HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2017 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, October 3, 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 Carlyn Christianson
PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION - INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY (HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
2. PROCLAMATION - FIRE PREVENTION WEEK (HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
3. PROCLAMATION - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH (HARMON –
5 MINUTES)
4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE TO THE NEW CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO CITY MANAGER, DEREK JOHNSON (GALLAGHER – 20
MINUTES)
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
Packet Pg 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 3, 2017 Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be
acted upon at one time. 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.
5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
6. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 AND SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 (GALLAGHER)
Recommendation:
Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of September 6, 2017 and September 19,
2017.
7. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND AVILA
RANCH, LLC (CODRON / COREY)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1639 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the development agreement between the City
of San Luis Obispo, a Charter City, and Avila Ranch LLC.”
8. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AT 175 VENTURE
DRIVE FROM BUSINESS PARK/SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (BP-SP) AND
CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (C/OS/SP) TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN AND AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AS AMENDED
(CODRON / COREY)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1638 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, rezoning property at 175 Venture Drive from Business
Park/Specific Plan Area (BP-SP) and Conservation/Open Space/Specific Plan Area (C/OS-
SP) to be consistent with the Avila Ranch Development Plan and with the General Plan and
Airport Area Specific Plan as amended, collectively known as the “Avila Ranch” Area,
identified in the General Plan as Special Focus area 4 (“SP-4”).”
Packet Pg 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 3, 2017 Page 3
9. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.15 TO PROVIDE AN
EXPEDITED AND STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04.020 F.2 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A
PRIOR AMENDMENT (CODRON / SCHNEIDER / SADOWSKI)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1637 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 15 of the Municipal Code by adding
Chapter 15.15 to provide an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric
vehicle charging stations and by amending Section 15.04.020 F.2 of Chapter 15.04 to adopt
findings of fact to support the amendment of the California Building Code.”
10. STREETS MAINTENANCE DUMP TRUCK, TRANSFER DUMP TRAILER, AND
SWEEPER TRUCK, SPECIFICATION NO. 91589 & 91595 REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL TO FINANCE (BRADFORD / GRIGSBY / BOCHUM / SHUCK)
Recommendation:
Authorize the release of a Request for Proposals seeking a lender to finance approximately
$600,000 for the purchase of a street sweeper and dump truck.
11. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE 2017-18 BUDGET’S INCORPORATION OF A
LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB-1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (GRIGSBY / BETZ)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, confirming the 2017-18 Budget’s Incorporation of a list of projects
funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act” including the estimated useful
life of the projects.
12. WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY (MATTINGLY / METZ)
Recommendation:
Approve funding for the preparation of a Water and Wastewater Rate Study in an amount
not to exceed $50,000.
Packet Pg 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 3, 2017 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
13. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY BEN KULICK OF 33
TONS, LLC) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION
TO DENY A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE A BULKHEAD FEATURE AND
CHANGE APPROVED BUILDING COLORS ON A REMODELED COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AT 1135 SANTA ROSA STREET (CODRON / OETZELL – 90 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission’s decision denying a request to modify approved colors and building design for
a remodeled building, as represented in the staff report and attachments dated
October 3, 2017 (1135 Santa Rosa Street, APPL-1070-2017).”
14. DISCUSSION OF CITY SUPPORT FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM (CODRON / WISEMAN – 20 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
1. Discuss the public policy purpose of an Inclusionary Housing Program; and
2. Consider authorizing City staff to prepare a letter to the County Board of Supervisors
regarding the County’s Inclusionary Housing Program to be signed by Mayor Harmon.
15. REVIEW OF RESOLUTION OPPOSING NEW OR EXPANDED OFFSHORE
DRILLING, GAS LEASES, AND FRACKING OFF THE COAST OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY (JOHNSON / HERMANN / CARLONI – 10 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Consider a draft Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, opposing new or expansion of existing offshore oil and gas leases
off the coast of San Luis Obispo County and supporting measures to prohibit discharge of
pollutants into the ocean” consistent with the City’s Legislative Action Platform.
Packet Pg 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 3, 2017 Page 5
16. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CREATING A COUNCIL COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE FOR 2018 (GALLAGHER – 20 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Discuss and consider creating a Council Compensation Committee for 2018, which would:
1. Review the full Council compensation package and make recommendations to the City
Council no later than May 1, 2018, and
2. Review compensation for Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission
members in conjunction with its review of Council compensation.
COUNCIL 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, October 17, 2017 at 4:00 p.m.,
5:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Packet Pg 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 3, 2017 Page 6
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 6
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Wednesday,
September 6, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Monica Irons,
Director of Human Resources and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at
Roll Call.
Katie Lichtig, City Manager, Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager, Christine
Dietrick, City Attorney, Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources and Mr. Ken
Hampian were present intermittingly throughout the Closed Session.
Others
Present: Ken Hampian
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Title: City Manager
Packet Pg 7
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 6, 2017 Page 2
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons
Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
C. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Title: Interim City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
This meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 3:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council
Hearing Room and Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that Council enthusiastically and unanimously directed staff to
negotiate a City Manager employment contract with Assistant City Manager, Derek Johnson.
____________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 8
6
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, September 19, 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,
September 19, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager, Daryl Grigsby,
Director of Public Works, Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works and
Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at roll call.
Others
Present: Josh George and Dave Cumberland of Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland &
Green LLP
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9;
Name of case: Jeffrey Mitchell vs. City of San Luis Obispo;
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. 14CV-0187
Packet Pg 9
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 2
ADJOURNED AT 3:50 PM TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
TO BEGIN AT 4:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
September 19, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
STUDY SESSION
1. PRESENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE DELIVERY AND STAFFING
STUDY OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH CITYGATE
ASSOCIATES
Police Chief Cantrell and Citygate Associates, LLC representative Sam Spiegel provided an
in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council
questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council received and filed the Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing
Study from Citygate Associates, LLC (“Citygate”).
Packet Pg 10
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
2. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 15.15
TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED AND STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS
FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS; AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.04.020 F.2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF
FACT TO SUPPORT A PRIOR AMENDMENT
Community Development Director Codron and Building and Safety Supervisory Sadowski
provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded
to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to, introduce Ordinance No. 1637 (2017)
entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
amending Title 15 of the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 15.15 to provide an expedited
and streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations and by amending
Section 15.04.020 F.2 of Chapter 15.04 to adopt findings of fact to support the amendment
of the California Building Code”; and determine that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3).
ADJOURNED AT 5:20 PM TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
TO BEGIN AT 6:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
Packet Pg 11
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 4
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
September 19, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Rivoire led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action for Closed Session Item A.
PRESENTATIONS
3. PROCLAMATION - OUTGOING CITY MANAGER
Mayor Harmon provided a presentation of a proclamation to Katie Lichtig, outgoing City
Manager, expressing appreciation and gratitude for her many years of service.
4. PROCLAMATION - LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS CONCIERGE SERVICE
Mayor Harmon provided a presentation of a proclamation to Ann Havlik, Marilee Hyman,
Sharon Kimball, Debora Humphreys and Nancy Welts, representing the League of
Women’s Voters of San Luis Obispo County, endorsing the City Council Concierge
Service.
Packet Pg 12
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 5
5. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION WEEK
Mayor Harmon provided a presentation of a proclamation to Bonita Thomas, Chair of the
Peer Advocacy & Advisory Team for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention,
proclaiming September 10-16, 2017 as “National Suicide Prevention Week.”
6. PRESENTATION BY PETER WILLIAMSON REPRESENTING SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG), REGARDING RIDESHARE
WEEK, OCTOBER 2-6, 2017
Sarah Trauger representing San Luis Obispo Council of Government (SLOCOG) provided a
presentation regarding Rideshare Week, October 2-6, 2017.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Madalyn Souza
John Ashbaugh
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council approved to agendize a letter in support of inclusionary housing on the
County level at Mayor Harmon’s request.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 7 thru 13.
7. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
8. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of September 5, 2017.
9. RESULTS OF THE AUGUST 22, 2017, ALL MAILED BALLOT SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10830 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring the results of the Special
All Mailed Ballot Municipal Election held on Tuesday, August 22, 2017.”
Packet Pg 13
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 6
10. AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO APPLY FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
MODERNIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SERVICE ENHANCEMENT
ACCOUNT PROGRAM (PTMISEA) TRANSIT GRANT FUNDS, RESOLUTION,
BUDGET AUGMENTATION, AWARD
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10831 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorization for the execution of the
certifications and assurances for the public transportation modernization, improvement,
and service enhancement account bond program”, and authorizing the Public Works
Director, or his designee, to execute and file grant applications with the State of
California to receive PTMISEA Grant funds for transit projects and to execute any
related grant applications, certifications, assurances, forms, agreements, and associated
documents on behalf of the City; and
2. Approve a budget amendment to increase the budget reflecting these grant funds, if
awarded; and
3. Approve the appropriation of grant money for the procurement and installation of bus
shelters; and
4. Approve use of California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CalACT)
associations, Cooperative Purchase Consortium for award of contract.
11. PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH 5 BARS COMMUNITIES, A DBA
OF XG COMMUNITIES, LLC FOR WIRELESS CONSULTING SERVICES
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the City Manager or designee to enter a contract with 5 Bars
Communities, a dba of XG Communities, LLC for wireless consulting and management
services.
12. AUTHORIZE SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR PARKING LOT
AND STRUCTURE SWEEPING CONTRACT
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the extension of the existing contract with SP Maintenance for
Parking Lot and Structures Sweeping and Janitorial Services with SP Maintenance thru
February 2018.
13. CROWN CASTLE RIGHT OF WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve a Right of Way License Agreement with Crown Castle for the collocation of
communications facilities on select City street lights and traffic signals; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Right of Way License Agreement.
Packet Pg 14
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
14. APPOINTMENT OF CITY MANAGER
Human Resources Director Irons provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council
questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve contract of employment with Mr. Derek Johnson and authorize the Mayor to
sign; and
2. Appoint Derek J. Johnson as City Manager.
15. PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - TO CONSIDER THE AVILA
RANCH PROJECT, INCLUDING 1) RELATED ENTITLEMENTS; 2) THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR);
AND 3) RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM A COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT (CFD). PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE: 1) GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, 2) SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, 3) REZONE, 4)
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 5) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND 6)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SITE
INCLUDES UP TO 720 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; AND APPROXIMATELY
18 ACRES OF PARKS, WITH 53 ACRES OF THE SITE TO REMAIN IN OPEN
SPACE
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION
Council Member Christianson reported attending several Planning Commission meetings on
this topic, all of which were public meetings and officially on the record. Council Members
Gomez, Pease, Vice Mayor Rivoire and Mayor Harmon reported having no new Ex Parte
Communications.
Assistant City Manager Johnson, Community Development Director Codron, Transportation
Manager Jake, Contract Planner John Rickenbach, and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc
representative Walter Kieser provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council
questions.
Packet Pg 15
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 8
Public Comments:
Applicant Representative Stephen Peck, Peck Planning and Development noted a large
number of community meetings were held to discuss this project in order to address
potential issues and concerns, he spoke regarding a planned bike connection and scheduled
traffic improvements.
Jim Gardiner
Keith Dunlop
Wayne Longcrier
Courtney Taylor
Scott Smith
Ellie Washington
Melissa Cummins
Marge Barinka
Matthew Arigo
Michelle Patrick
RECESS
Council recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m., with all Council Members present
Public Comments Continued:
Graham Updegrove
Kevin Rice
Bill Thoma
Roxanne Carr
John Gardner
Joell Fetcho
Randy Steiger
David Abrecht
Randi Vreeland
Charlene Rosales
Ron Yukelson
Justin Maire
Kevin Heubel
Aaron Steed
Dale Sutliff
Donna Lewis
Kayla Plourde
Judy Wilson
John Ewan
Jeff Buckingham
Londie Padelsky
Micah
Paul Phillips
Deb Spatafore
Cherisse Sweeney
Mike Bennett
Packet Pg 16
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 9
Dr. Jim Waldsmith
Tina Galliani
Kathy Borland
Lea Brooks
Laila Anderson
Pete Jenny
Farid Shahid
Keira Cumberland
John Fowler
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre
Melissa James
Anne Wyatt
Sarah Flickinger
Paul Rys
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: adopt resolutions and introduce
ordinances, taking the following actions to approve the Avila Ranch Project and initiate the
formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD):
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10832 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, certifying the Final EIR for, and approval of, the
Avila Ranch Development Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan
Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3089, for property located at 175
Venture Drive (GENP 1319-2015; SPEC/ER-1318-2015; SBDV 2042 2015; OTHR-
0455-2017 A.K.A. “Avila Ranch”)”; and
2. Introduce Ordinance No. 1638 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, rezoning property at 175 Venture Drive from
Business Park/Specific Plan Area (BP-SP) and Conservation/Open Space/Specific Plan
Area (C/OS-SP) to be consistent with the Avila Ranch Development Plan and with the
General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan as amended, collectively known as the
“Avila Ranch” Area, identified in the General Plan as Special Focus Area 4 (“SP -4”)”;
and
3. Introduce Ordinance No. 1639 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Development Agreement
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a Charter City, and Avila Ranch LLC” that
implements the above entitlements; Amended as follows: Development Agreement section
7.07. Energy (b) (ii) amended: to strike the word “zero” and read as follows: (ii)
implementing any future city-wide policy regarding carbon emissions reduction; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. 10833 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring its intention to establish Avila Ranch
Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Services) pursuant to the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982 and to levy a special tax in connection therewith” for
parcels located in the Avila Ranch Development Plan.
