JADU must be occupied by the owner of the residence. • The owner must record a deed restriction stating that the JADU cannot be sold separately from the single- family residence and restricting the JADU to the size limitations and other requirements of the JADU ordinance. • The JADU must be located entirely within the existing structure of the single-family residence and JADU have its own separate entrance. • The JADU must include an efficiency kitchen which includes a sink, cooking appliance, counter surface, and storage cabinets that meet minimum building code standards. No gas or 220V circuits are allowed. • The JADU may share a bath with the primary residence or have its own bath. Prohibited Components This bill prohibits a local JADU ordinance from requiring: • Additional parking as a condition to grant a permit. • Applying additional water, sewer and power connection fees. No connections are needed as these utilities have already been accounted for in the original permit for the home. Packet Pg 139 11 6 Fire Safety Requirements AB 2406 clarifies that a JADU is to be considered part of the single-family residence for the purposes of fire and life protections ordinances and regulations, such as sprinklers and smoke detectors. The bill also requires life and protection ordinances that affect single-family residences to be applied uniformly to all single-family residences, regardless of the presence of a JADU. JADUs and the RHNA As part of the housing element portion of their general plan, local governments are required to identify sites with appropriate zoning that will accommodate projected housing needs in their regional housing need allocation (RHNA) and report on their progress pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. To credit a JADU toward the RHNA, HCD and the Department of Finance (DOF) utilize the census definition of a h ousing unit which is fairly flexible. Local government count units as part of reporting to DOF. JADUs meet these definitions and this bill would allow cities and counties to earn credit toward meeting their RHNA allocations by permitting residents to create less costly accessory units. See additional discussion under JADU frequently asked questions. Packet Pg 140 11 7 Frequently Asked Questions: Accessory Dwelling Units Should an Ordinance Encourage the Development of ADUs? Yes, ADU law and recent changes intend to address barriers, streamline approval and expand potential capacity for ADUs recognizing their unique importance in addressing California’s housing needs. The preparation, adoption, amendment and implementation of local ADU ordinances must be carried out consistent with Government Code Section 65852.150: (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Accessory dwelling units are a valuable form of housing in California. (2) Accessory dwelling units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. (3) Homeowners who create accessory dwelling units benefit from added income, and an increased sense of security. (4) Allowing accessory dwelling units in single-family or multifamily residential zones provides additional rental housing stock in California. (5) California faces a severe housing crisis. (6) The state is falling far short of meeting current and future housing demand with serious consequences for the state’s economy, our ability to build green infill consistent with state greenhouse gas reduction goals, and the well-being of our citizens, particularly lower and middle-income earners. (7) Accessory dwelling units offer lower cost housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents within existing neighborhoods, while respecting architectural character. (8) Accessory dwelling units are, therefore, an essential component of California’s housing supply. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that an accessory dwelling unit ordinance adopted by a local agency has the effect of providing for the creation of accessory dwelling units and that provisions in this ordinance relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create accessory dwelling units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance. Packet Pg 141 11 8 Are Existing Ordinances Null and Void? Yes, any local ordinance adopted prior to January 1, 2017 that is not in compliance with the changes to ADU law will be null and void. Until an ordinance is adopted, local governments must apply “state standards” (See Attachment 4 for State Standards checklist). In the absence of a local ordinance complying with ADU law, local review must be limited to “state standards” and cannot include additional requirements such as those in an existing ordinance. Are Local Governments Required to Adopt an Ordinance? No, a local government is not required to adopt an ordinance. ADUs built within a jurisdiction that lacks a local ordinance must comply with state standards (See Attachment 4). Adopting an ordinance can occur through different forms such as a new ordinance, amendment to an existing ordinance, separate section or special regulations within the zoning code or integrated into the zoning co de by district. However, the ordinance should be established legislatively through a public process and meeting and not through internal administrative actions such as memos or zoning interpretations. Can a Local Government Preclude ADUs? No local government cannot preclude ADUs. Can a Local Government Apply Development Standards and Designate Areas? Yes, local governments may apply development standards and may designate where ADUs are permitted (GC Sections 65852.2(a)(1)(A) and (B)). However, ADUs within existing structures must be allowed in all single family residential zones. For ADUs that require an addition or a new accessory structure, development standards such as parking, height, lot coverage, lot size and maximum unit size can be established with certain limitations. ADUs can be avoided or allowed through an ancillary and separate discretionary process in areas with health and safety risks such as high fire hazard areas. However, standards and allowable areas must not be designed or applied in a manner that burdens the development of ADUs and should maximize the potential for ADU development. Designating areas where ADUs are allowed should be approached primarily on health and safety issues including water, sewer, traffic flow and public safety. Utilizing approaches such as restrictive overlays, limiting ADUs to larger lot sizes, burdensome lot coverage and setbacks and particularly concentration or distance requirements (e.g., no less than 500 feet between ADUs) may unreasonably restrict the ability of the homeowners to create ADUs, contrary to the intent of the Legislature. Courtesy of Karen Chapple, UC Berkeley Packet Pg 142 11 9 Can a Local Government Adopt Less Restrictive Requirements? Yes, ADU law is a minimum requirement and its purpose is to encourage the development of ADUs. Local governments can take a variety of actions beyond the statute t hat promote ADUs such as reductions in fees, less restrictive parking or unit sizes or amending general plan policies. Can Local Governments Establish Minimum and Maximum Unit Sizes? Yes, a local government may establish minimum and maximum unit sizes (GC Section 65852.2(c). However, like all development standards (e.g., height, lot coverage, lot size), unit sizes should not burden the development of ADUs. For example, setting a minimum unit size that substantially increases costs or a maximum unit size that unreasonably restricts opportunities would be inconsistent with the intent of the statute. Typical maximum unit sizes range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet. Minimum unit size must at least allow for an efficiency unit as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1. ADU law requires local government approval if meeting various requirements (GC Section 65852.2(a)(1)(D)), including unit size requirements. Specifically, attached ADUs shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area or 1,200 square feet and detached ADUs shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. A local government may choose a maximum unit size less than 1,200 square feet as long as the requirement is not burdensome on the creation of ADUs. Can ADUs Exceed General Plan and Zoning Densities? Requiring large minimum lot sizes and not allowing smaller lot sizes for ADUs can severely restrict their potential development. For example, large minimum lot sizes for ADUs may constrict capacity throughout most of the community. Minimum lot sizes cannot be applied to ADUs within existing structures and could be considered relative to health and safety concerns such as areas on septic system s. While larger lot sizes might be targeted for various reasons such as ease of compatibility, many tools are available (e.g., maximum unit size, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, architectural and landscape requirements) that allows ADUs to fit well within the built environment. Santa Cruz has confronted a shortage of housing for many years, considering its growth in population from incoming students at UC Santa Cruz and its proximity to Silicon Valley. The city promoted the development of ADUs as critical infill-housing opportunity through various strategies such as creating a manual to promote ADUs. The manual showcases prototypes of ADUs and outlines city zo ning laws and requirements to make it more convenient for homeowners to get information. The City found that homeowners will take time to develop an ADU only if information is easy to find, the process is simple, and there is sufficient guidance on what options they have in regards to design and planning. The city set the minimum lot size requirement at 4,500 sq. ft. to develop an ADU in order to encourage more homes to build an ADU. This allowed for a majority of single-family homes in Santa Cruz to develop an ADU. For more information, see http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/departments/planning-and-community- development/programs/accessory-dwelling-unit-development-program. Packet Pg 143 11 10 An ADU is an accessory use for the purposes of calculating allowable density under the general plan and zon ing. For example, if a zoning district allows one unit per 7,500 square feet, then an ADU would not be counted as an additional unit. Minimum lot sizes must not be doubled (e.g., 15,000 square feet) to account for an ADU. Further, local governments could elect to allow more than one ADU on a lot. New developments can increase the total number of affordable units in their project plans by integrating ADUs. Aside from increasing the total number of affordable units, integrating ADUs also promotes housing choices within a development. One such example is the Cannery project in Davis, CA. The Cannery project includes 547 residential units with up to 60 integrated ADUs. ADUs within the Cannery blend in with surrounding architecture, maintaining compatibility with neighborhoods and enhancing community character. ADUs are constructed at the same time as the primary single‐family unit to ensure the affordable rental unit is available in the housing supply concurrent with the availability of market rate housing. Packet Pg 144 11 11 How Are Fees Charged to ADUs? All impact fees, including water, sewer, park and traffic fees must be charged in accordance with the Fee Mitigation Act, which requires fees to be proportional to the actual impact (e.g., significantly less than a single family home). Fees on ADUs, must proportionately account for impact on services based on the size of the ADU or number of plumbing fixtures. For example, a 700 