Packet Pg 17
6
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 19, 2017 Page 10
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Council Members Pease, Gomez and Mayor Harmon reported having attended the League of
California Cities Conference in Sacramento, CA.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. A Special City Council Meeting will be held on
Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street San
Luis Obispo, California, to conduct a closed session.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:00 p.m.,
and 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 18
6
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND AVILA
RANCH, LLC
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1639 (2017 Series) approving the Development Agreement between the
City of San Luis Obispo and Avila Ranch, LLC.
DISCUSSION
On September 19, 2017, the City Council voted 5-0 to introduce Ordinance No. 1639, approving
the Development Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and Avila Ranch, LLC. The
Development Agreement adopts the negotiated agreement between the applicant and the City on
important areas related to the phased and orderly development of the Avila Ranch project. The
agreement includes extended vesting of development entitlements and reimbursement for public
infrastructure and improvements beyond project requirements, which will enable the
development of 720 residential units and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial on a
150-acre site north of Buckley Road, including 18 acres of parks and 53 acres of designated open
space within the project boundaries. Ordinance No. 1639 is now ready for adoption. The
Development Agreement will become effective 30 days after its adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On September, 19, 2017, the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Avila Ranch project and adopting CEQA findings and a
statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation and monitoring plan. The Development
Agreement for the project implements the Avila Ranch Development Plan and related
entitlements as evaluated in the Final EIR and does not introduce any new potential
environmental impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT
A fiscal impact analysis for the Avila Ranch project was prepared by Applied Development
Economics. This is the same firm that prepared the fiscal and economic analysis for the General
Plan update in 2014. In summary, the analysis shows that the project at full buildout will
generate about $850,600 per year in general fund revenues and $1.3 million per year in
municipal service costs. The average annual cost revenue deficit is $494,887. This analysis also
includes Local Revenue Measure revenues for sales tax. The numbers are based on the current
cost estimates and tax sharing agreement with the County and can be positively impacted based
on the outcome of the ongoing negotiations with the County. The C ommunity Facilities District
Packet Pg 19
7
(CFD) for the project is proposed to be structured to ensure that at a minimum the City’s cost are
offset by contributions from the CFD.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the Development Agreement. The City Council may continue its
review of the Development Agreement to a date certain if additional time or information is
needed to make a decision. If additional information is needed, direction should be provided
to staff so that it can be presented on that date.
2. Direct changes to the Development Agreement. The City Council may direct staff and the
applicant to make specific changes to the Development Agreement. Direction on changes
should be specific and within the scope of the environmental document prepared for the
project.
3. Deny the Development Agreement. The City Council may deny the Development
Agreement, based on findings that the agreement is not consistent with the General Plan or
other policy document. This action is not recommended because the Development
Agreement implements the phased and orderly development of the Avila Ranch project.
Attachments:
a - DA Ordinance
Packet Pg 20
7
O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A
CHARTER CITY, AND AVILA RANCH LLC
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015, Avila Ranch, LLC (“Applicant”) submitted a development
plan proposal for a new, primarily residential development with up to 720 dwelling units ("the
Project") on a 150-acre site north of Buckley Road, located within the Airport Area Specific Plan
(“AASP”) boundaries. The Project also includes 15,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail
and office uses next to a neighborhood park, as well as the preservation of agricultural uses and
open space. The development plan contains the specific development proposal for the site,
including a land use framework, design guidelines and concepts, circulation plan, and
infrastructure plan. The Project as proposed is envisioned to implement the policies and
development parameters as articulated in the recent Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE)
update, other elements of the General Plan, the AASP, and the City’s Community Design
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to initiate
discussions with the Applicant for a Development Agreement and to execute a third-party
reimbursement Agreement for the Applicant to reimburse the City for the costs of any outside legal
or technical consultants the City may require to assist with the negotiation or review of the Avila
Ranch application for a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City retained both outside legal and financial consultants to assist with
negotiations and analysis of the proposed development agreement at the Applicant’s expense; and
WHEREAS, the financial analysis prepared for this project concludes that extraordinary
public benefits that the City will receive from the Development Agreement exceed the value to the
Applicant by approximately $30 million; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report dated November 2016 and a Final
Environmental Impact Report dated June 2017 have been prepared analyzing the environmental
effects of the proposed development Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement provides for the orderly development
of the Project and outlines financing mechanisms to construct infrastructure, identifies funds for
potential reimbursement for certain infrastructure costs, requires sustainable building features and
technology that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, establishes an offsite
agricultural mitigation strategy, requires funds for transit improvements to offset air quality
emissions, and incorporates affordable housing requirements that exceed those standards as set
forth in the City’s applicable housing policies, ordinances and programs; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement for the Project implements the Avila Ranch
Development Plan and related entitlements as evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report
and does not introduce any new potential environmental impacts; and
Packet Pg 21
7
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
O ______
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement does authorize the project to accelerate
buildout of the project above the phasing schedule so long as there is outstanding indebtedness
owed to Avila Ranch for offsite improvements as determined by findings by the Community
Development Director and that the phasing will not exceed the City’s Growth Management
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, an acceleration in the buildout of the project schedule will not introduce any
environmental impacts because: 1) the acreage and boundaries of each phase of development will
remain the same as that analyzed in the EIR; 2) the sequence of development will remain the same
as that analyzed in the EIR; 3) project components such as road improvements that serve to
mitigate impacts as well as mitigation measures identified in the EIR will continue to apply to
each phase of development; 4) the cumulative buildout of the project was analyzed in combination
with other projects under development and analyzed with the full buildout of the City as forecasted
in the 2014 LUCE General Plan Update and related Final Environmental Impact Report for the
project; and 5) all applicable mitigation measures for each phase of development would also be
accelerated to coincide with any phased portion of development under construction; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, June 29, July 12, and August 9, 2017, the City's Planning
Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Development Agreement.
On August 9, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council: 1) certify the
Environmental Impact Report, adopt appropriate CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Plan; 2) approve the Airport
Area Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment and Rezone; 3) approve the Avila
Ranch Development Plan based on findings that the project is consistent with the General Plan and
Airport Area Specific Plan, as amended; 4) approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3089;
and 5) approve the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2017, the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the
Final Environmental Report for the Project and adopting CEQA findings and a statement of
overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Development Agreement is consistent with
the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan of the C ity
of San Luis Obispo, as described below, and as further detailed in the accompanying City Council
staff report prepared for this project and the exhibits thereto:
a) The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general
land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan, in
that Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Policy 8.1.6. SP-4, Avila Ranch Specific
Plan Area. Specifically, the project:
i.) incorporates a variety of housing types and affordability levels;
ii.) Modification of the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude this area or
designate it as a special planning area within the Airport Area Specific Plan.
iii.) Provision of buffers along Buckley Road and along eastern edge of property from
adjacent agricultural uses.
Packet Pg 22
7
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
O ______
iv.) Provision of open space buffers along northern and western boundaries to separate
this development from adjacent service and manufacturing uses.
v.) Provision of open space buffers and protections for creek and wildlife corridor that
runs through property.
vi.) Safety and noise parameters described in this General Plan and the purposes of the
State Aeronautics Act; or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis
Obispo Regional Airport.
vii.) Fully funding Buckley Road and the connection of Buckley Road to South Higuera
Street.
viii.) Appropriate internal and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the
City’s circulation network.
ix.) Implementation of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan including connections to
the Bob Jones Trail.
x.) Water and wastewater infrastructure needs as detailed in the City’s Water and
Wastewater Master Plans.
xi.) Provides funding for fire protection and impacts to emergency response times.
xii.) Includes architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and
preserves view of agrarian landscapes.
xiii.) Provision of neighborhood parks that exceed applicable General Plan Policies.
b) Furthermore, the Project is consistent with LUCE's overall land use policies by providing
community benefits for the area, including but not limited to, affordable and workforce
housing, and contributions that would support transportation, parks and recreation, multi
modal infrastructure, and recycled water infrastructure programs in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. In addition to the findings set forth in the recitals, which are
incorporated herein by this reference, the City Council hereby finds based on evidence described
above, as follows:
a) The proposed Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is consistent
with the general plan and the Airport Area Specific Plan;
b) The proposed Development Agreement complies with zoning, subdivision and other
applicable ordinances and regulations;
c) As described in the recitals above, the proposed Development Agreement promotes
the general welfare, allows more comprehensive land use planning within the airport
area, and provides substantial public benefits and necessary public improvements for
the region, making it in the city’s interest to enter into the Development Agreement
with the applicant; and
d) The proposed Avila Ranch project and Development Agreement:
i.) Will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working
Packet Pg 23
7
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
O ______
in the surrounding area; and
ii.) Will be appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with adjacent
land uses.
SECTION 2. Action. The Development Agreement is hereby approved subject to such
minor, confirming and clarifying changes consistent with the terms thereof as may be approved by
the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, prior to the execution thereof.
SECTION 3. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance as provided in Section 7 hereof,
the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Development
Agreement and, upon full execution, record the Development Agreement in the Official Records
of San Luis Obispo County.
SECTION 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to perform all acts
authorized to be performed by the City Manager in the administration of the Development
Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement.
SECTION 5. CEQA determination. The City Council hereby finds that the Development
Agreement has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) and th e
City’s local standards. The City prepared an Initial Study and, based on information contained in
the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a
significant environmental impact on certain resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064 and 15081, and based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project to analyze potential
impacts on the environment. The City Council certified the EIR on September 19, 2017, pursuant
to Resolution No._____ (2017 Series) made certain CEQA findings and determinations and
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation and Monitoring Program.
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) is incorporated herein by this reference, and made a part
hereof as if fully set forth herein. The City Council finds that accelerated buildout of the project
as authorized by the Development Agreement will not cause any new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects because, among
other things: 1) the acreage and boundaries of each phase of development will remain the same as
that analyzed in the EIR; 2) the sequence of development will remain the same as that analyzed
in the EIR; 3) project components such as road improvements that serve to mitigate impacts as
well as mitigation measures identified in the EIR will continue to apply to each phase of
development; 4) the cumulative buildout of the project was analyzed in combination with other
projects under development and analyzed with the full buildout of the City as forecasted in the
2014 LUCE General Plan Update and related Final Environmental Impact Report for the project;
and 5) all applicable mitigation measures for each phase of development would also be accelerated
to coincide with any phased portion of development under construction. The documents and other
material that constitute the record on which this determination is made are located in the
Community Development Department located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
The City Council hereby directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the San Luis Obispo
County Clerk Recorder’s Office.
Packet Pg 24
7
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5
O ______
SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every
section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without
regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the _____ day of September, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _____ day of October, 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 ______________, _________.
Packet Pg 25
7
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6
O ______
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 26
7
Recording Fees Exempt Pursuant to
Government Code § 27383.