square foot new ADU with one bathroom that results in less landscaping should be charged much less than a 2,000 square foot home with three bathrooms and an entirely new landscaped parcel which must be irrigated. Fees for ADUs should be significantly less and should account for a lesser impact such as lower sewer or traffic impacts. What Utility Fee Requirements Apply to ADUs? Cities and counties cannot consider ADUs as new residential uses when calculating connection fees and capacity charges. Where ADUs are being created within an existing structure (primary or accessory), the city or county cannot require a new or separate utility connections for the ADU and cannot charge any connection fee or capacity charge. For other ADUs, a local agency may require separate utility connections between the primary dwelling and the ADU, but any connection fee or capacity charge must be proportionate to the impact of the ADU based on either its size or the number of plumbing fixtures. What Utility Fee Requirements Apply to Non-City and County Service Districts? All local agencies must charge impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (commencing with Government Code Section 66000), including in particular Section 66013, which requires the connection fees and capacity charges to be proportionate to the burden posed by the ADU. Special districts and non-city and county service districts must account for the lesser impact related to an ADU and should base fees on unit size or number of plumbing fixtures. Providers should consider a proportionate or sliding scale fee structures that address the smaller size and lesser impact of ADUs (e.g., fees per square foot or fees per fixture). Fee waivers or deferrals could be considered to better promote the development of ADUs. Do Utility Fee Requirements Apply to ADUs within Existing Space? No, where ADUs are being created within an existing structure (primary or accessory), new or separate utility connections and fees (connection and capacity) must not be required. Does “Public Transit” Include within One-half Mile of a Bus Stop and Train Station? Yes, “public transit” may include a bus stop, train station and paratransit if appropriate for the applicant. “Public transit” includes areas where transit is available and can be considered regardless of tighter headways (e.g., 15 minute intervals). Local governments could consider a broader definition of “public transit” such as distance to a bus route. Packet Pg 145 11 12 Can Parking Be Required Where a Car Share Is Available? No, ADU law does not allow parking to be required when there is a car share located within a block of the ADU. A car share location includes a designated pick up and drop off location. Local governments can measure a block from a pick up and drop off location and can decide to adopt broader distance requirements such as two to three blocks. Is Off Street Parking Permitted in Setback Areas or through Tandem Parking? Yes, ADU law deliberately reduces parking requirements. Local governments may make specific findings that tandem parking and parking in setbacks are infeasible based on specific site, regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions or that tandem parking or parking in setbacks is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. However, these determinations should be applied in a manner that does not unnecessarily restrict the creation of ADUs. Is Covered Parking Required? No, off street parking must be permitted through tandem parking on an existing driveway, unless specific findings are made. Is Replacement Parking Required When the Parking Area for the Primary Structure Is Used for an ADU? Yes, but only if the local government requires off-street parking to be replaced in which case flexible arrangements such as tandem, including existing driveways and uncovered parking are allowed. Local governments have an opportunity to be flexible and promote ADUs that are being created on existing parking space and can consider not requiring replacement parking. Are Setbacks Required When an Existing Garage Is Converted to an ADU? No, setbacks must not be required when a garage is converted or when existing space (e.g., game room or office) above a garage is converted. Rear and side yard setbacks of no more than five feet are required when new space is added above a garage for an ADU. In this case, the setbacks only apply to the added space above the garage, not the existing garage and the ADU can be constructed wholly or partly above the garage, including extending beyond the garage walls. Also, when a garage, carport or covered parking structure is demolished or where the parking area ceases to exist so an ADU can be created, the replacement parking must be allowed in any “configuration” on the lot, “…including, Local governments must provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities to promote equal access housing and comply with fair housing laws and housing element law. The reasonable accommodation procedure must provide exception to zoning and land use regulations which includes an ADU ordinance. Potential exceptions are not limited and may include development standards such as setbacks and parking requirements and permitted uses that further the housing opportunities of individuals with disabilities. Packet Pg 146 11 13 but not limited to, covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or….” Configuration can be applied in a flexible manner to not burden the creation of ADUs. For example, spatial configurations like tandem on existing driveways in setback areas or not requiring excessive distances from the street would be appropriate. Are ADUs Permitted in Existing Residence or Accessory Space? Yes, ADUs located in single family residential zones and existing space of a single family residence or accessory structure must be approved regardless of zoning standards (Section 65852.2(a)(1)(B)) for ADUs, including locational requirements (Section 65852.2(a)(1)(A)), subject to usual non-appealable ministerial building permit requirements. For example, ADUs in existing space does not necessitate a zoning clearance and must not be limited to certain zones or areas or subject to height, lot size, lot coverage, unit size, architectural review, landscape or parking requirements. Simply, where a single family residence or accessory structure exists in any single fam ily residential zone, so can an ADU. The purpose is to streamline and expand potential for ADUs where impact is minimal and the existing footprint is not being increased. Zoning requirements are not a basis for denying a ministerial building permit for an ADU, including non-conforming lots or structures. The phrase, “..within the existing space” includes areas within a primary home or within an attached or detached accessory structure such as a garage, a carriage house, a pool house, a rear yard studio and similar enclosed structures. Are Owner Occupants Required? No, however, a local government can require an applicant to be an owner occupant. The owner may reside in the primary or accessory structure. Local governments can also require the ADU to not be used for short term rentals (terms lesser than 30 days). Both owner occupant use and prohibition on short term rentals can be required on the same property. Local agencies which impose this requirement should require recordation of a deed restriction regarding owner occupancy to comply with GC Section 27281.5 Are Fire Sprinklers Required for ADUs? Depends, ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not or were not required of the primary residence. However, sprinklers can be required for an ADU if required in the primary structure. For example, if the primary residence has sprinklers as a result of an existing ordinance, then sprinklers could be required in the ADU. Alternative methods for fire protection could be provided. If the ADU is detached from the main structure or new space above a detached garage, applicants can be encouraged to contact the local fire jurisdiction for information regarding fire sprinklers. Since ADUs are a unique opportunity to address a variety of housing needs and provide affordable housing options for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, the fire departments want to ensure the safety of these populations as well as the safety of those living in th e primary structure. Fire Departments can help educate property owners on the benefits of sprinklers, potential resources and how they can be installed cost effectively. For example, insurance rates are typically 5 to 10 percent lower where the unit is sprinklered. Finally, other methods exist to provide additional fire protection. Some options may include additional exits, emergency escape and rescue openings, 1 hour or greater fire-rated assemblies, roofing materials and setbacks from property lines or other structures. Packet Pg 147 11 14 Is Manufactured Housing Permitted as an ADU? Yes, an ADU is any residential dwelling unit with independent facilities and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. An ADU includes an efficiency unit (Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1) and a manufactured home (Health and Safety Code Section 18007). Can an Efficiency Unit Be Smaller than 220 Square Feet? Yes, an efficiency unit for occupancy by no more than two persons, by statute (Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1), can have a minimum floor area of 150 square feet and can also have partial kitchen or bathroom facilities, as specified by ordinance or can have the same meaning specified in the Uniform Building Code, referenced in the Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Does ADU Law Apply to Charter Cities and Counties? Yes. ADU law explicitly applies to “local agencies” which are defined as a city, county, or city and county whether general law or chartered (Section 65852.2(i)(2)). Health and Safety Code Section 18007(a) “Manufactured home,” for the purposes of this part, means a structure that was constructed on or after June 15, 1976, is transportable in one or more sections, is eight body feet or more in width, or 40 body feet or more in length, in the traveling mode, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a single- family dwelling with or without a foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein. “Manufactured home” includes any structure that meets all the requirements of this paragraph except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification and complies with the standar ds established under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C., Sec. 5401, and following). The 2015 International Residential Code adopted by reference into the 2016 California Residential Code (CRC) allows residential dwelling units to be built considerably smaller than an Efficiency Dwelling Unit (EDU). Prior to this code change an EDU was required to have a minimum floor area not less than 220 sq. ft unless modified by local ordinance in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code which could allow an EDU to be built no less than 150 sq. ft. For more information, see HCD’s Information Bulletin at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/manufactured-housing/docs/ib2016-06.pdf . Packet Pg 148 11 15 Do ADUs Count toward the Regional Housing Need Allocation? Yes, local governments may report ADUs as progress toward Regional Housing Need Allocation pursuant to Government Code Section 65400 based on the actual or anticipated affordability. See below frequently asked questions for JADUs for additional discussion. Must ADU Ordinances Be Submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development? Yes, ADU ordinances must be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption, including amendments to existing ordinances. However, upon submittal, the ordinance is not subject to a Department review and findings process similar to housing element law (GC Section 65585) Packet Pg 149 11 16 Frequently Asked Questions: Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Is There a Difference between ADU and JADU? Yes, AB 2406 added Government Code Section 65852.22, providing a unique option for Junior ADUs. The bill allows local governments to adopt ordinances for JADUs, which are no more than 500 square feet and are typically bedrooms in a single-family home that have an entrance into the unit from the main home and an entrance to the outside from the JADU. The JADU must have cooking facilities, including a sink, but is not required to have a private bathroom. Current law does not prohibit local governments from adopting an ordinance for a JADU, and this bill explicitly allows, not requires, a local agency to do so. If the ordinance requires a permit, the local agency shall not require additional parking or charge a fee for a water or sewer connection as a condition of granting a permit for a JADU. For more information, see below. ADUs and JADUs REQUIREMENTS ADU JADU Maximum Unit Size Yes, generally up to 1,200 Square Feet or 50% of living area Yes, 500 Square Foot Maximum Kitchen Yes Yes Bathroom Yes No, Common Sanitation is Allowed Separate Entrance Depends Yes Parking Depends, Parking May Be Eliminated and Cannot Be Required Under Specified Conditions No, Parking Cannot Be Required Owner Occupancy Depends, Owner Occupancy May Be Required Yes, Owner Occupancy Is Required Ministerial Approval Process Yes Yes Prohibition on Sale of ADU Yes Yes Courtesy of Lilypad Homes and Photo Credit to Jocelyn Knight Packet Pg 150 11 17 Why Adopt a JADU Ordinance? JADUs offer the simplest and most affordable housing option. They bridge the gap between a roommate and a tenant by offering an interior connection between the unit and main living area. The doors between the two spaces can be secured from both sides, allowing them to be easily privatized or incorporated back into the main living area. These units share central systems, require no fire separation, and have a basic kitchen, utilizing small plug in appliances, reducing development costs. This provides flexibility and an insurance policy in homes in case additional income or housing is needed. They present no additional stress on utility services or infrastructure because they simply repurpose spare bedrooms that do not expand the homes planned occupancy. No additional address is required on the property because an interior connection remains. By adopting a JADU ordinance, local governments can offer homeowners additional options to take advantage of underutilized space and better address its housing needs. Can JADUs Count towards the RHNA? Yes, as part of the housing element portion of their general plan, local governments are required to identify sites with appropriate zoning that will accommodate projected housing needs in their regional housing need allocation (RHNA) and report on their progress pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. To credit a unit toward the RHNA, HCD and the Department of Finance (DOF) utilize the census definition of a housing unit. Generally, a JADU, including with shared sanitation facilities, that meets the census definition and is reported to the Department of Finance as part of the DOF annual City and County Housing Unit Change Survey can be credited toward the RHNA based on the appropriate income level. Local governments can track actual or anticipated affordability to assure the JADU is counted to the appropriate income category. For example, some local governments request and track information such as anticipated affordability as part of the building permit application. Can the JADU Be Sold Independent of the Primary Dwelling? No, the JADU cannot be sold separate from the primary dwelling. Are JADUs Subject to Connection and Capacity Fees? No, JADUs shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit for the purposes of fees and as a result should not be charged a fee for providing water, sewer or power, inc luding a connection fee. These requirements apply to all providers of water, sewer and power, including non-municipal providers. Local governments may adopt requirements for fees related to parking, other service or connection for water, sewer or power, however, these requirements must be uniform for all single family residences and JADUs are not considered a new or separate unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied, or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. Packet Pg 151 11 18 Are There Requirements for Fire Separation and Fire Sprinklers? Yes, a local government may adopt requirements related to fire and life protection requirements. However, a JADU shall not be considered a new or separate unit. In other words, if the primary unit is not subject to fire or life protection requirements, then the JADU must be treated the same. Packet Pg 152 11 19 Resources Courtesy of Karen Chapple, UC Berkeley Packet Pg 153 11 20 Attachment 1: Statutory Changes (Strikeout/Underline) Government Code Section 65852.2 (a) (1) Any A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may shall do any all of the following: (A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second accessory dwelling units on traffic flow. flow and public safety. (B) (i) Impose standards on second accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction. (C) Provide that second accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second accessory dwelling unit is located, and that second accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following: (i) The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented. (ii) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use and contains an existing, single-family dwelling. (iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to the existing dwelling or located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. (iv) The increased floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet. (v) The total area of floorspace for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (vii) No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to a accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage. (viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. (x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway. (II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. (III) This clause shall not apply to a unit that is described in subdivision (d). Packet Pg 154 11 21 (xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, and the local agency requires that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, incl uding, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. This clause shall not apply to a unit that is described in subdivision (d). (2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a local government to adopt o r amend an ordinance for the creation of ADUs. permits, within 120 days after receiving the application. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of amendments to this paragraph enacted during the 2001–02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of ADUs. an accessory dwelling unit. (b) (4) (1) An When existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance governing ADUs in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to this subdivision unless it or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency subsequent to the effective date of the act adding this paragraph shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. In the event that a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void upon the effective date of the act adding this paragraph and that agency shall t hereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906, every local agency shall grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of a ADU if the ADU complies with all of the following: that complies with this section. (A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The ADU is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. (E) The increased floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. (F) The total area of floorspace for a detached ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. (H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. Packet Pg 155 11 22 (2) (5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (3) (6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed ADUs on lots a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for residential use which contain that contains an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision (a), subdivision, shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant. owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. (4) (7) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this subdivision. Any A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of ADUs an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. (5) (8) A ADU which conforms to the requirements of An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The ADUs accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (c) (b) No When a local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes ADUs within single -family or multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing ADUs within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a) within 120 days after receiving t he application. (d) (c) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached second accessory dwelling units. No minimum or maximum size for a second an accessory dwelling unit, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings which that does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. (d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances: (1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of public transit. (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure. (4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of t he accessory dwelling unit. (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. (e) Parking requirements for ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. Additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the Packet Pg 156 11 23 use of the ADU and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to existing dwellings. Off -street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create within a single-family residential zone one accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for f ire safety. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. (f) (1) Fees charged for the construction of second accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section66000). 