Recording Requested By And
When Recorded Mail to:
City of San Luis Obispo
c/o City Clerk
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AND
AVILA RANCH, LLC
RELATING TO
THE AVILA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
(The “AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT”)
As Adopted by the San Luis Obispo City Council
on __________ by Ordinance No. -________
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 27
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................. 1
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4
ARTICLE 1. GENERALLY .......................................................................................................... 4
Section 1.01. Definition of “Avila Ranch” ............................................................ 4
Section 1.02. Effective Date .................................................................................. 4
Section 1.03. Term ................................................................................................. 4
Section 1.04. Execution and Recordation of Agreement ....................................... 5
ARTICLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ........................................................... 6
Section 2.01. In General......................................................................................... 6
Section 2.02. Project Approvals ............................................................................. 6
Section 2.03. Subsequent Approvals ..................................................................... 6
Section 2.04. Subsequent Approval Documents .................................................... 6
Section 2.05. Approvals ......................................................................................... 6
ARTICLE 3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT IN GENERAL ....................................... 6
Section 3.01. Consideration to Avila Ranch .......................................................... 6
Section 3.02. Consideration to City ....................................................................... 7
Section 3.03. Rights of Avila Ranch Generally ..................................................... 7
Section 3.04. Rights of City Generally .................................................................. 7
Section 3.05. Project Parameters ........................................................................... 8
ARTICLE 4. APPLICABLE LAW ................................................................................... 8
Section 4.01. In General......................................................................................... 8
Section 4.02. Application of Other City Laws ....................................................... 8
Section 4.04. State and Federal Law ...................................................................... 9
ARTICLE 5. FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND AVILA RANCH........... 9
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 28
7
Section 5.01. In General.......................................................................................... 9
Section 5.02.Basic Principles .................................................................................. 9
Section 5.02.2. Financing of Infrastructure; Operation and Maintenance ........... 10
Section 5.03. Establishment of Financing Mechanisms ...................................... 11
Section 5.04. Imposition of and Increases in Fees, Taxes, Assessments
and Other Charges..................................................................................... 12
Section 5.05. Other Commitments of City and Avila Ranch Related to
Financing................................................................................................... 15
Section 5.05.4. Other Shortfalls of City ............................................................... 17
ARTICLE 6. COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND AVILA RANCH RELATED TO
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................ 18
Section 6.01. Backbone Infrastructure Phasing Plan ............................................ 18
Section 6.02. Construction and Dedication of Project Facilities and
Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 19
Section 6.03. Dedications .................................................................................... 20
Section 6.04. Cooperation with Respect to Project Facilities and
Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 20
ARTICLE 7. OTHER COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND AVILA RANCH ................. 21
Section 7.01. Mutual Cooperation for Other Governmental Permits .................. 21
Section 7.02. Timing of Development ................................................................. 21
Section 7.03. Dedication of Park Lands................................................................ 23
Section 7.04. Dedication of Open Space and Agricultural Lands ........................ 23
Section 7.05. Affordable Housing and Workforce Housing ................................ 23
Section 7.07. Energy ............................................................................................. 23
Section 7.08. Water. .............................................................................................. 24
Section 7.09. Storm Drain Facilities ..................................................................... 24
Section 7.10. Interim Fire Station ......................................................................... 25
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 29
7
Section 7.11. Traffic and Circulation Improvements........................................... 25
Section 7.12. Bicycle and Multimodal Transportation Improvements ................ 25
Section 7.13. Miscellaneous ................................................................................. 26
ARTICLE 8. CONSIDERATION OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS .......................... 27
Section 8.01. In General................................................................................................... 27
Section 8.02. General Plan and AASP Amendments .......................................... 27
Section 8.03. CEQA Compliance. .................................................................................... 27
Section 8.04. Life of Approvals ........................................................................... 27
Section 8.05. Vesting Maps ................................................................................. 28
Section 8.06. Need for Flexibility ........................................................................ 28
ARTICLE 9. AMENDMENTS ....................................................................................... 28
Section 9.01. Amendments of Agreement. ...................................................................... 28
ARTICLE 10. ANNUAL REVIEW ................................................................................ 29
Section 10.01. Annual Review............................................................................. 29
ARTICLE 11. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
EVALUATION; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW ........................... 29
Section 11.01. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Evaluation. .................... 29
Section 11.02. Development Agreement Review ................................................ 30
ARTICLE 12. DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................... 30
Section 12.01. Defaults. ....................................................................................... 30
Section 12.01.1. Notice and Cure. ....................................................................... 30
Section 12.01.2. Actions during Cure Period. ..................................................... 31
Section 12.02. Remedies of Non-Defaulting Party. ............................................. 31
Section 12.03. Termination Due to Default. ........................................................ 32
Section 12.03.2. Procedures for Termination. ..................................................... 33
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 30
7
ARTICLE 13. ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE ........................................ 33
Section 13.02. Transfers In General. ................................................................... 33
Section 13.02.02. City Review of Release Provisions. ........................................ 34
ARTICLE 14. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION ............................................................... 35
ARTICLE 15. GENERAL PROVISIONS ...................................................................... 36
Section 15.01. Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits ........................................ 36
Section 15.02. Project is a Private Undertaking .................................................. 36
Section 15.03. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. ......................................... 36
Section 15.04. Defense and Indemnity ................................................................ 37
Section 15.05. Governing Law; Attorneys’ Fees ................................................. 37
Section 15.06. Force Majeure .............................................................................. 37
Section 15.07. Waiver .......................................................................................... 38
Section 15.08. Notices ......................................................................................... 38
Section 15.09. No Joint Venture or Partnership .................................................. 39
Section 15.10. Severability .................................................................................. 39
Section 15.11. Estoppel Certificate ...................................................................... 39
Section 15.12. Further Assurances....................................................................... 40
Section 15.13. Construction. ............................................................................................ 40
Section 15.14. Other Miscellaneous Terms ......................................................... 40
Section 15.15. Counterpart Execution ................................................................. 40
Section 15.16. Time ............................................................................................. 40
Section 15.17. Good Faith/Fair Dealing .............................................................. 41
Section 15.18. Exhibits. ................................................................................................... 41
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 31
7
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND AVILA RANCH, LLC
RELATING TO THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is entered into this ___ day of ________, 2017
(“Execution Date”), by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation
and charter city (“City”), and AVILA RANCH, LLC, a California limited liability company
(“Avila Ranch” or “Developer”), hereinafter referred to in this Development Agreement
individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties,” as appropriate.
RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS
A. The “Project,” as referenced in this Development Agreement, consists of the
development of housing, neighborhood commercial buildings, parks, agricultural and open space
uses, and various public infrastructure facilities located within the Avila Ranch subarea of the
Airport Area Specific Plan area on the southwestern boundary of the City, as more particularly
described and defined in Section 2.01 below.
B. The “Property,” as referenced in this Development Agreement, consists of
approximately 150 acres of land that has been designated for development as part of the Airport
Area Specific Plan (the “AASP Area”). The property comprising the Property is more fully
shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Exhibit B
attached hereto sets forth the legal description for the Property. Avila Ranch represents and
warrants to City that as of the Execution Date, Avila Ranch has a legal or equitable interest in the
Property.
C. Upon the effective date of the City ordinance approving this Development
Agreement, this Development Agreement becomes Effective, as defined in Section 1.02 below,
as to the Property and the City will record it against the Property.
D. On December 9, 2014, City adopted an update to the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the City’s General Plan that included the AASP Area. The City’s General Plan
designates the Property for a variety of land uses including residential, neighborhood
commercial, open space, and agricultural, and provides for the development of these uses so as to
benefit the City and its residents
E. City and Avila Ranch have engaged in a cooperative and successful relationship
to establish a development plan for the Property (the “Development Plan”). These efforts have
culminated in the City’s adoption and approval of the following entitlements:
(1) The Final Environmental Impact Report and associated Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan (including all mitigation measures therein) for the project
certified and adopted, respectively, by Resolution No. ___, on DATE.
(2) The Amendment to Airport Area Specific Plan as amended by Resolution No.
____, adopted DATE .
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 32
7
(3) The City’s zoning map as amended by Ordinance No. ___, adopted DATE .
(4) The Development Plan approved by Resolution No. ___, on DATE .
(5) Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3089 (Avila Ranch _____) approved [DATE ].
(6) Ordinance No. ____ dated _____, 2017 adopting this Development Agreement
(“the Adopting Ordinance”).
(7) The amendment to the City General Plan, as amended by Resolution No. ___,
adopted [DATE ].
(8) The conditions of approval of each of the foregoing.
These approvals described in this Recital E, together with the Environmental Impact Report and
related Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan described in Recital F below, are referred to herein, collectively, as the
“Entitlements” or “Project Entitlements.”
F. Before approving the Entitlements described in Recital E above, the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo: (i) reviewed and considered the significant environmental
impacts of the Project and several alternatives to the Project, as described in that certain Final
Environmental Impact Report (the “Project EIR”) and (ii) adopted Resolution No. __-____ on
_____, 2017 to certify the Project EIR, making Findings Concerning Mitigation Measures and
Alternatives (the “Findings”), adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (the “MMRP”), all in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21000 et
seq. (“CEQA”).
G. One of the principal purposes of this Development Agreement is to further the
cooperative relationship between City and Avila Ranch for the benefit of all residents of San
Luis Obispo during the implementation of the Project. The City and Avila Ranch join as Parties
to this Development Agreement to ensure the requirements of the Development Agreement
Statute (California Government Code section 65864 et. seq.) are satisfied. As more fully set forth
below, this Development Agreement contains both covenants of a personal nature and covenants
and/or servitudes that run with title to the Property.
H. This Development Agreement is based upon and was written to achieve these
purposes:
(1) that the City shall be kept and/or made “whole” by Avila Ranch as to the Property
and by other property owners with respect to their respective properties with
respect to all aspects (e.g., fiscal impacts, etc.) of the planning, development,
maintenance and operation of the AASP Area including, among other things, the
costs to the City of providing the Project with public services and facilities, the
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 33
7
payment of City’s costs associated with the implementation of the Development
Agreement, the Entitlements, all other planning and environmental efforts
described and envisioned by the Development Agreement, the Subsequent
Approvals (as defined in Section 2.04 below) and the Project, and the mitigation
of the Project’s environmental impacts.
(2) that once this Development Agreement has taken legal effect, Avila Ranch shall
have a full and vested right, throughout the term of this Development Agreement,
to the Rights and Obligations as to the Property;
(3) that this Development Agreement is intended to reduce the uncertainty in
planning and implementation for and, and to secure the orderly development of,
the Project, ensure a desirable and functional community environment, provide
effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure and services
appropriate for the development of the Project, ensure maximum effective
utilization of resources within the City, and provide other significant benefits to
the City and its residents;
(4) to secure Project features and Development conditions above and beyond those
that may be levied by the City under existing zoning and development regulations
and the FEIR;
(5) to provide Developer with a reliable and definitive form of reimbursement for
offsite and onsite infrastructure beyond its fair share;
(6) that this Development Agreement is intended to be consistent with and to
implement the City’s General Plan, and more particularly the achievement of the
community’s development objectives for the Property as set forth in Policy 8.1.6
of the Land Use Element;
(7) that the development of the Project will enable the City to capture sales taxes that
are being leaked to other communities because of the jobs-housing imbalance;
(8) that the development of the Project would result in the capture of an estimated
540 households that commute to jobs in San Luis Obispo, resulting in the
reduction of Countywide vehicle miles traveled for those trips by approximately
4.0 million miles per year; and
(9) that the value of the obligations of the Developer pursuant to this Development
Agreement are anticipated to be above and beyond those necessary to serve the
Project.
The Rights and Obligations of the Parties to this Development Agreement shall be construed and
interpreted so as shall give full effect to each and all of these purposes.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 34
7
I. As used in this Development Agreement, “Rights” shall mean all of the vested
and other rights and benefits of the Development Agreement, and the term “Obligations” shall
mean all of the duties, obligations, responsibilities and other burdens of the Development
Agreement. References to lot numbers in this Development Agreement refer to lots as numbered
in Vesting Tentative Tract Map. No. 3089 dated April 26, 2017.
J. As used in this Development Agreement, the terms, phrases and words shall have
the meanings and be interpreted as set forth in this Development Agreement (the meaning given
the term in the singular shall include the term in the plural and vice versa) unless the context
clearly indicates the Parties intended another meaning. To the extent that any capitalized terms
contained in this Development Agreement are not defined within it, then such terms shall have
the meaning ascribed to them in the City Laws, other applicable law or, if no meaning is given a
term in any of those sources, the common understanding of the term shall control.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and provisions set
forth in this Development Agreement, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. GENERALLY
Section 1.01. Definition of “Avila Ranch.” As used herein, “Avila Ranch” means Avila Ranch,
LLC, as that business entity existed on the Effective Date and any permitted successor, assign, or
transferee of Avila Ranch, LLC.
Section 1.02. Effective Date. This Development Agreement is entered into by and between the
City and Avila Ranch and takes legal effect on ______, 2017, the date that Ordinance No.__-___
approving the Development Agreement takes legal effect (“Effective Date”). The terms and
conditions of this Development Agreement shall be for the benefit of or a burden upon the
Property, shall run with title to the Property, and shall be binding upon Avila Ranch and its
permitted successors, assigns and transferees during their respective ownerships of any portion
of the Property.
Section 1.03. Term.
Section 1.03.1. In General.
(a) The term of this Development Agreement shall commence upon the Effective
Date and shall continue until, and terminate upon, the earliest of the following
dates (“Termination Date”):
(1) 12:01 a.m. on the anniversary of the Effective Date, 2037, unless Avila Ranch
requests, and the City approves, an extension of the Term for an additional 10-
year period, in which case the Termination Date shall be 12:01 on the anniversary
of the Effective Date, 2047. Such request for extension shall be submitted, in
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 35
7
writing, to the City Manager at least 180 days, but no earlier than 365 days, before
the 2037 Termination Date. The City may deny the request if Avila Ranch is not in
compliance with all of its Obligations under this Development Agreement;
(2) 12:01 a.m. on the anniversary of the Effective Date, 2024, should Avila Ranch fail
to substantially complete the Backbone Infrastructure for Phases 1 and 2 of the
Project in accordance with the Project’s Phasing Plan as set forth in Section 6.01,
below. As used herein, “substantially complete” means that all of the Backbone
Infrastructure required for Phases 1 and 2 listed in the phasing schedule is actively
under construction and is being diligently prosecuted to completion, with all
bonds in place.