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012). (2) Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service. (A) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subdivision (e), a local agency shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and th e utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge. (B) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subdivision (e), a local agency may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its size or the number of its plumbing fixt ures, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service. (g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of ADUs. an accessory dwelling unit. (h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. (i) As used in this section, the following terms mean: (1) “Living area,” area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (3) For purposes of this section, “neighborhood” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5. (4) “Second “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single -family dwelling is situated. A second An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following: (A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code. (B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. Packet Pg 157 11 24 (j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second accessory dwelling units. Government Code Section 65852.22. (a) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2, a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones. The ordinance may require a permit to be obtained for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit, and shall do all of the following: (1) Limit the number of junior accessory dwelling units to one per residential lot zoned for single-family residences with a single-family residence already built on the lot. (2) Require owner-occupancy in the single-family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit will be permitted. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created junior accessory dwelling unit. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. (3) Require the recordation of a deed restriction, which shall run with the land, shall be filed with the permitting agency, and shall include both of the following: (A) A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers. (B) A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit that conforms with this section. (4) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to be constructed within the existing walls of the structure, and require the inclusion of an existing bedroom. (5) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling to include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. A permitted junior accessory dwelling may include a second interior doorway for sound attenuation. (6) Require the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following: (A) A sink with a maximum waste line diameter of 1.5 inches. (B) A cooking facility with appliances that do not require electrical service greater than 120 volts , or natural or propane gas. (C) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit. (b) (1) An ordinance shall not require additional parking as a condition to grant a permit. (2) This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit the requirement of an inspection, including the imposition of a fee for that inspection, to determine whether the junior accessory dwelling unit is in compliance with applicable building standards. (c) An application for a permit pursuant to this section shall, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits, be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. A permit shall be issued within 120 days of submission of an application for a Packet Pg 158 11 25 permit pursuant to this section. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse the local agency for costs incurred in connection with the issuance of a permit pursuant to this section. (d) For the purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county, cit y and county, or other local public entity from adopting an ordinance or regulation relating to fire and life protection requirements within a single-family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit so long as the ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all single-family residences within the zone regardless of whether the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit or not. (e) For the purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, including a connection fee, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. (f) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from adopting an ordinance or regulation, related to parking or a service or a connection fee for water, sewer, or power, that applies to a single-family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit, so long as that ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all single - family residences regardless of whether the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit. (g) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. (2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general l aw or chartered. Packet Pg 159 11 26 Attachment 2: Sample ADU Ordinance Section XXX1XXX: Purpose This Chapter provides for accessory dwelling units on lots developed or proposed to be developed with single - family dwellings. Such accessory dwellings contribute needed housing to the community’s housing stock. Thus, accessory dwelling units are a residential use which is consistent with the General Plan objectives and zoning regulations and which enhances housing opportunities, including near transit on single family lots. Section XXX2XXX: Applicability The provisions of this Chapter apply to all lots that are occupied with a single family dwelling unit and zoned residential. Accessory dwelling units do exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. Section XXX3XXX: Development Standards Accessory Structures within Existing Space An accessory dwelling unit within an existin g space including the primary structure, attached or detached garage or other accessory structure shall be permitted ministerially with a building permit regardless of all other standards within the Chapter if complying with: 1. Building and safety codes 2. Independent exterior access from the existing residence 3. Sufficient side and rear setbacks for fire safety. Accessory Structures (Attached and Detached) General: 1. The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented. 2. The lot is zoned for residential and contains an existing, single-family dwelling. 3. The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. 4. The increased floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet. 5. The total area of floor space for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. 6. Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. 7. No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. 8. No setback shall be required for an existing garage tha t is converted to a accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage. 9. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence and may employ alternative methods for fire protection. Parking: 1. Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking, including on an existing driveway or in setback areas, excluding the non-driveway front yard setback. 2. Parking is not required in the following instances:  The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of public transit, including transit stations and bus stations. Packet Pg 160 11 27  The accessory dwelling unit is located in the WWWW Downtown, XXX Area, YYY Corridor and ZZZ Opportunity Area.  The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historicall y significant historic district.  When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.  When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. 3. Replacement Parking: When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, replacement parking shall not be required and may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the acces sory dwelling unit. Section XXX4XXX: Permit Requirements ADUs shall be permitted ministerially, in compliance with this Chapter within 120 days of application. The Community Development Director shall issue a building permit or zoning certificate to establish an accessory dwelling unit in compliance with this Chapter if all applicable requirements are met in Section XXX3XXXXX , as appropriate. The Community Development Director may approve an accessory dwelling unit that is not in compliance with Section XXX3XXXX as set forth in Section XXX5XXXX. The XXXX Health Officer shall approve an application in conformance with XXXXXX where a private sewage disposal system is being used. Section XXX5XXX: Review Process for Accessory Structure Not Complying with Development Standards An accessory dwelling unit that does not comply with standards in Section XXX3XX may permitted with a zoning certificate or an administrative use permit at the discretion of the Community Development Director subject to findings in Section XXX6XX Section XXX6XXX: Findings A. In order to deny an administrative use permit under Section XXX5XXX, the Community Development Director shall find that the Accessory Dwelling Unit would be detrim ental to the public health and safety or would introduce unreasonable privacy impacts to the immediate neighbors. B. In order to approve an administrative use permit under Section XXX5XXX to waive required accessory dwelling unit parking, the Community Development Director shall find that additional or new on -site parking would be detrimental, and that granting the waiver wil l m eet the purposes of this Chapter. Section XXX7XXX: Definitions (1) “Living area means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (2) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single -family dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following: (A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code. (B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and exten ds from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. Packet Pg 161 11 28 (4) (1) “Existing Structure” for the purposes of defining an allowable space that can be converted to an ADU means within the four walls and roofline of any structure existing on or after Jan uary 1, 2017 that can be made safely habitable under local building codes at the determination of the building official regardless of any non -compliance with zoning standards. Packet Pg 162 11 29 Attachment 3: Sample JADU Ordinance (Lilypad Homes at http://lilypadhomes.org/) Draft Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) – Flexible Housing Findings: 1. Causation: Critical need for housing for lower income families and individuals given the high cost of living and low supply of affordable homes for rent or purchase, and the difficulty, given the current social and economic environment, in building more affordable housing 2. Mitigation: Create a simple and inexpensive permitting track for the development of junior accessory dwelling units that allows spare bedrooms in homes to serve as a flexible form of infill housing 3. Endangerment: Provisions currently required under agency ordinances are so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome as to restrict the ability of homeowners to legally develop these units therefore encouraging homeowners to bypass safety standards and procedures that make the creation of these units a benefit to the whole of the community 4. Co-Benefits: Homeowners (particularly retired seniors and young families, groups that tend to have the lowest incomes) – generating extra revenue, allowing people facing unexpected financial obstacles to remain in their homes, housing parents, children or caregivers; Homebuyers - providing rental income which aids in mortgage qualification under new government guidelines; Renters – creating more low-cost housing options in the community where they work, go to school or have family, also reducing commute time and expenses; Municipalities – helping to meet RHNA goals, increasing property and sales tax revenue, insuring safety standard code compliance, providing an abundant source of affordable housing with no additional infrastructure needed; Community - housing vital workers, decreasing traffic, creating economic growth both in the remodeling sector and new customers for local businesses; Planet - reducing carbon emissions, using resources more efficiently; 5. Benefits of Junior ADUs: offer a more affordable housing option to both homeowners and renters, creating economically healthy, diverse, multi-generational communities; Therefore the following ordinance is hereby enacted: This Section provides standards for the establishment of junior accessory dwelling units, an alternative to the standard accessory dwelling unit, permitted as set forth under State Law AB 1866 (Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002) Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2 and subject to different provisions under fire safety codes based on the fact that junior accessory dwelling units do not qualify as “complete independent living facilities” given that the interior connection from the junior accessory dwelling unit to the main living area remains, therefore not redefining the single-family home status of the dwelling unit. A) Development Standards. Junior accessory dwelling units shall comply with the following standards, including the standards in Table below: 1) Number of Units Allowed. Only one accessory dwelling unit or, junior accessory dwelling unit, may be located on any residentially zoned lot that permits a single-family dwelling except as otherwise regulated or restricted by an adopted Master Plan or Precise Development Plan. A junior accessory dwelling unit may only be located on a lot which already contains one legal single-family dwelling. 2) Owner Occupancy: The owner of a parcel proposed for a junior accessory dwelling unit shall occupy as a principal residence either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling, except when the home is held by an agency such as a land trust or housing organization in an effort to create affordable housing. 3) Sale Prohibited: A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently of the primary dwelling on the parcel. Packet Pg 163 11 30 4) Deed Restriction: A deed restriction shall be completed and recorded, in compliance with Section B below. 5) Location of Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit: A junior accessory dwelling unit must be created within the existing walls of an existing primary dwelling, and must include conversion of an existing bedroom. 6) Separate Entry Required: A separate exterior entry shall be provided to serve a junior accessory dwelling unit. 7) Interior Entry Remains: The interior connection to the main living area must be maintained, but a second door may be added for sound attenuation. 8) Kitchen Requirements: The junior accessory dwelling unit shall include an efficiency kitchen, requiring and limited to the following components: a) A sink with a maximum waste line diameter of one-and-a-half (1.5) inches, b) A cooking facility with appliance which do not require electrical service greater than one-hundred-and- twenty (120) volts or natural or propane gas, and c) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are reasonable to size of the unit. 9) Parking: No additional parking is required beyond that required when the existing primary dwelling was constructed. Development Standards for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units SITE OR DESIGN FEATURE SITE AND DESIGN STANDARDS Maximum unit size 500 square feet Setbacks As required for the primary dwelling unit Parking No additional parking required B) Deed Restriction: Prior to obtaining a building permit for a junior accessory dwelling unit, a deed restriction, approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office, which shall include the pertinent restrictions and limitations of a junior accessory dwelling unit identified in this Section. Said deed restriction shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns. A copy of the recorded deed restriction shall be filed with the Department stating that: 1) The junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit; 2) The junior accessory dwelling unit is restricted to the maximum size allowed per the development standards; 3) The junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered legal only so long as either the primary residence, or the accessory dwelling unit, is occupied by the owner of record of the property, except when the home is owned by an agency such as a land trust or housing organization in an effort to create affordable housing; 4) The restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of compliance with this provision may result in legal action against the property owner, including revocation of any right to maintain a junior accessory dwelling unit on the property. C) No Water Connection Fees: No agency should require a water connection fee for the development of a junior accessory dwelling unit. An inspection fee to confirm that the dwelling unit complies with development standard may be assessed. D) No Sewer Connection Fees: No agency should require a sewer connection fee for the development of a junior accessory dwelling unit. An inspection fee to confirm that the dwelling unit complies with development standard Packet Pg 164 11 31 may be assessed. E) No Fire Sprinklers and Fire Attenuation: No agency should require fire sprinkler or fire attenuation specifications for the development of a junior accessory dwelling unit. An inspection fee to confirm that the dwelling unit complies with development standard may be assessed. Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases. “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisio ns for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single -family dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following: (1) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code. (2) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. Packet Pg 165 11 32 Attachment 4: State Standards Checklist (As of January 1, 2017) YES/NO STATE STANDARD* GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION Unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(i) Lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use and contains an existing, single- family dwelling. 65852.2(a)(1)(D))ii) Accessory dwelling unit is either attached to the existing dwelling or located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iii ) Increased floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iv ) Total area of floor space for a detached accessory dwelling unit dies not exceed 1,200 square feet. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(v ) Passageways are not required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vi ) Setbacks are not required for an existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines are not required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vi i) (Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings are met, as appropriate. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vi ii) Local health officer approval where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(ix ) Parking requirements do not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(x ) * Other requirements may apply. See Government Code Section 65852.2 Packet Pg 166 11 33 Attachment 5: Bibliography Reports ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: CASE STUDY (26 pp.) By United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. (2008) Introduction: Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — also referred to as accessory apartments, ADUs, or granny flats — are additional living quarters on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit. The separate living spaces are equipped with kitchen and bathroom facilities, and can be either attached or detached from the main residence. This case study explores how the adoption of ordinances, with reduced regulatory restrictions to encourage ADUs, can be advantageous for communities. Following an explanation of the various types of ADUs and their benefits, this case study provides examples of municipalities with successful ADU legislation and programs. Section titles include: History of ADUs; Types of Accessory Dwelling Units; Benefits of Accessory Dwelling Units; and Examples of ADU Ordinances and Programs. THE MACRO VIEW ON MICRO UNITS (46 pp.) By Bill Whitlow, et al. – Urban Land Institute (2014) Library Call #: H43 4.21 M33 2014 The Urban Land Institute Multifamily Housing Councils were awarded a ULI Foundation research grant in fall 2013 to evaluate from multiple perspectives the market performance and market acceptance of micro and small units. RESPONDING TO CHANGING HOUSEHOLDS: Regulatory Challenges for Micro-units and Accessory Dwelling Units (76 pp.) By Vicki Been, Benjamin Gross, and John Infranca (2014) New York University: Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy Library Call # D55 3 I47 2014 This White Paper fills two gaps in the discussion regarding compact units. First, we provide a detailed analysis of the regulatory and other challenges to developing both ADUs and micro -units, focusing on five cities: New York; Washington, DC; Austin; Denver; and Seattle. That analysis will be helpful not only to the specif ic jurisdictions we study, but also can serve as a model for those who what to catalogue regulations that might get in the way of the development of compact units in their own jurisdictions. Second, as more local governments permit or encourage compact units, researchers will need to evaluate how well the units built serve the goals proponents claim they will. SCALING UP SECONDARY UNIT PRODUCTION IN THE EAST BAY: Impacts and Policy Implications (25 pp.) By Jake Webmann, Alison Nemirow, and Karen Chapple (2012) UC Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD) Library Call # H44 1.1 S33 2012 This paper begins by analyzing how many secondary units of one particular type, detached backyard cottages, might be built in the East Bay, focusing on the Flatlands portions of Berkeley, El Cerrito, and Oakland. We then investigate the potential impacts of scaling up the strategy with regard to housing affordability, smart growth, alternative transportation, the economy, and city budgets. A final section details policy recommenda tions, focusing on regulatory reforms and other actions cities can take to encourage secondary unit construction, such as promoting carsharing programs, educating residents, and providing access to finance. Packet Pg 167 11 34 SECONDARY UNITS AND URBAN INFILL: A literature Review (12 pp.) By Jake Wegmann and Alison Nemirow (2011) UC Berkeley: IURD Library Call # D44 4.21 S43 2011 This literature review examines the research on both infill development in general, and secondary units in particular, with an eye towards understanding the similarities and differences between infill as it is more traditionally understood – i.e., the development or redevelopment of entire parcels of land in an already urbanized area – and the incremental type of infill that secondary unit development constitutes. YES, BUT WILL THEY LET US BUILD? The Feasibility of Secondary Units in the East Bay (17 pp.) By Alison Nemirow and Karen Chapple (2012) UC Berkeley: IURD Library Call # H44.5 1.1 Y47 2012 This paper begins with a discussion of how to determine the development potential for secondary units, and then provides an overview of how many secondary units can be built in the East Bay of San Francisco Bay Area under current regulations. The next two sections examine key regulatory barriers in detail for the five cities in the study (Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Oakland, and Richmond), looking at lot size, setbacks, parking requirements, and procedural