(3) This Development Agreement may be terminated with respect to the property
included in a recorded final subdivision map creating residential lots on any
portion of the Property, provided that no further on-site or off-site infrastructure is
required and no conditions remain to be satisfied before building permits can be
issued for the development of lots depicted on that map. Concurrently with or
following recordation of such a subdivision map as to any portion of the Property,
Avila Ranch may request in writing and the Community Development Director
shall not unreasonably withhold a certificate of termination of this Development
Agreement, in recordable form, solely as to the property included in such a final
recorded map which meets the foregoing requirements; provided that no such
certificate need issue if obligations to the City under this Development Agreement
remain unfulfilled which are not made conditions of the approval of the
subdivision map. Upon the Community Development Director’s recordation of
such a certificate, this Development Agreement shall terminate as to the land
covered by such final map. If Avila Ranch does not request or the Community
Development Director does not issue such a certificate, this Development
Agreement shall continue to apply to any lot depicted on such a subdivision map
until this Development Agreement otherwise expires or terminates according to its
terms.
(b) This Development Agreement shall be of no further force, effect or operation
upon the Termination Date. Subject to the provisions of Section 8.04 below, in no
event shall the expiration or termination of this Development Agreement result in
expiration or termination of any Approval without further action of City.
Section 1.04. Execution and Recordation of Agreement.
Section 1.04.1. Execution and Recordation. Avila Ranch shall execute this Development
Agreement, in conformance with Section 15.15 of this Development Agreement, within five
business days of date of adoption of the Adopting Ordinance referenced in Recital E above.
Provided Avila Ranch has so executed this Development Agreement, City shall execute this
Agreement, in conformance with Section 15.15 of this Agreement, within five business days of
execution of this Development Agreement by Avila Ranch.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 36
7
Section 1.04.2. Recordation. City shall deliver this Development Agreement to the
County Recorder for recordation within 10 days following its execution.
ARTICLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Section 2.01. In General. As used herein, “Project” means the development of the
Property as described in the “Project Approvals” (defined in Section 2.02 below), including all
on-site and off-site “Project Facilities and Infrastructure” (defined in Section 5.02.1 below).
Section 2.02. Project Approvals. As used herein, “Project Approvals” include, but are not
limited to: (i) those provisions of City’s General Plan that relate to or affect the Property, as the
General Plan existed on the Effective Date and as it may be amended from time to time
consistently with this Development Agreement (the “General Plan”), (ii) those provisions of the
Development Plan (including the Design Guidelines) that relate to or affect the Property, as
incorporated into the Specific Plan, as the Development Plan existed on the Effective Date and as
it may be amended from time to time consistently with this Development Agreement (the
“Development Plan”), (iii) the zoning of the Property, as it existed on the Effective Date and as it
may be amended from time to time consistently with this Development Agreement thereafter
(the “Zoning”) and (iv) the other entitlements listed in Recital E above; provided that “Project
Approvals” shall not mean or include amendments to the General Plan, AASP or Zoning of the
Property that conflict with the Project Approvals as they existed on the Effective Date unless
Avila Ranch consents in writing to such conflicting amendments.
Section 2.03. Subsequent Approvals. As used herein, “Subsequent Approvals” mean
those permits and approvals (other than the Project Approvals and amendments thereto)
necessary or desirable for the development of the Project including, without limitation, those
identified in Section 2.04 below.
Section 2.04. Subsequent Approval Documents. The “Subsequent Approvals” defined in
Section 2.03 above include, but are not limited to: (i) subdivision maps and related or similar
approvals issued under the California Subdivision Map Act, (ii) development permits (including
Site Plan Reviews and Conditional Use Permits as described in the Specific Plan), (iii)
architectural review and design review approvals (as described in the Specific Plan), (iv) any
other discretionary or ministerial permits or approvals of City necessary or appropriate for build-
out of the Project and Property, and (vi) any amendments to any of the foregoing necessary or
appropriate for the development of the Project.
Section 2.05. Approvals. Project Approvals, amendments to Project Approvals, and
Subsequent Approvals are sometimes referred to in this Development Agreement collectively as
the “Approvals” and each individually as an “Approval.”
ARTICLE 3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT IN GENERAL
Section 3.01. Consideration to Avila Ranch. The Parties acknowledge and agree that
City’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and Obligations of City set forth herein
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 37
7
is material consideration for Avila Ranch’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and
Obligations of Avila Ranch set forth herein.
Section 3.02. Consideration to City. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Avila
Ranch’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and Obligations of Avila Ranch set
forth herein is material consideration for City’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants
and Obligations of City set forth herein.
Section 3.03. Rights of Avila Ranch Generally. Avila Ranch shall have a fully vested right to
develop the Project and to use the Property consistently with this Development Agreement and
Applicable Law.
(a) During the Term of this Development Agreement, the Developer shall have a
vested right to develop the Property to the full extent permitted by the
Entitlements and this Development Agreement. Except as provided within this
Development Agreement, the Entitlements shall exclusively control the
development of the Property, including the uses of the Property, the density or
intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the
provisions for reservations or dedications of land for public purposes and the
design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to
the Project. The maximum number of residential units authorized to be
constructed hereunder and the approximate acreage of commercial development is
720 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial
development. In furtherance of the foregoing, the Developer retains the right to
apportion the uses, intensities and densities, between itself and any other owners
of the Property, upon the sale, transfer or assignment of any portion of the
Property, so long as such apportionment is consistent with the Entitlements and
this Development Agreement.
(b) Subject to the City’s exercise of its police power authority the Developer shall
have a vested right to: (i) receive from the City all future development approvals
for the Property that are consistent with and implement the Entitlements and this
Development Agreement; (ii) not have such approvals be conditioned or delayed
for reasons which are inconsistent with the Entitlements or this Development
Agreement; and (iii) develop the Property in a manner consistent with such
approvals in accordance with the Entitlements and this Development Agreement.
All future development approvals for the Property, including without limitation
general plan amendments, zoning changes, or parcel maps or tract maps, shall
upon approval of the City be vested in the same manner as provided in this
Development Agreement as for the Entitlements.
Section 3.04. Rights of City Generally. City shall have a right to regulate development of
the Project and use of the Property consistently with this Development Agreement and
Applicable Law.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 38
7
Section 3.05. Project Parameters. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and
intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of buildings included in the
Project, and provisions for the reservation and dedication of land shall be as set forth herein and
in the Project Approvals.
ARTICLE 4. APPLICABLE LAW
Section 4.01. In General.
Section 4.01.1. Applicable Law Defined. Except as the Parties may otherwise agree, the
rules, regulations and official policies applicable to the Project and the Property during the Term
of this Development Agreement shall be those set forth in this Development Agreement and,
except as otherwise set forth herein, the rules, regulations and official policies of City (including
the plans, municipal codes, ordinances, resolutions and other local laws, regulations, capital
facilities fees and policies of City) in force and effect on the Effective Date (collectively,
“Applicable Law”).
Section 4.01.2. Approvals as Applicable Law. Applicable Law shall include, without
limitation, Approvals as they may be issued from time to time consistently with this Agreement.
Section 4.02. Application of Other City Laws.
Section 4.02.1. No Conflicting City Laws.
(a) City may apply to the Project and the Property any rule, regulation or official
policy of City (including any plan, municipal code, ordinance, resolution or other
local law, regulation, capital facility fee or policy of City) (each a “City Law”)
that does not conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement. City shall not,
however, without the written consent of Avila Ranch apply to the Project or the
Property (whether by initiative, referendum, imposition of mitigation measures
under CEQA or otherwise) any City Law that is in conflict with Applicable Law
or this Agreement.
(b) If City attempts to apply to the Project a City Law which Avila Ranch believes to
conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement, Avila Ranch shall give City
written notice describing the legal and factual basis for Avila Ranch’s position.
The Parties shall meet and confer within 30 days of City’s receipt of such written
notice to seek to resolve any disagreement. If no mutually acceptable solution can
be reached, either Party may take such action as may be permitted under
Article 12 below.
Section 4.03. Uniform Codes and Standard Specifications.
(a) Nothing herein shall prevent City from applying to the Project standards
contained in uniform building, construction, fire or other uniform codes, as the
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 39
7
same may be adopted or amended from time to time by City, provided that the
provisions of any such uniform code shall:
(1) Apply to the Project only to the extent that such code is in effect on a City-
wide basis; and
(2) With respect to those portions of any such uniform code that have been
adopted by City without amendment, be interpreted and applied consistently
with the generally prevailing interpretation and application of such code in
California.
(b) Nothing herein shall prevent City from applying to the Project standards and
specifications for public improvements (e.g., streets, storm drainage, parking lots,
and driveway widths) adopted or amended from time to time by City, provided
that such standards and specifications shall apply to the Project and the Property
only to the extent that they are in effect on a City-wide basis.
Section 4.04. State and Federal Law.
(a) Nothing herein shall prevent City from applying to the Project or the Property any
change in City Law required by: (i) state or federal law; or (ii) any governmental
agency that, due to the operation of state law (and not the act of City through a
memorandum of understanding, joint exercise of powers or other agreement entered
into after the Effective Date), has binding legal authority on City.
(b) If the application of such changes prevents or precludes performance of one or more
provisions of this Development Agreement, City and Avila Ranch shall take any and
all such actions as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure the provisions of this
Development Agreement shall be implemented to the maximum extent practicable.
ARTICLE 5. FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND AVILA RANCH
Section 5.01. In General. This Article 5 establishes a framework for the imposition and
allocation to the extent permitted by law of fees, taxes, assessments and other revenues to be
generated and/or paid by the Project and/or the Property. The provisions of this Article 5 are
intended to prevent the Project from resulting in negative fiscal impacts on City as determined by
the fiscal impact analysis prepared for the Project; to facilitate the construction, operation and
maintenance of infrastructure and facilities to avoid or limit the physical impacts of
development; and to assist in the development of the Project so as to provide long-term fiscal and
other benefits to City, including increased employment opportunities, an increased tax base and
revenues to City, and an enhanced quality of life for the City’s residents.
Section 5.02. Basic Principles.
Section 5.02.1. General.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 40
7
(a) This Article 5 is intended to serve two basic purposes: first, that there shall be no
cost to City for the construction of the fair share allocation of public facilities and
infrastructure needed to serve the Project or the Property or for the provision of
municipal services to the Project or the Property, including the operation and
maintenance of facilities and infrastructure to serve the Project (collectively, the
“Project Facilities and Infrastructure”); and second, that all costs associated with
the construction of Project Facilities and Infrastructure, and the provision of
municipal services to the Project and the Property (including the operation and
maintenance of Project Facilities and Infrastructure) shall be borne by the Project
alone.
(b) The cost of providing Project Facilities and Infrastructure to the Project or the
Property shall be consistent with the following principles: Except as otherwise
specifically permitted by this Development Agreement and not in limitation of
any other provisions hereof, (i) there shall be a reasonable relationship between
any municipal cost required to be borne by the Project and the type of
development within the Project to which such cost is attributable; (ii) there shall
be a reasonable relationship between the need to incur any such municipal cost
and the type of development within the Project to which such cost is attributable;
(iii) no municipal cost required to be borne by the Project shall exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or facility to which such
municipal cost relates; and (iv) with respect to any fee required to finance Project
Facilities and Infrastructure, there shall be a reasonable relationship between the
amount of the fee and the cost of the Project Facilities and Infrastructure funded
by such fee. Wherever this Development Agreement requires a “reasonable
relationship” between the Project and any requirement imposed thereon, there
shall be required an essential nexus between the Project and such requirement and
rough proportionality in the allocation of a municipal cost or fee both internally to
various portions of the Property and as between the Project and other projects
within the City.
(c) As used herein, the term “Project Facilities and Infrastructure” shall include
public facilities and infrastructure only to the extent they serve the Project, and
shall not include public facilities or infrastructure to the extent such facilities or
infrastructure serve projects or areas other than the Project or the Property, unless
the public facilities and infrastructure serving the Project or Property are required
to be oversized to serve other projects or areas in accordance with the provisions
of Section 6.02.2 below.
Section 5.02.2. Financing of Infrastructure; Operation and Maintenance. Prior to or
concurrent with the adoption of this Development Agreement City shall consider in good faith
establishing and forming a mechanism or mechanisms to finance Project Facilities and
Infrastructure and Project-related municipal services or the operation and maintenance portion of
the Project Facilities and Infrastructure, such as a Mello-Roos District, Landscaping and Lighting
Districts, or other Maintenance Assessment Districts, in accordance with the following
principles:
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 41
7
(1) The level of municipal services provided to the Project, including the level of
operation and maintenance of Project Facilities and Infrastructure, shall be at least
equal or superior to the level of service provided elsewhere in the City.
(2) Any costs associated with such mechanism shall be borne by the Project, which
may be reimbursed by the financing mechanism.
(3) The City may require as a condition of approval of a tentative subdivision or
parcel map a financing mechanism or mechanisms to finance the operation and
maintenance of Project Facilities and Infrastructure.
(4) In accordance with and subject to Section 7.13.1 below, Avila Ranch shall include
within the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required for each
subdivision of the Property a requirement that the Master Homeowners’
Association, and or each Homeowners’ Association for a subdivision within the
Property (each, an “HOA”), shall assume responsibilities to maintain, repair and
insure the following items in the event that such financing mechanism is dissolved
or in the event that the fees, assessments, or taxes generated thereby are repealed
or reduced other than by discretionary action by the City Council. In such event
the HOA shall assume responsibility to maintain, repair and insure for the
publiclyowned facilities within the Property (as to a Master HOA) or subdivision
(as to another HOA), including but not limited to, Parks A through F, H and I, and
“Stevenson Park”; landscaped parkways and trees; low-impact-development
treatment facilities; and riparian open space, but expressly shall not assume
responsibility to maintain, repair and insure streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
regional park (Park G), farmed agricultural open space, landscape paseos
connecting the public parks, retaining walls adjacent to the open space corridors,
bike paths, bike path bridges and bike path facilities (including bike paths and
bike path facilities in the County). Avila Ranch shall include the City as a third-
party beneficiary of these CC&Rs in language acceptable to the City Attorney,
which shall grant the City the right to perform the maintenance, repair and
insurance obligations and to impose assessments against the affected parcels in
the event an HOA fails to perform its obligations under this subparagraph (4).
Section 5.03. Establishment of Financing Mechanisms.
Section 5.03.1. Procedures for Establishment. The establishment of any mechanism to
finance the operation or maintenance of Project Facilities and Infrastructure (each a “Financing
Mechanism”) shall be initiated upon Avila Ranch’s written request to the City’s Finance
Director. Such request shall outline the purposes for which the Financing Mechanism is to be
established and the general terms and conditions upon which the establishment of the Financing
Mechanism will be based. City’s consideration of Avila Ranch’s request shall be consistent with
the criteria set forth in Section 5.02 above. If Avila Ranch requests the City form a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District to finance the operation or maintenance of Project Facilities and
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 42
7
Infrastructure, City shall use its best efforts to cause such district to be formed and special taxes
to be levied to the extent permitted by Applicable Law.
Section 5.03.2. Nature of City Participation. City’s participation in the formation of any
Financing Mechanism approved by City (and its operation thereafter) and in the issuance of any
Project Debt approved by the City shall include all of the usual and customary municipal
functions associated with such tasks including, without limitation, the formation and
administration of special districts; the issuance of Project Debt; the monitoring and collection of
fees, taxes, assessments and charges such as utility charges; the creation and administration of
enterprise funds; the enforcement of debt obligations and other functions or duties authorized or
mandated by Applicable Law.
Section 5.04. Imposition of and Increases in Fees, Taxes, Assessments and Other Charges.
Section 5.04.1. Taxes and Assessments.
(a) During the Term of this Development Agreement, Avila Ranch shall be bound to
and shall not protest, challenge, or cause to be protested or challenged, any City
tax in effect on the Effective Date.
(b) City may apply to the Project or the Property any tax not in effect on the Effective
Date only if such tax is:
(1) A tax, assessment or fee levied on developed property only (and not on properties
for which no final map has been recorded) in connection with the establishment or
implementation of a Financing Mechanism in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 5.02 or 5.03 above;
(2) A tax, assessment or fee to which Avila Ranch agrees; or
(3) A tax, assessment or fee levied on a City-wide basis that does not have a
disproportionate impact on the Project (e.g., taxes levied to support general
obligation bonds, business license taxes).
(c) City may increase any tax applicable to the Project or the Property (whether in
force and effect as of the Effective Date or not in force and effect as of the
Effective Date but imposed against the Project in accordance with subsection (b)
above); provided, however, that any taxes or assessments levied or imposed by or
through any Financing Mechanism shall be imposed only to the extent necessary
to ensure the adequate operation, maintenance, depreciation and replacement of
Project Facilities and Infrastructure.
(d) No assessment shall be imposed on the Project or the Property other than through
a Financing Mechanism as set forth above.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 43
7
(e) No new debt shall be issued that affects the Project or the Property without Avila
Ranch’s approval, unless such debt otherwise conforms with the requirements of
Articles XIII C and D of the California Constitution and any requisite voter
approval is achieved, in which case the City may issue debt even if Avila Ranch
votes against the matter.
Section 5.04.2. Other Fees and Charges; Credits and Reimbursements.
(a) City shall impose against or apply to the Project or the Property only those
financial obligations (other than taxes and assessments) described in this Section
5.04.2. Except as otherwise specifically stated below, any financial obligation
imposed against or applied to the Project under this Section 5.04.2 shall be
consistent with the provisions of controlling California law, including California
Government Code section 66000 et seq. and California Constitution, article XIII
A and its implementing statutes.
(b) The Developer shall be required to pay all City-wide, Airport Area Specific Plan,
Los Osos Valley Road (“L.O.V.R.”) Interchange Impact Fees, and Project-specific
development impact fees, excluding sewer and water impact fees addressed in
section 5.04.2(c) immediately below, for the Project’s fair share of the cost to
mitigate Project impacts as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), Specific Plan, conditions of approval or otherwise specified in the
Development Agreement in effect when each final map is recorded in accordance
with AB1600 analysis. City may adjust development impact fees not more than
once a year with changes no greater than the inflation index identified upon
imposition of the fee.
(c) The Developer shall be required to pay sewer and water impact fees in accordance
with the AB1600 analysis in effect when each Final Map is recorded plus any
adjustments based on CPI until issuance of each building permit. Subsequent
payments shall be adjusted annually by the inflation index identified upon
imposition of the fee as determined by the City.
(d) Fees imposed by City, including but not limited to planning, engineering, building
permit, fire plan check and development impact fees, but excluding sewer and
water impact fees governed by section 5.04.2(c) immediately above, shall be in
accordance with the fees in effect as of the date of when the Final Map is recorded
plus any adjustments based on the inflation index identified upon imposition of
the fee until issuance of each building permit.
(e) If the City amends any existing Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to
include additional projects or costs for the benefit of the Project (either new
projects or increased costs for projects included in the analysis supporting existing
fees) for improvements necessary to satisfy Project requirements, Developer will
be required to pay the amended fees. Credits applied towards infrastructure costs
advanced by Developer shall apply when building permits are issued or fees are
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 44
7
otherwise due and shall arise only from Developer-funded construction of
infrastructure or community facilities included in the project list on which a
particular fee was based. Credits applied when building permits are issued or fees
are otherwise due pursuant to this section shall be adjusted for inflation
consistently with such adjustments of the fees against which credits are allowed.
(f) The Developer shall pay all then-current processing fees for any subsequent
planning applications and permits as adopted by the City Council.
(g) City acknowledges that Developer may dedicate property and install
infrastructure improvements beyond its “fair share” cost. The City agrees to grant
fee credits and reimbursements, funded by Development Impact Fees paid by
Developer and other developers, and traffic impact fees, where eligible, but
excluding sewer and water impact fees. If and to the extent that the Developer
constructs or installs any infrastructure and/or facilities that have a capacity or
size in excess of that required to serve the Project or mitigate its impacts, and one
or more undeveloped properties will be benefitted by such infrastructure and
facilities, the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer,
in a form mutually acceptable to City and Developer, which provides for the
reimbursement of all excess costs and expenses incurred by the Developer in
constructing such improvements in accordance with California Government Code
section 66485 et seq. and section 16.20.110 of the City’s municipal code, the
City’s zoning ordinance, and in accordance with Section 5.05.3 below.
(h) The City’s rates for monthly retail utility service (e.g., water and sewer) may be
applied to the Project and increased from time to time during the term of this
Development Agreement; provided, however, that any such increase shall be
imposed only to the extent permitted by law.
(i) Avila Ranch shall pay City reasonable staff and consultant time and other
reasonable costs (including reasonable consultant costs) associated with: (i) the
MMRP Evaluation and the Development Agreement Review, (ii) the
establishment of any Financing Mechanism (to the extent such costs are not
included in the Financing Mechanism), including any necessary election costs,
and (iii) all other administrative tasks associated with City’s adoption and
implementation of this Development Agreement and the Project.
(j) Avila Ranch shall pay all required fees of the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (“CDFW”). CDFW fees shall be submitted to the City’s Planning
Division before filing of any required Notice of Determination under CEQA,
along with any fee required by the County Clerk/Recorder. The City may require
proof of payment of such fees before issuing building permits or filing of a Final
Subdivision Map.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 45
7
(k) During the term of this Development Agreement, fees and charges other than
those specifically described in subsections (a) through (j) above may be imposed
against or apply to the Project or the Property only as City and Avila Ranch agree.
Section 5.05. Other Commitments of City and Avila Ranch Related to Financing.
Section 5.05.1. Arrangements with Other Governmental Agencies. City and Avila Ranch
acknowledge and agree that City may from time to time enter into joint exercise of power
agreements, memoranda of understanding or other agreements with other governmental agencies
consistent with and to further the purposes of this Development Agreement.
Section 5.05.2. Other Funding Sources.
(a) City and Avila Ranch agree to pursue outside sources of funding for the
construction, operation and maintenance of Project Facilities and Infrastructure
including, in particular, facilities and infrastructure which serve the region. City
shall not be obligated, however, to apply for county, state or federal funds if the
use of such funds for the Project would reduce the availability of that resource for
other City projects.
(b) Any obligation of Avila Ranch under this Development Agreement to fund or
otherwise bear the costs of the construction of improvements, the provision of
services or any other item, whether or not the sole obligation of Avila Ranch, may
be satisfied through the use of funds provided by, from or through any third party
(including other non-City, governmental) sources.
Section 5.05.3. Reimbursement.
(a) City shall reimburse, or provide for the reimbursement by other landowners or
developers, the actual hard and soft costs associated with Avila Ranch’s funding
or construction of that portion of any oversized or accelerated improvements or
facilities that is attributable to a project or area other than the Project or Property
as required by this section. Hard and soft costs eligible for reimbursement shall
include, without limitation: reasonable direct costs of construction and materials,
soft costs including bonds, architecture and engineering fees, and professional
fees. Such reimbursement shall be based on a fair share allocation of costs
determined by calculating the pro rata share of the capacity in such improvements
that is attributable to other projects or properties as reflected in the allocation
percentages in Exhibit C, which reimbursement shall be timely provided in
accordance with Applicable Law, following City’s collection of funds from the
sources identified in subsection 5.05.3(a)(1)–(4) below. Avila Ranch and City
acknowledge that the amounts specified in Exhibit C for each improvement are
estimates only and that total reimbursable costs shall be based on Avila Ranch’s
actual costs as set forth in this Section 5.05.3.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 46
7
(1) Development Impact Fees paid by the Project for the improvements specified
from the AASP impact fees, L.O.V.R. Interchange impact fees, or the Citywide
transportation impact fees, as applicable;
(2) Development Impact Fees paid to the City on behalf of other development in the
AASP area that are not committed to repayment obligations under prior
Reimbursement Agreements;
(3) Development Impact Fees paid to City from developers who contribute to the
impact associated with the improvements installed by Avila Ranch; and
(4) Taxes or assessments in a Community Facilities District.
(5) Separate reimbursement agreement. For purposes of such agreement, backbone
infrastructure that is larger than the minimum size or standard as identified in the
Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards may be considered to
be oversized and shall be subject to prior review and approval by the City prior to
being included in a separate reimbursement agreement.
(b) Under no circumstances shall the City be obligated to fund reimbursement from
its own resources, from funds it does not yet possess, or from funds which may
not be lawfully used for that purpose.
(c) Failure or error by the City to collect funds from the sources identified in
subsection 5.05.3(a) above shall not subject the City to any liability, obligation, or
debt to Avila Ranch. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall reimburse
Avila Ranch pursuant to the terms of this Agreement with respect to all such funds
actually collected by the City. Failure by the City to reimburse Avila Ranch after
the City collects such funds shall entitle Avila Ranch to exercise its remedies in
accordance with Article 12.
(d) For any improvement subject to reimbursement under this section, Avila Ranch
shall provide City with evidence of the actual hard and soft costs of each of the
improvements in the form of receipted bills, canceled checks, and contracts.
Approval of reimbursement may occur in phases as projects are accepted by City.
Regardless of Avila Ranch's claimed costs incurred in constructing the
reimbursable improvements, City has the authority, through its Director or
designee, in the exercise of his or her reasonable discretion, to determine the
amount subject to possible reimbursement for each improvement.