barriers. A sensitivity analysis then determines how many units could be built were the regulations to be relaxed. YES IN MY BACKYARD: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units (20 pp.) By Karen Chapple, J. Weigmann, A. Nemirow, and C. Dentel-Post (2011) UC Berkeley: Center for Community Innovation. Library Call # B92 1.1 Y47 2011 This study examines two puzzles that must be solved in order to scale up a secondary unit strategy: first, how can city regulations best enable their construction? And second, what is the market for secondary units? Because parking is such an important issue, we also examine the potential for secondary unit residents to rely on alternative transportation modes, particular car share programs. The study looks at five adjacent cities in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area (Figure 1) -- Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and Richmond -- focusing on the areas within ½ mile of five Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations. Journal Articles and Working Papers: BACKYARD HOMES LA (17 pp.) By Dana Cuff, Tim Higgins, and Per-Johan Dahl, Eds. (2010) Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles. City Lab Project Book. DEVELOPING PRIVATE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS (6 pp.) By William P. Macht. Urbanland online. (June 26, 2015) Library Location: Urbanland 74 (3/4) March/April 2015, pp. 154-161. Packet Pg 168 11 35 GRANNY FLATS GAINING GROUND (2 pp.) By Brian Barth. Planning Magazine: pp. 16-17. (April 2016) Library Location: Serials "HIDDEN" DENSITY: THE POTENTIAL OF SMALL-SCALE INFILL DEVELOPMENT (2 pp.) By Karen Chapple (2011) UC Berkeley: IURD Policy Brief. Library Call # D44 1.2 H53 2011 California’s implementation of SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is putting new pressure on communities to support infill development. As metropolitan planning organizations struggle to communicate the need for density, they should take note of strategies that make increasing density an attractive choice for neighborhoods and regions. HIDDEN DENSITY IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS: Backyard cottages as an equitable smart growth strategy (22 pp.) By Jake Wegmann and Karen Chapple. Journal of Urbanism 7(3): pp. 307-329. (2014) Abstract (not available in full text): Secondary units, or separate small dwellings embedded within single-family residential properties, constitute a frequently overlooked strategy for urban infill in high -cost metropolitan areas in the United States. This study, which is situated within California’s San Francisco Bay Area, draws upon data collected from a homeowners’ survey and a Rental Market Analysis to provide evidence that a scaled -up strategy emphasizing one type of secondary unit – the backyard cottage – could yield substantial infill growth with minimal public subsidy. In addition, it is found that this strategy compares favorably in terms of affordability with infill of the sort traditionally favored in the ‘smart growth’ literature, i.e. the construction of dense multifamily housin g developments. RETHINKING PRIVATE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS (5 pp.) By William P. Macht. Urbanland online. (March 6, 2015) Library Location: Urbanland 74 (1/2) January/February 2015, pp. 87-91. ADUS AND LOS ANGELES’ BROKEN PLANNING SYSTEM (4 pp.) By CARLYLE W. Hall. The Planning Report. (April 26, 2016). Land-use attorney Carlyle W. Hall comments on building permits for accessory dwelling units. News: HOW ONE COLORADO CITY INSTANTLY CREATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING By Anthony Flint. The Atlantic-CityLab. (May 17, 2016). In Durango, Colorado, zoning rules were changed to allow, for instance, non-family members as residents in already-existing accessory dwelling units. NEW HAMPSHIRE WINS PROTECTIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (1 p.) NLIHC (March 28, 2016) Affordable housing advocates in New Hampshire celebrated a significant victory this month when Governor Maggie Hassan (D) signed Senate Bill 146, legislation that allows single -family homeowners to add an accessory Packet Pg 169 11 36 dwelling unit as a matter of right through a conditional use permit or by special exception as determined by their municipalities. The bill removes a significant regulatory barrier to increasing rental homes at no cost to taxpayers. NEW IN-LAW SUITE RULES BOOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN FRANCISCO. (3 pp.) By Rob Poole. Shareable. (June 10, 2014). The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently approved two significant pieces of legislation that support accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also known as “in-law” or secondary units, in the city… USING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO BOLSTER AFFORDABLE HOUSING (3 pp.) By Michael Ryan. Smart Growth America. (December 12, 2014). Packet Pg 170 11 Minutes - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 22, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Daniel Knight, John Larson, Ronald Malak, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansalabehere, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler, Housing Programs Manager Jenny Wiseman, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. --End of Public Comment-- CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2016 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MALAK, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of December 14, 2016. Packet Pg 171 11 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2017 Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of January 11, 2017 and January 25, 2017 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MALAK, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of January 11, 2017 and January 25, 2017. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. City-Wide. CODE-0107-2017: Review of amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code associated with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions with a Categorical Exemption from Environmental Review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Housing Programs Manager Jenny Wiseman provided the staff report with use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Chief Building Official Anne Schneider responded to Commissioners requests for clarification. Public Comments: Jerry Rioux, suggested the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) size restrictions include reasonable accommodations for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and suggested the City consider tiny homes as Accessory Dwelling Units. Michael Boudreau, stated 450 feet is an insufficient living space and encouraged the City to consider a sliding impact fee. Greg Wynn, San Luis Obispo, referred to a previously submitted correspondence item, providing a PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate the livability of small units; suggested City requirements should mirror state requirements. Randy Russom, RRM Design Group, AIA president-elect, stated the 450-sq. ft. ADU limit is inconsistent with City goals and does not provide meaningful housing; suggested the City follow state requirements and responded to Commissioners inquiries. Cynthia Boche, San Luis Obispo, encouraged infill development and requested the City allow ADUs up to 1,200 square feet per state law. Corey Dudley, San Luis Obispo, shared personal experience with accessory dwelling units and requested the Commission reconsider the 450-sq. ft. size restriction. Packet Pg 172 11 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2017 Page 3 Theodora Jones, spoke in opposition to increased size restrictions or allowance of tiny homes; urged the Commission to consider environmental effects of small dwelling units. Steve Delmartini spoke in opposition to the 450-sq. ft. size restriction and requested the Commission consider a procedure to address possible hardships. Jeff Eckles, Homebuilders of Central Coast, encouraged the Commission to provide flexibility in ADU size restrictions. Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the proposed 450 ft. ADU restriction and encouraged the Commission to consider all demographics when setting standards. --End of Public Comment-- Commission discussion followed. Community Development Director Codron and Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere responded to Commissioner inquiries regarding the appropriateness of modifications to the Zoning Regulation Chapter 17.10.020 Accessory Spaces amendments. ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR FOWLER, SECOND COMMISSIONER BISHEFF, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council introduce and adopt an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units with the following amendments: Subsection C.2. Eliminate R-3 and R-4 zones. Subsection C.8. Change the maximum size from 450 square feet to 800 square feet, allowing administrative discretion for units 801-1200 square feet, not to exceed 50% of the primary residence and 50% site coverage. Subsection E.1. Eliminate the inspection requirement. Amend Finding #2 to reflect changes to subsection C.8. MOTION CARRIED 7-0 ON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: BISHEFF, DANDEKAR, KNIGHT, LARSON, MALAK, VICE-CHAIR FOWLER, CHAIR STEVENSON NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Commission provided direction to staff to clarify the language in subsection C5. Packet Pg 173 11 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2017 Page 4 Commission Recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. with 7 members present. BUSINESS ITEM 1. Study Session on the status of implementation of the Climate Action Plan, the Energy Code, and the Green Building Standards. Chief Building Official Anne Schneider provided a status report on the implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP), the Energy Code, and the Green Building Standards. Deputy Director of Long-Range Planning Xzandrea Fowler provided information regarding CAP policy implementations and requested feedback regarding the Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy Plan Recommendations provided in the staff report. Commission discussion followed. Deputy Director Fowler responded to Commission inquiries and received individual comments. Public Comment: None. --End of Public Comment-- 2. Presentation and information session regarding State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere presented an overview of the State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act with use of a PowerPoint presentation. LIAISON REPORTS Deputy Director Fowler provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 , 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE ADVISORY BODY NAME: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 174 11 O _______ ORDINANCE NO. #### (2017 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITH A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CODE-0107-2017) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street , San Luis Obispo, California, on February 22, 2017 (CODE-0107-2017) and recommended the City Council adopt amendments to the City’s Municipal Code related to the regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 2, 2017, for the purpose of considering amendments to the Municipal Code related to the regulation of ADUs (CODE-0107-2017); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069, the City’s General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the adoption of an ordinance to implement Government Code section 65852.2 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Similarly, the ministerial approval of ADU applications would not be a "project" for CEQA purposes, and environmental review would not be required prior to approving individual applications. SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendments to the City’s ADU regulations will not significantly alter the character of the City or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and directly implement City goals and policies. 