(e) In the event any owner or developer pays all or a portion of the fees or
assessments identified in subsection 5.05.3(a)(1)–(4) above under protest, the City
shall not be required to make reimbursements under this Development Agreement
until the limitation period for instituting court action to seek a refund of such
funds paid under protest has passed, and no court action (“Action”) has been
instituted. If an Action is instituted seeking refund of funds paid under protest, or
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 47
7
to prevent the City from collecting such funds, or challenging any provision of
this Development Agreement, the City shall not pay over such funds to Avila
Ranch until the Action has been finalized and the authority of the City to collect
such funds and reimburse the Developer has been sustained. The City shall
promptly notify Avila Ranch in writing of the Action. The City shall reasonably
support Developer’s efforts to participate as a party to the Action, to defend the
Action or settle the Action. Furthermore, the City shall have the right to tender
defense of the Action to Avila Ranch. If, within 15 days of the City’s mailing a
notice in compliance with Section 15.08 below requesting that Avila Ranch
defend the Action, should Avila Ranch thereafter fail to undertake the defense of
the Action at Avila Ranch’s sole cost and expense, the City may stipulate to return
of the funds collected under protest, to cease collecting such funds, or enter into
any other settlement of the Action acceptable to the City, and Avila Ranch shall
lose any right to reimbursement under this Development Agreement of the
amount contested in the Action. Avila Ranch shall further reimburse the City for
its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the Action, including
reasonable payment for legal services performed by the City’s City Attorney, and
for any liability the City incurred in the Action. In addition, if the City fails to
impose a requirement upon development projects to pay their respective prorated
share of the improvements specified in Exhibit C or fails to collect such funds,
Avila Ranch may exercise all of its legal rights to attempt to collect such funds
from the owners or developers of the benefitted properties, which legal rights
shall not be interpreted to include an action against the City. In the event Avila
Ranch attempts to collect such funds from such owners or developers, the City
shall assign to Avila Ranch all of its rights to collect such funds under this
Development Agreement.
(f) The City reserves the right to offset any funds it collects from the sources
identified in this Section 5.03.3 against any unpaid fees, debts or obligations of
Avila Ranch owed to the City. The City shall provide Avila Ranch with notice, in
accordance with Section 15.08 and Article 12, of its intent to offset any collected
funds against unpaid fees, debts or obligations described in the notice, and
provide Avila Ranch with a reasonable opportunity to cure such unpaid fees,
debts, or obligations.
(g) Avila Ranch’s rights to reimbursement under this Section 5.05.3 shall survive
termination of this Development Agreement for a period of 15 years from the date
of termination or until Developer has been fully reimbursed, whichever occurs
first.
Section 5.05.4. Other Shortfalls of City.
(a) Avila Ranch understands and acknowledges that the costs to City of serving the
Project and the Property and otherwise carrying out its Obligations under this
Development Agreement may exceed the fees, charges and revenues generated by
or as a result of the Project. Accordingly, prior to or concurrently with this
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 48
7
Development Agreement, the City shall establish a Financing Mechanism to
mitigate potential annual shortfalls to the City’s General Fund resulting from the
provision of municipal services to the Project, the costs of which exceed the
General Fund revenues generated by development within the Property (the
“General Fund Shortfalls”). The Funding Mechanism shall be designed to remain
in place until annual General Fund revenues generated by development within the
Property are at least equal to the annual General Fund costs incurred by City in
providing municipal services to the Project.
(b) A Financing Mechanism shall be established to generate revenues sufficient to
offset such potential shortfall, if requested by the City, and shall only be effective
if a fiscal impact analysis shows a General Fund Shortfall. The shortfall Financing
Mechanism may consist of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (“CFD”).
(c) City may annually monitor the fiscal impacts of development within the Property
to determine the extent to which development generates sufficient General Fund
Revenues to eliminate the General Fund Shortfall. When and if the City
determines as a result of annual monitoring that sufficient development has
occurred within the Property to generate General Fund revenues to cover the
annual costs to the City’s General Fund of providing municipal services to the
Project (the “Break-Even Point”), the shortfall Financing Mechanism shall be
discontinued and all revenues that have been collected to fund the projected
General Fund Shortfall but have not been used for such purpose shall be refunded
to Avila Ranch, if permissible pursuant to Applicable Law, or otherwise used to
defray Project Costs in the City’s reasonable discretion and pursuant to law.
(d) Avila Ranch’s obligation to fund projected General Fund Shortfalls under Section
5.05.4 above shall be limited by the provisions of Section 5.02.1 above and, in
any event, shall not survive the expiration or termination of this Development
Agreement. If Developer requests, and City grants, an extension of this
Development Agreement as set forth in Section 1.03.1(a)(1) above, Avila Ranch’s
obligation to fund projected General Fund Shortfalls shall be extended
accordingly.
ARTICLE 6. COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND AVILA RANCH RELATED TO PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
Section 6.01. Backbone Infrastructure Phasing Plan. The Project Backbone Infrastructure is
planned to be designed and constructed in six (6) phases.
Section 6.01.1. Development Plan Phasing Plan. The improvements described in the
Avila Ranch Development Plan and Exhibits E-1 through E-4 and J to this Development
Agreement constitute the Project “Backbone Infrastructure.” The Parties acknowledge that
further analysis may result in a more cost-effective approach to the provision of such
infrastructure to adequately serve development within the Project Area, and that Exhibits E-1
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 49
7
through E-4 and J may be revised accordingly by agreement of the Parties and that such
revisions shall not require amendment to this Development Agreement.
Section 6.01.2. Phasing Plan. The phasing plan for the project is attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit D.
Section 6.01.3. Phasing Plan Amendments. The Phasing Plan may be amended by
agreement of the Parties to take advantage of new technologies, to respond to changes in the
underlying land use assumptions upon which the plan is based, or for such other reasons as the
Parties may agree.
Section 6.02. Construction and Dedication of Project Facilities and Infrastructure.
Section 6.02.1. Construction and Funding of Project Facilities and Infrastructure by
Avila Ranch. The City may, in any manner consistent with the terms and provisions of this
Development Agreement, require Avila Ranch to construct or fund the construction of any
Project Facilities and Infrastructure when needed to satisfy the Backbone Infrastructure Phasing
Plan.
Section 6.02.2. Oversizing of Project Facilities and Infrastructure.
(a) In addition to requiring Avila Ranch to construct or fund the construction of
Project Facilities and Infrastructure, City may require any Project Facilities and
Infrastructure constructed or funded by Avila Ranch under Section 6.01 above to
be oversized to serve projects or areas other than the Project or the Property;
provided that:
(i) City shall consider in good faith the establishment of a Financing Mechanism to
provide such additional funding;
(ii) City shall reimburse the costs associated with Avila Ranch’s funding or
construction of that portion of any such oversized improvements that is
attributable to projects or areas other than the Project or the Property, pursuant to
section 5.05.3 of this Agreement above.
(b) If the phasing or incremental construction of facilities would involve significant
inefficiencies that are unacceptable to City for a sub-phase implemented by Avila
Ranch, Avila Ranch may be required to construct or provide advance funding for
the construction of oversized improvements. For example, if the Project generates
a need for an 18-inch sanitary sewer line, but other projects reasonably may be
expected to use that sewer line and thereby increase the required capacity of such
line to 24 inches, City may require Avila Ranch to construct or fund the
construction of a 24-inch sewer line (but shall provide reimbursement as
described in section 5.05.3 above). Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall
exercise its best good faith efforts to reasonably limit Avila Ranch’s obligation to
construct or provide advance funding of oversized improvements and may in
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 50
7
certain instances, in the interest of fairness to Avila Ranch, tolerate certain
inefficiencies.
Section 6.03. Dedications.
(a) To the extent rights-of-way or other interests in real property owned by Avila
Ranch within the Property are needed for the construction, operation or
maintenance of Project Facilities and Infrastructure, Avila Ranch shall dedicate or
otherwise convey such rights-of-way or other interest in real property to City, or
as necessary to the County of San Luis Obispo. Such rights-of-way shall be
dedicated or otherwise conveyed in the widths set forth in the AASP or in the
Avila Ranch Development Plan.
(b) Any public improvements constructed by Avila Ranch and conveyed to City, and
any right-of-way or other real property conveyed to City, shall be dedicated or
otherwise conveyed (i) free and clear of any liens unacceptable to the City and
(ii) except as otherwise agreed to by City, in a condition free of any toxic
materials. Nothing herein shall prevent City’s right to pursue third parties under
applicable law.
Section 6.04. Cooperation with Respect to Project Facilities and Infrastructure.
Section 6.04.1 Off-Site Improvements. Avila Ranch acknowledges that certain off-site
improvements are required as part of the project’s conditions of approval and mitigation
measures which include, but may not be limited to:(i) a right-of-way along Buckley Road and/or
the Buckley Extension; (ii) a right-of-way necessary to implement the Horizon Extension from
the project to Suburban Road: (iii) the Earthwood Extension to Suburban; (iv) improvements to
Suburban Road between Earthwood and Horizon; (v) improvement of the intersection of Vachell
and Venture; (vi) pedestrian improvements along Higuera and Vachell; (vii) intersection
improvements at Higuera/Buckley, L.O.V.R./Higuera, Suburban/Higuera, Tank Farm/Higuera,
Prado/ Higuera and South/Higuera; and (viii) bicycle improvements required by the City and
consistent with the City Bicycle Master Plan, all of which are more particularly described in the
Project’s approved plans (the “Off-Site Improvements”). A schedule of all Off-Site
Improvements for which Avila Ranch is responsible is attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement.
Avila Ranch shall exhaust all reasonable efforts and diligently pursue acquisition of all necessary
easements and/or rights of way not currently owned or controlled by City or Avila Ranch which
are required to construct the Off-Site Improvements. For purposes of this Section 6.04.1, the
term “reasonable efforts” shall include proof that the Avila Ranch has made a commercially
reasonable written offer to purchase the property interest at fair market value, in accordance with
an appraisal conducted by an MAI appraiser.
If after exercising reasonable efforts Avila Ranch is unable to acquire the necessary easements
and/or rights of way, City, upon written request of Avila Ranch, may either: (1) require Avila
Ranch to construct functionally equivalent alternative improvements to those previously
approved, provided that such alternative improvements are equally or more effective in
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 51
7
addressing the impact; or (2) pursue acquisition of the real property interests by means of
eminent domain. City and Avila Ranch acknowledge that eminent domain is a discretionary
process and that City cannot commit to its use unless and until all appropriate notifications,
hearings and proceedings have been undertaken. If City chooses to pursue acquisition of the real
property interests by means of eminent domain, City shall take all reasonable steps necessary
towards that endeavor, including undertaking appraisals, noticing property owners, noticing and
holding required public hearings and meetings, and following any other procedures required for
pre-judgment possession and Avila Ranch shall pay all costs reasonably incurred by City related
to, arising from, or associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings, including but
not limited to, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, settlement costs, and jury awards of any kind.
In addition, Avila Ranch shall indemnify, defend and hold City harmless from and against any
and all claims, liabilities or causes of action of any kind associated with City’s acquisition of
such real property interests, excluding therefrom any claims, liabilities or causes of action arising
from City’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.
If and to the extent this Section 6.04.1 demands more of Avila Ranch than does Section 66462.5
of the Subdivision Map Act, this section shall apply in addition to the Developer’s obligations
under that statute.
Upon acquisition of the necessary interest in land, or upon obtaining right of entry, either by
agreement or court order, Avila Ranch shall commence and complete the public improvements.
This requirement shall be included, and, if necessary, detailed, in any subdivision improvement
agreement entered between the Developer and the City pursuant to Government Code
section 66462.
ARTICLE 7. OTHER COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND AVILA RANCH
Section 7.01. Mutual Cooperation for Other Governmental Permits. City and Avila Ranch, as
appropriate, shall each be responsible to apply to other governmental or quasi-governmental
agencies for necessary permits and approvals for development and use of the Property (e.g.,
agencies having jurisdiction over water supply; wastewater treatment, reuse and disposal; access
to the Property; wetlands-related and other biological issues). City and Avila Ranch each shall
take any and all actions as may be necessary or appropriate to process successfully such permits
and approvals, provided such permits and approvals are consistent with the Development Plan
and AASP and agreed by the City and Avila Ranch to be reasonably necessary or desirable for
the construction, maintenance or operation of the Project.
Section 7.02. Timing of Development.
Section 7.02.1. Timing Requirements.
(a) Avila Ranch shall be obligated to comply with the terms and conditions of the
Project Approvals, the Development Plan, the AASP, and this Development
Agreement when specified in each. The Parties acknowledge that the rate at which
phases of the Project develop depends upon numerous factors and market
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 52
7
conditions that are not entirely within Avila Ranch’s or the City’s control such as
market demand, interest rates, absorption rates, completion schedules, availability
of labor, and other factors. The Parties wish to avoid the result of Pardee
Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), where the failure of
the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of
development resulted in the court’s determination that a later-adopted initiative
restricting the timing of development prevailed over the parties’ agreement.
Accordingly, the Parties acknowledge that Avila Ranch shall have the right to
develop the Project at such time Avila Ranch deems appropriate in the exercise of
its subjective business judgment except as provided in this section below and the
City shall not attempt to limit or restrict the timing of development of the Project
except in accordance with the terms of this Development Agreement.
(b) Avila Ranch shall complete the first two phases of development depicted in
Exhibit D to this Agreement, including the installation of those certain
improvements required under either the Development Plan or FEIR, by seven
years after the Effective Date. Otherwise, Avila Ranch may proceed with the
development of any portion of the Project, or make any financial commitment
associated with any such development when, in Avila Ranch’s sole and absolute
discretion, Avila Ranch determines that it is in Avila Ranch’s best financial or
other interest to do so. The foregoing sentence shall not, however, limit any
obligation of Avila Ranch under this Development Agreement with respect to any
development activities that Avila Ranch chooses to undertake hereunder.