2. The proposed amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are consistent with Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069 and Government Code section 65952.2 3. The proposed amendments to the City’s ADU regulations do not burden the development Packet Pg 175 11 Ordinance No. #### (2017 Series) Page 2 O _______ of ADUs within the City. SECTION 3. Chapter 17.100. “Definitions, S.” (Single Family Dwelling) of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Single Family Dwelling. A building designed for and/or occupied exclusively by one family, or one of more persons occupying premises and living as a single housekeeping unit which is not attached to or located on a lot with commercial uses. Single family dwellings contain one dwelling on one lot. Single family dwellings may also include approved secondary accessory dwelling units. Also includes factory built, modular housing units, constructed in compliance with the Uniform, Building Code (UBC), and mobile homes/manufactures housing units that comply with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, places on permanent foundations. SECTION 4. Chapter 17.21.010 (Secondary Dwelling Units) of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: Chapter 17.21: Accessory Spaces Sections: 17.21.010 Accessory Dwelling Units 17.21.020 Guest Quarters 17.21.030 Accessory Structures 17.21.010 Accessory Dwelling Units. A. Purpose. 1. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in a manner that is consistent with requirements set forth in California Government Code Sections 65852.2, as amended from time to time. 2. Implementation of this section is meant to expand housing opportunities by increasing the number of smaller units available within existing neighborhoods. B. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases have the meanings given them in this section: 1. “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or detached dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all provisions of this section. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit. An Accessory Dwelling Unit Packet Pg 176 11 Ordinance No. #### (2017 Series) Page 2 O _______ also includes the following: a. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. b. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. 2. “Director” means the director of the Community Development Department or his designate. 3. “Director’s Action” means the required submittal of an Administrative Approval Application and review by the Community Development Director. 4. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. Passageways are not required for detached accessory dwelling units. 5. “Primary unit” means the existing single-family residential structure on the site. C. General Requirements. 1. Application. Where this section does not contain a particular type of standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply. 2. Areas Where Accessory Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon meeting the requirements of this section, accessory dwelling units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and O, when the primary use on the site is a single-family dwelling. 3. Areas Prohibited. Accessory dwelling units shall not be established in any condominium or planned development project unless specifically addressed in the planned development ordinance as adopted or amended, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park. 4. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where an accessory dwelling unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of zoning and subdivision regulations. 5. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where an accessory dwelling unit has been established. All conditions of Director’s Action (if applicable), restrictive covenants, and other contractual agreements with the city shall apply to the property and the new owners. 6. Unit Types Allowed. An accessory dwelling unit may be either attached or detached to the primary unit on the lot. a. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be defined as either attached to (by a minimum of one shared wall), or completely contained within, the primary existing single family dwelling unit. b. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be defined as new residential square footage Packet Pg 177 11 Ordinance No. #### (2017 Series) Page 2 O _______ not attached or sharing any walls with the primary existing single family dwelling unit. 7. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than an efficiency unit, and shall not exceed the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit’s existing living area or eight hundred (800) square feet. The Director may authorize an exception to this standard up to 1,200 square feet by a Director’s Action, defined above. 8. Accessory dwelling units are limited to one (1) unit per property. D. Performance Standards and Compatibility. 1. Design Standards. Accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable development standards included in the underlying zone such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc. An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. a. Accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. b. No passageway, defined above, shall be required in conjunction with the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit. c. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage. d. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if fire sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. e. No additional parking spaces shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit. i. Replacement of Required Parking for Primary Unit: When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, replacement parking spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces. f. Accessory dwelling units on listed historic properties and in historic districts shall be found consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance including Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Packet Pg 178 11 Ordinance No. #### (2017 Series) Page 2 O _______ g. Where ADUs are being created within an existing structure (primary or accessory), no new utility connection or payment of impact fees shall be required. For all other ADUs, a new utility connection for the ADU and payment of impact fees shal l be required. 2. Architectural Compatibility. Accessory dwelling units should be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following design standards: a. Architectural Style and Form. Architectural style and form shall match or be compatible with the style and form of the primary residence on the property. b. Materials. The materials of the accessory dwelling unit shall match or be compatible the materials of the primary residence on the property. Compliance with these design standards shall be reviewed ministerially and be performed during the building permit application process. E. Procedure requirements. An accessory dwelling unit that meets the standards contained in Section 17.21.010 shall be subject to ministerial review (Building Permit) and approval without discretionary review (i.e. Use Permit, Architectural Review, etc.) or public hearing. All applications shall be permitted within 120 days of submission of a complete application which complies with all applicable requirements and development standards as set forth in this Chapter. Any application for an accessory dwelling that exceeds the greater of fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit’s existing living area or eight hundred (800) square feet may apply for a Director’s Action, defined above, in which the Community Development Director may authorize an exception to that standard. F. Owner-Occupancy. The owner of the property must occupy either the primary residence or the accessory dwelling unit. The Director may waive this requirement for a period of up to one year based on a showing of a hardship. A hardship shall include, but not be limited to, inheritance of property with an accessory dwelling unit. G. Covenant Agreement Prior to the issuance of building permits for an accessory dwelling unit, a covenant agreement shall be recorded which discloses the structure’s approved floor plan and status as a “accessory dwelling Packet Pg 179 11 Ordinance No. #### (2017 Series) Page 2 O _______ unit” and agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied. This agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property. H. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be subject to basic code enforcement action as provided in Title 1 of this code. Packet Pg 180 11 Ordinance No. #### (2017 Series) Page 2 O _______ SECTION 5. Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation. Table 9 (Uses Allowed by Zone). Residential Uses land uses of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: Packet Pg 181 11 Ordinance No. #### (2017 Series) Page 2 O _______ SECTION 6. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the city' s rules and regulations. It is the city' s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any member of the public. 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 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 182 11 Meeting Date: 5/2/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared by: Steven Orozco, Planning Technician SUBJECT: REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2016 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT (GENP-0244-2017). RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, accept the 2016 General Plan Annual Report. BACKGROUND Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and the actions taken to implement it during the past year (Attachment B). The General Plan Annual Report is developed to comply with state law, which says that “the planning agency shall … provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs…” (California Government Code §65400). The General Plan Annual Report also implements the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 11.3. The General Plan Annual Report is an opportunity for the City to keep the General Plan current by providing information and measurements on how well it meets the City’s goals and objectives. The Annual Report also provides an opportunity to evaluate progress towards implementing General Plan policies and programs and to determine if prioriti es should be shifted. The Long Range Planning Division of the Community Development Department has the primary responsibility for staff work involving the General Plan and has compiled data and information provided by all City departments for inclusion in the 2016 General Plan Annual Report. Significant progress was made by all City Departments towards implementing General Plan policies in 2016. Report Organization The General Plan contains an array of policies and implementing programs covering most typ es of City actions. The General Plan Annual Report touches on the major programs that saw activity in 2016. The report is organized around the following key implementation areas:  General Plan Updates  Planning and Building Activity  Housing and