(c) Avila Ranch shall pursue buildout of the project in conformance with the phasing
schedule below. The Parties acknowledge that, except as expressly required by
Section 1.03.1(a)(2), the actual timing of buildout will vary from year to year due
to a variety of factors such as market demand, economic conditions, etc. Avila
Ranch may accelerate buildout of the Project ahead of the schedule so long as
there is outstanding indebtedness owed to Avila Ranch for Off -Site Improvements
under section 5.05.3 of this Agreement. The Project shall be permitted to develop
at a rate up to the cumulative total of 150% of the annual number of dwelling
units shown in the phasing schedule immediately below. The Project shall not
exceed the cumulative maximum shown for each year in the phasing schedule
below, unless authorized by the Community Development Director upon a finding
that there is outstanding debt owed to Avila Ranch and that such development
and/or rate of development will not exceed the City’s Growth Management
Ordinance.
Phase 1 Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 4 Phase 5
Year >>> 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
R-1 101 50 51
R-2 Standard 221 44 44 45 44 44
R-2 Pocket Cottage 76 16 16 15 16 13
R-3-Duplex 38 38
R-3 Town Home 159 52 52 55
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 53
7
R-4 Apartments 125 65 60
Total Subject to Limit 720 60 60 60 125 117 90 52 55 50 51
Maximum
Cumulative Limit
90 180 270 458 633 720
Section 7.03. Dedication of Park Lands. Avila Ranch shall dedicate land in excess of that
ordinarily required by the City to construct public parks in South San Luis Obispo, an area that
presently has a deficiency of park area. In particular, Avila Ranch shall provide 18.25 acres of
public park land, 1.76 acres in excess of City requirements, to bring the total park acreage for
South San Luis Obispo to five and a-half acres per 1,000 persons. Said parks shall be reviewed
and approved by the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission before dedication. Ongoing
maintenance and operation of these park facilities shall be funded by the Project residents
pursuant to a Financing Mechanism established pursuant to Sections 5.03 or 5.04 above and shall
not be payable from the General Fund or other community-wide resources.
Section 7.04. Dedication of Open Space and Agricultural Lands. To compensate for the loss of
onsite agricultural lands and to meet the open space objectives of the General Plan, Avila Ranch
shall dedicate at least 50 acres of on-site open space and/or agricultural land and shall preserve at
least 50 acres of off-site open space and/or agricultural land. Said lands shall be dedicated within
the City’s “Greenbelt” area depicted in Figure 5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element, a
copy of which figure is attached here as Exhibit F. The land to be dedicated or reserved may be
comprised of multiple properties, and may be located in the City or unincorporated County
territory. Avila Ranch may satisfy a portion of this requirement through the payment of an in lieu
fee to the City or, with the City’s approval, to a land conservation organization. If land is
dedicated in the form of a Conservation Easement, the terms and conditions shall be approved by
the City, together with a correspondent and contemporaneous baseline conditions report. If land
is to be dedicated in fee simple title, the City shall have the opportunity to conduct due diligence
inspections, including but not limited to, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (and subsequent
assessment as may be necessary), title review, and physical site inspections; the City may reject
any such dedications based on its due diligence inspections, which shall not be construed as a
waiver of the dedication requirements herein.
Section 7.05. Affordable Housing and Workforce Housing and Related Programs. Avila Ranch
shall provide affordable housing for the Project as described in Exhibit G. Avila Ranch shall also
provide workforce housing and shall implement the local preference “SLO Workers First”
program, owner occupancy restrictions and down payment assistance program as described in
Exhibit G.
Section 7.07. Energy.
(a) Avila Ranch shall provide for accelerated compliance with the City’s Energy
Conservation Goals and its Climate Action Plan by implementing energy
conservation measures significantly above City standards and norms by providing
for solar PV energy generation for 100 percent of onsite electrical demand as
described in Section 13 of the Design Framework of the Development Plan. The
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 54
7
Project shall also include energy efficiency standards in excess of the current
Building Code.
(b) Developer shall provide sustainability features as described in Section 13 of the
Design Framework of the Development Plan, including: (i) housing that meets the
2019 net zero building and energy codes or, if the 2019 building and energy codes
are not yet adopted upon building permit application, the equivalent to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, (ii) implementing any
future city-wide policy regarding zero carbon emissions, (iii) solar electric panels,
(iv) integrated power outlets for electric vehicles and electric bicycles, (v)
building design that maximizes grey water usage, and (vi) work-at-home options
with high-speed internet connectivity.
Section 7.08. Water.
(a) Avila Ranch shall provide for accelerated compliance with the Climate Action
Plan through by implementing special water conservation measures to reduce the
usage of potable water by Avila Ranch households to 35 percent below the
current City-wide average as described in Section 13 of the Development Plan.
(b) Avila Ranch shall comply with the California Water Code and the regulations
imposed by the City before or after the Effective Date in its capacity as the
Groundwater Sustainability Agency pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (“SGMA”).
(c) Avila Ranch shall install water improvements necessary to serve the Project and
future annexation areas of the AASP and County fringe areas in and around
Buckley and Broad Streets as shown in Exhibit H.
(d) Avila Ranch shall offer to dedicate to the City a well site for future municipal use
on Lot 594, 406 or 398, with area buffers acceptable to the City and consistent
with drinking water standards. If the water well is located in a public park, the
design shall be consistent with the project’s Parks Plan, and may be subject to
review and approval by the City Parks and Recreation Commission. The well site
shall have a footprint with an area measuring 20’ x 40’, plus a buffer as shown
more particularly in Exhibit I.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section above, Avila Ranch reserves
all groundwater or other water rights with respect to the Property and shall be
entitled to irrigate agricultural or open space land with ground or well water, to
the extent that such reservation and action does not violate Applicable Law and so
long as such water meets or exceeds all applicable water quality standards. Avila
Ranch shall have the option, but shall not be required, to connect to the City’s
water system to irrigate agricultural/open space land with reclaimed water.
Section 7.09. Storm Drain Facilities. Before approval of a Final Subdivision Map or building
permit for a use that does not require a map, Avila Ranch shall cause to be provided storm drain
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 55
7
facilities adequate to accommodate the storm water runoff from the area subject to the Final
Subdivision Map or building permit.
Section 7.10. Interim Fire Station. Avila Ranch shall construct, and dedicate to the City, an
interim fire station on Lot 302 to serve all property in South San Luis Obispo. Per the
requirements of the Fire Station Master Plan, the interim fire station shall be provided at the
buildout of the 361st dwelling unit. After the interim fire station has been constructed, the site
shall be dedicated to the City for use as a City park or affordable housing site, as deemed
appropriate by the City. Avila Ranch shall be entitled to credits against fire development impact
fees in an amount reasonably determined by the City’s fiscal impact consultant to reflect (i) the
value of the land donated to the City under this section and (ii) the lesser of (a) Avila Ranch’s
actual cost to improve the interim fire station and (b) the reasonable cost of that construction.
Section 7.11. Traffic and Circulation Improvements. Avila Ranch shall construct or fund the traffic
and circulation improvements as established in the FEIR and Development Plan as further
described in Exhibit C. City and Avila Ranch acknowledge that these improvements are necessary
to mitigate project impacts, improve access to and from the project, relieve existing or future traffic
deficiencies, and bring such intersections into compliance with the General Plan in advance of
impacts associated with the Project. In addition, Avila Ranch shall construct or fund the following
improvements:
a. Buckley/227 Intersection Improvements. Avila Ranch shall commit $200,000 above its fair share
allocation of costs to facilitate design of the roundabout improvements for the Buckley Road/227
intersection called for in the 227 corridor study.
b. Operational Improvements to the Davenport Creek and Buckley Road Intersection. The Project’s
fair share of these improvements is 2.7 percent, based on the Project’s share of additional traffic on
Buckley Road. Avila Ranch shall provide funding to the City in the amount of $230,000 for these
improvements (90 percent of projected costs), including the costs for initial design, construction
documents, and right-of-way acquisition. In the event actual costs are less than what has been
projected, Avila Ranch may apply the remaining funds ($230,000 less 90 percent of actual costs of
construction) to the Buckley/227 intersection improvements. The City shall work with the County
of San Luis Obispo and enter into any necessary agreements to act as a conduit for the Avila Ranch
funding contribution to the Davenport Creek and Buckley Road intersection improvements.
Section 7.12. Bicycle and Multimodal Transportation Improvements. Avila Ranch shall
construct or fund the construction of bicycle and multimodal transportation improvements as
established in the FEIR and Development Plan as further described in Exhibit J. City and Avila
Ranch acknowledge that these improvements are necessary to mitigate Project impacts, improve
access to and from the Project, encourage multimodal transportation, relieve existing or future
traffic deficiencies, and bring such intersections into compliance with the General Plan in
advance of impacts associated with the Project. In addition, if prior to the termination of this
Development Agreement, City acquires all or a portion of right of way through the Chevron site
immediately adjacent to the Property as contemplated in the City’s Circulation element, Avila
Ranch agrees to improve, at its sole cost and expense, subject to reimbursement, such right of
way as a Class 1 bicycle facility and pedestrian walkway. Avila Ranch shall be obligated to
construct such improvements upon written notice by City that it has acquired all or a portion of
the right of way through the Chevron property and such obligation shall survive termination of
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 56
7
this Development Agreement. Actual construction of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements
shall be coordinated with build-out of the Project, but in no event shall it be later than one year
after completion of phase 4 of the Project or City’s written notice to Avila Ranch of its
acquisition of such right-of-way, whichever is later.
Section 7.13. Miscellaneous.
Section 7.13.1. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. CC&Rs for each subdivision
within the Property shall state substantially the following: “This project is within the boundaries
of the San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan, and as such, is subject to design guidelines
and development standards which have been incorporated into the Airport Area Specific Plan and
the Avila Ranch Development Plan Design Guidelines, both on file with the Community
Development Department of the City of San Luis Obispo.” Before the City approves a Final
Subdivision Map or issues a building permit for a land use that does not require a Map, the
CC&R disclosure statement referenced above shall be provided to the City Attorney for review
and approval.
Section 7.13.2. Ownership and Maintenance of Public Improvements. Unless otherwise
mutually agreed, the City shall own and maintain, or cause to be maintained, the following
public improvements:
(a) Potable water system and water tank within public properties or public easements;
(b) Sanitary sewer system within public properties or public easements;
(c) Recycled water system within public properties or public easements;
(d) Storm drain system, including continuous deflective separation (CDS) vaults or
other BMP facilities, within public properties or public easements;
(e) Public roadways;
(f) Public parks; and,
(g) Public access, landscape, and utility easements.
Section 7.13.3. Public Utilities Easements. All land subject to public utilities easements
(PUEs); public water, sewer, or storm drain easements; and public access easements shall be
open and accessible to the City at all times.
Section 7.13.4. Design Review of Major Surface Facilities. Design Review shall be
completed for all major surface public facilities for which it is required before construction.
Section 7.13.5. Design and Construction Standards for Sewer and Water Facilities. All
sewer, water and recycled water facilities shall conform to the Design and Construction
Standards in effect for the Project when improvement plans are submitted. The submittal shall
include all pertinent engineering analysis and design calculations. The plans shall be subject to
the Director of Public Works’ review and approval.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 57
7
Section 7.13.6. Communications Requirements. Developer shall provide cable or suitable
conduit to each City facility, public park, or other lot designated for City or public use for high
speed internet connectivity. The cable or suitable conduit shall be shown on the joint trench
improvement plans and constructed before the final lift of asphalt is placed on the adjacent street.
ARTICLE 8. CONSIDERATION OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Section 8.01. In General.
Section 8.01.1 Review and Action Generally. Upon Avila Ranch’s submission of any complete
application for an Approval together with any fees permitted under Article 5 and required by
City in accordance with Applicable Law, City shall use its best efforts to commence and
complete promptly and diligently all steps necessary to act on the application. Avila Ranch
promptly shall provide to City all information reasonably requested by City for its consideration
of any such application.
Section 8.01.2. Applicable Law. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Article 8, all
applications for Approvals submitted by Avila Ranch shall be considered by City in accordance
with Applicable Law. To the extent an approval would amend Applicable Law as set forth in
Section 4.01.1, the aspect of Applicable Law to be amended by the approval shall not apply to
the City’s consideration of the application.
Section 8.02. General Plan and AASP Amendments. The parties anticipate that Avila Ranch may
request amendments to the General Plan or the AASP to respond to changing circumstances and
conditions. City is not obligated to approve any such application and may, in the exercise of its
legislative discretion, approve, deny or propose conditions or modifications thereto, including
conditions or modifications that might otherwise be prohibited by the vested rights provided by
this Development Agreement. Avila Ranch shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to review
any such proposed conditions and modifications and to withdraw its application for a General
Plan amendment or AASP amendment (in which case neither Avila Ranch’s proposed
amendments nor the City’s proposed modifications shall become effective).
Section 8.03. CEQA Compliance.