Residential Growth  Nonresidential Growth  Specific Plan Implementation and Development  Water Supply  Historic Preservation Packet Pg 183 12  Circulation  Safety  Neighborhood Wellness  Open Space Protection  Parks and Recreation The 2016 Annual Report also includes a discussion of the following:  Plans Under Development  Climate Action Plan Implementation  Economic Development  New Policy Initiatives The General Plan Annual Report and General Plan Annual Report video will be uploaded to the City`s website once accepted by City Council. Provided below are a few highlights from the General Plan Annual Report: 2016 saw the initial implementation of the newly revised Water and Wastewater Management Element, updated Housing Element, and Land Use and Circulation Elements. The recent update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) established implementation of programs in 2016, such as such as the Downtown Concept Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Sign Regulations, Neighborhood Matching Grants, Mission Plaza Master Plan, and Zoning Regulations Update, among many others. Program Implementation and Proposition 64 In 2016 more than 75% of the implementation programs in the Land Use Element, and more than 97% of the implementation programs in the Circulation Element, were completed or are in progress. In 2016 the Disaster Preparedness Training program was initiated and in January 2016 the Rental Housing Inspection Program was launched. On November 8, 2016 California voters approved Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). Building Permits Issued Development activity remained strong in 2016 even though there were only 568 permits issued, which was 128 less than in 2015. Although building permits were down in 2016, building valuations in 2016 increased by $11,587,323 when compared to 2015. Residential Growth Based on the Community Development Department’s running total of residential construction permits (as shown in Table 6 on page 24) the annual growth rate in 2016 was 0.65 percent, which includes new single-family and multi-family market-rate residential construction. This is well within the limit of the one percent annual residential growth rate identified in the Land Use Element. The five-year average growth rate was at 0.39 percent. Packet Pg 184 12 Non-residential Growth Based on final building permits issued, 81,278 square feet of net new non-residential floor area was added to the City in 2016. This is an increase of 21 percent from 2015, which saw 67,141 square feet of net new non-residential space, and an annual growth rate of .70 percent. Virtually all the new non-residential growth was in the retail sector. Not reflected in the non-residential growth rate is the rehabilitation of existing vacant properties listed below. These properties are not reflected because they are not considered new structures but rather occupying an existing structure (see Figure 4, page 31). Updated employment numbers provided from SLOCOG highlighted the jobs to housing balance in the City of San Luis Obispo, and concluded that the City is currently experiencing a jobs to housing imbalance. The updated data depicted the jobs to housing ratio at 2.4:1 for 2016, compared to 1.6:1 for 2015. The change over the past year in the jobs to housing balance ratio is primarily because the data we have been using from SLOCOG was recently updated for the first time in a few years. Although the jobs to housing balance looks like it jumped significantly from 2015 to 2016, that is not the case. Jobs within the City have been steadily growing over the past couple years, but we can’t illustrate the year to year change because our data source is only updated every four years or so. Table 10 provides the current statistics. Table 10 - Current Jobs/Housing Balance Estimated jobs in City limits 50,985 Housing units 21,155 Jobs to housing ratio 2.4:1 Cal Poly jobs (not in City) 3,093 California Men's Colony jobs (not in City) 1,899 Jobs to housing ratio including neighboring major employers (CP and Men’s Colony) 2.6:1 The FY 2015-17 Housing, Open Space, and Transportation Major City Goals resulted in a significant amount of activity in these General Plan program areas. Housing and residential growth program accomplishments are highlighted below. Table 8 - Affordable Housing Project Highlights from 2016 Project Affordable Units Status Special Notes Moylan Terrace (860 Humbert) 27 units (2 very-low; 14 low- income; 11 moderate) All units in Moylan Terrace have now been complete and sold. The 80 units were developed in four phases and were completed in late 2016. The City contributed an Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) grant of $709,900 for property acquisition and an impact fee deferral loan for the affordable units. Packet Pg 185 12 South Hills Crossing (313 South) 43 Construction was finalized in Summer 2016 and all units are now occupied. The City provided a loan in the amount of $650,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund and a development impact fee deferral loan in the amount of $716,166. A lottery for the units opened in Winter 2015 and all units were occupied by Summer 2016. 860 On the Wye 19 (10 units set aside for homeless veterans) Construction kicked off in May 2016. Construction is on track and willl be completed in Spring 2017. The project received low-income housing tax credits in September 2015. AHF award of $352,029 awarded to HASLO in Fall 2015. Iron Works 46 All planning entitlements have been awarded. HASLO sucessfuly obtained low income housing tax credits in 2016 and is currnetly working to obtain building permits and begin construction in early 2017. This mixed-use project located at 3680 Broad Street is being devevloped by HASLO. The City has awarded a $920,000 AHF award to the project. Bishop Street Studios 34 All entitlements for this new affordable housing development were awarded in late 2016. HASLO will apply for low income housing tax credits in Summer 2017. HASLO and Transitions Mental Health Assocation have teamed up to renovate the existing Sunny Acres building and create new affordable housing for TMHA clients. 867 Humbert 1 The City successfully purchased an affordable unit in which the tenant was out of compliance In August 2016 the City purhased one moderate income unit using Affordable Housing Funds. The unit was then resold to a new moderate income household in December 2016. Specific Plan Areas Orcutt Area 73 proposed at this time Staff has entered into affordable housing agreements for two separate subdivisions in the Orcutt Area. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan projects up to 1,000 units. At full build out, up to 150 new affordable units will be created. Margarita Area 36 propsed at this time (Courtyard at the Meadows) Courtyard at the Meadows, HASLO’s new affordable housing development in the Serra Meadows Tract was fully entitled in Fall 2016. Land dedication for affordable housing on the Toscano Tract is scheduled for late 2017. The Margarita Area Specific Plan projects up to 850 units. Up to 130 new affordable units are expected at build out. HASLO will apply for tax credits in Summer 2017 and hope to start construction by Winter 2017. Packet Pg 186 12 Rehabilitation Highland Drive – Habitat for Humanity 1 single family residence Completed Winter 2016. Under Habitat for Humanity’s Home Rehabilitation Project, one low income single family home was fully renovated. The City provided a $35,000 grant to assist the project. Source: Community Devleopment Department, 2016 Circulation Element program accomplishments include SLO Transit’s increase in ridership, transporting over 1,209,701 during calendar year 2016. This represents a new record high in ridership for SLO Transit; the prior record was set only a year ago. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the 2016 General Plan Annual Report on March 8, 2017 and unanimously recommended it be forwarded to Council with minor changes and clarifications to the report. In addition to minor changes and clarifications, the Planning Commission is recommending policy changes involving growth management and infill development practices as shown on Table 5 and Table 7 of the General Plan Annual Report. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department prepares the Annual Report on the General Plan with significant input from other City departments. Administration (including Natural Resources and Economic Development divisions), Utilities, Public Works, Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation Departments collaborated on this report. 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. The annual report does not change the General Plan and, therefore, has no fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES Continue the item and direct staff to make revisions or include additional information. Attachments: a - Draft Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2017 b - Council Reading File - 2016 General Plan Annual Report Packet Pg 187 12 Minutes - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 8, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, John Larson, Ronald Malak, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson. Absent: Commissioners Daniel Knight and Hemalata Dandekar. Staff: Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler, Planning Technician Steven Orozco, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. --End of Public Comment— BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Citywide. GENP-0244-2017: General Plan Annual Report for 2016; City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Department. Planning Technician Steven Orozco presented the 2016 General Plan Annual Report with use of a PowerPoint presentation. Public Comment: Packet Pg 188 12 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2017 Page 2 None. --End of Public Comment-- Chair Stevenson explained the purpose of the General Plan Annual Report, commending City staff on the comprehensive nature of the report. Deputy Director Fowler responded to Commissioner comments and questions regarding the jobs-housing ratio. Commissioner Malak recommended the City take a proactive approach to building additional dwellings, allowing opportunities for the commuting workforce to obtain local housing. Chair Stevenson summarized feedback from the Commission, stating increased appropriately-designed housing with greater density should be given greater consideration. Chair Stevenson referenced the General Plan Program Implementation Status list (included in the agenda packet) and stated interest in receiving updates on the City’s progress in addressing each item. 2. Presentation and information Regarding Land Use Regulations and the Planning Commission’s Role and Responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Associate Planner Shawna Scott and Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere jointly narrated a PowerPoint presentation, providing contextual case studies illustrating the application of CEQA guidelines and responded to Commissioner inquiries. LIAISON REPORTS Deputy Director Fowler provided an agenda forecast through May 10th. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS Chair Stevenson announced the end of Commissioner Larson and Commissioner Knight’s term on the Commission and Commissioners expressed appreciation to Commissioner Larson for his service. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Packet Pg 189 12 DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2017 Page 3 APPROVED BY THE ADVISORY BODY NAME: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 190 12