Section 8.03.01. MMRP Application. When conducting an environmental review of any
application for an Approval, City shall review the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adopted in connection with the Development Plan and Avila Ranch EIR (the “MMRP”) to
determine if any mitigation measure contained in the MMRP as to the portion of the Property
subject to this Development Agreement should be incorporated into the design of, or added as a
condition of approval to, such Approval.
Section 8.04. Life of Approvals. Any Approval issued by City, including vesting maps as
defined in Section 8.05 below, shall continue in effect without expiration until the later of: (i) the
expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement or (ii) the date upon which such
Approval would otherwise expire under the laws of the State of California.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 58
7
Section 8.05. Vesting Maps. The ordinances, standards and policies applicable to any vesting
tentative map, vesting parcel map, vesting subdivision map or any other type of vesting map
(“Vesting Map”) under California Government Code section 66474.2, and the ordinances,
policies and standards vested under any Vesting Map pursuant to California Government Code
section 66498.1(b) shall be those established as Applicable Law under this Agreement. If this
Development Agreement terminates before the expiration of any Vesting Map or the vested rights
provided thereby, such termination of this Development Agreement shall not affect Avila Ranch’s
right to proceed with development under such Vesting Map in accordance with the ordinances,
policies and standards so vested under the Vesting Map. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no
Vesting Map shall extend Applicable Law beyond the stated term of this Development
Agreement (and the rules, regulations and official policies of City applicable to that portion of
the Property covered by such Vesting Map shall become those in effect as of the expiration of
such term) except as otherwise agreed by City and Avila Ranch; provided, however, that City and
Avila Ranch may agree to an extension of the term of this Development Agreement with respect
to the area covered by any such Vesting Map.
Section 8.06. Need for Flexibility. The provisions of this Development Agreement require a
close degree of cooperation between the City and Developer. Implementation of the Project may
require minor modifications of the details of the Development Plan and affect the performance of
the Parties to this Development Agreement. The anticipated refinements of the Project and the
development of the Property may require that appropriate clarifications and refinements are
made to this Development Agreement and the Entitlements with respect to the details of the
performance of the City and the Developer. The Parties desire to retain a certain degree of
flexibility with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Development
Agreement.
ARTICLE 9. AMENDMENTS
Section 9.01. Amendments of Agreement.
Section 9.01.1. General. This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time only
upon the mutual written consent of City and Avila Ranch and in compliance with section
17.94.190 of the City’s zoning ordinance; provided, however, that in connection with the transfer
of any portion of Avila Ranch’s Rights and/or Obligations under this Development Agreement to
another person, entity, or organization pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 below, Avila
Ranch, such transferee and City may agree that the signature of such transferee may be required
to amend this Development Agreement insofar as such amendment would materially alter the
Rights and/or Obligations of such transferee hereunder. In no event shall the signature or consent
of any “Non-Assuming Transferee” (as defined in Section 13.03 below) be required to amend
this Agreement.
Section 9.01.2. Future Approvals Do Not Require Amendments to Agreement. Except as the
Parties may otherwise agree, no amendment of this Development Agreement shall be required in
connection with the issuance of any Approval, or an amendment to the MMRP. Any Approval
issued after the Effective Date as to a portion of the Property shall be incorporated automatically
into this Development Agreement and vested hereby. City shall not, however, amend or issue
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 59
7
any Approval unless Avila Ranch requests such an amendment or issuance from City unless
otherwise permitted by this Agreement.
ARTICLE 10. ANNUAL REVIEW
Section 10.01. Annual Review
(a) The Community Development Director shall annually and concurrently conduct
(i) the MMRP Evaluation as set forth in Section 11.01; and (ii) the Development
Agreement Review as set forth in Section 11.02 (collectively, the “Annual
Review”). With respect to the MMRP Evaluation, if the Community Development
Director determines that mitigation measures adopted by City in connection with
its approval of the AASP and the Zoning are not being implemented as set forth in
the MMRP, the Community Development Director shall take any appropriate
remedial action as described in Section 11.01 below. Further, the Community
Development Director shall incorporate the results of the MMRP Evaluation into
the review of any applications for Approvals that are submitted following
completion of an Annual Review.
(b) Other Investigations and Evaluations. City may from time to time, whether or not
as a part of an Annual Review, investigate or evaluate any matter that is properly
the subject of an Annual Review.
ARTICLE 11 . MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
EVALUATION; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW
Section 11.01. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Evaluation.
Section 11.01.1. In General. During its Annual Review, City shall evaluate (the “MMRP
Evaluation”) whether the mitigation measures adopted by City in connection with its approval of
the AASP and the Zoning are being implemented as set forth in the MMRP as to the Property.
Section 11.01.2. MMRP Implementation. As set forth in the MMRP, City shall consider
in connection with any application for an Approval the extent to which mitigation measures
described in the MMRP should be incorporated into the design of the project under consideration
or set forth in conditions to the City’s approval of the application. During an MMRP Evaluation,
the City shall evaluate its overall success over the prior year in implementing such mitigation
measures, as set forth above, and consider any additional steps that may be appropriate to ensure,
as Approvals are considered over the following year, successful implementation of such
mitigation measures (including, in particular, mitigation measures that are the responsibility of
City or other agencies with regulatory authority over the Project).
Section 11.01.03. Enforcement. Avila Ranch shall be responsible only for those
mitigation measures the City requires to be incorporated into the design of the Project, including
those that are attached as conditions to any Approval. Failure to comply with any such design
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 60
7
requirement or any condition of approval shall be enforced in any manner authorized by
Applicable Law.
Section 11.02. Development Agreement Review
Section 11.02.01. In General. The Community Development Director shall review this
Development Agreement annually as required by section 17.94.200 of the City’s zoning
ordinance (the “Development Agreement Review”). The Development Agreement Review shall
be conducted concurrently with MMRP Evaluation, pursuant to Article 10 above and this Section
11.02. In connection with the Development Agreement Review, Avila Ranch shall provide
information as reasonably requested by City.
Section 11.02.02. Director’s Findings of Compliance. If the Community Development
Director finds good faith compliance by Avila Ranch with this Agreement, the Community
Development Director shall issue a “Finding of Development Agreement Compliance,” which
shall be in recordable form and may be recorded by Avila Ranch or any “Mortgagee” (as defined
in Section 14.01 below). Issuance of a Finding of Development Agreement Compliance and
expiration of the appeal period specified below without appeal, or confirmation by the City
Council of the issuance of the Finding of Development Agreement Compliance upon such
appeal, shall finally determine the Development Agreement Review for the applicable period.
Section 11.02.03. Finding of Development Agreement Noncompliance. If the
Community Development Director finds that Avila Ranch and/or a Transferee has not complied
in good faith with this Agreement, the Community Development Director shall proceed as
specified in section 17.94.200 of the City’s zoning ordinance.
ARTICLE 12. DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
Section 12.01. Defaults.
Section 12.01.1. Notice and Cure.
(a) Any failure by a Party to perform any term or provision of this Development
Agreement, which failure continues uncured for 60 days following written notice
of such failure from the other Party (unless such period is extended by written
mutual consent), shall constitute a default under this Development Agreement.
Any such notice shall specify the nature of the alleged failure and, where
appropriate, how such alleged failure may be cured. If the nature of the alleged
failure is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within 60 days, then
commencement of the cure within that time, and diligent prosecution to
completion of the cure thereafter, shall be timely. If the alleged failure is cured,
then no default shall exist and the noticing Party shall take no further action and
acknowledge the cure in writing to the other Party. If the alleged failure is not
cured, then a default shall exist under this Development Agreement and the
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 61
7
noticing Party may exercise any of the remedies available under Sections 12.02
through 12.04 below.
(b) No failure or delay in giving notice of default shall constitute a waiver of default;
provided, however, that the provision of notice and opportunity to cure is a
prerequisite to the enforcement or correction of any default.
Section 12.01.2. Actions during Cure Period.
(a) During any cure period specified under Section 12.01.1 and before delivery of a
notice of failure or default, the Party charged shall not be considered in default of
this Development Agreement. If there is a dispute as to the existence of a default,
the Parties shall otherwise continue to perform their obligations hereunder, to the
maximum extent practicable in light of the disputed matter, pending its resolution
or formal termination of the Development Agreement.
(b) City shall continue to process in good faith applications for Approvals during any
cure period, but need not approve any such application if it relates to a
development project as to which there is an alleged default hereunder.
Section 12.02. Remedies of Non-Defaulting Party.
Section 12.02.01. In General. If any Party is in default under the terms of this
Development Agreement, the non-defaulting Party may elect, in its sole and absolute discretion,
to pursue any of the following courses of action: (i) waive such default; (ii) in City’s case, pursue
administrative remedies as provided in Section 12.02.3 below, (iii) pursue judicial remedies as
provided for in Section 12.02.4 below; and/or (iii) terminate this Development Agreement as and
to the extent permitted by Section 12.04 below and consistently with section 17.94.210 and
17.94.220 of the City’s zoning ordinance. In no event shall City modify this Development
Agreement as a result of a default by a defaulting Party except in accordance with the provisions
of Section 9.01 above.
Section 12.02.2. Severability of Default. City acknowledges that the development of the
Project may be carried out by more than one person, entity or organization under this
Development Agreement (e.g., portions of Avila Ranch’s interest in the Property and this
Development Agreement may be transferred to another person, entity or organization, a
“Transferee” under Article 13 below). Accordingly, (i) if City determines to terminate or
exercise any other remedy under this Development Agreement due to a default by Avila Ranch
or any Transferee (hereinafter “Defaulting Developer”), such termination or other remedy shall
apply only with respect to the Rights and Obligations of such Defaulting Developer, (ii) City
shall, to the extent possible, refrain from seeking any termination of this Development
Agreement or other remedy if such remedy would affect materially the ability of a non-
defaulting Developer and / or a Transferee (hereinafter “Non-Defaulting Developer”) to realize
the Rights provided hereunder, and (iii) any termination of this Development Agreement as to
any Defaulting Developer shall be deemed to terminate only those Rights and Obligations arising
hereunder between City and such Defaulting Developer. The Parties acknowledge and agree that,
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 62
7
in accordance with Article 13 below, more than one Transferee may be responsible for certain
actions required or forbidden by this Development Agreement, and that more than one
Transferee therefore may be in default with respect thereto. The Parties further acknowledge and
agree that, notwithstanding the provisions of (ii) in this Section above, in certain instances it may
not be possible for City to exercise remedies against the Defaulting Developer of one portion of
the Project without affecting in some way a Non-Defaulting Developer of the same or of some
other portion of the Project.
Section 12.02.3. Administrative Remedies. Except as otherwise specifically stated in this
Development Agreement, City may exercise any and all administrative remedies to the extent
necessary or appropriate to secure compliance with this Development Agreement. Such
administrative remedies may include, among others, withholding building permits, certificates of
occupancy or other Approvals relating to that portion of the Project in default of this
Development Agreement.
Section 12.02.04. Judicial Remedies. Except as otherwise specifically stated in this
Development Agreement, either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute
legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein,
enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, enforce by specific performance the
Obligations and Rights of the Parties hereto or obtain any other remedy consistent with this
Development Agreement; provided, however, that in no event shall any person be entitled
hereunder to monetary damages for any cause, including breach of contract by a Party to this
Development Agreement provided, however, that City may enforce payment obligations under
Applicable Law, including this Development Agreement. Nothing in this section shall be deemed
to limit either Party’s rights under the Government Claims Act, California Government Code
section 810 et seq. For purposes of instituting a legal action under this Agreement, any City
Council determination under this Development Agreement shall be deemed final agency action
unless expressly stated otherwise.
Section 12.03. Termination Due to Default.
Section 12.03.1. In General. Either Party may terminate this Development Agreement
pursuant to Section 12.03.2 below and sections 17.94.190–17.94.220 of the City’s zoning
ordinance in the event of a default by the other Party, provided: (i) such default is prejudicial to
the interests of the non-defaulting Party and is neither minor nor technical and (ii) in the case of
any termination by City, City first shall have exercised any and all administrative or other
remedies short of filing suit available to secure Avila Ranch’s compliance with this Development
Agreement. Notwithstanding clause (ii) of this Section 12.03.1, City shall not be required, as a
prerequisite to initiating the termination of this Development Agreement, to exercise its
administrative and other non-judicial remedies for more than 180 days or, if the Parties are
making reasonable progress towards resolution of the matter claimed to be a default hereunder,
such longer period to which the Parties may agree. Termination of this Development Agreement
by Avila Ranch or a Transferee as to any portion or portions of the Property shall not affect the
Rights or Obligations of Avila Ranch or any other Transferee as to any other portion or portions
of the Property.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 63
7
Section 12.03.2. Procedures for Termination.
(a) Before any proposed termination of this Development Agreement pursuant to this
Section 12.03, and following the 180-day period specified in Section 12.03.1
above to the extent applicable, a non-defaulting Party intending to seek
termination of this Development Agreement shall deliver to the defaulting Party
(or Parties) a written “Preliminary Notice of Intent to Terminate” this
Development Agreement, and all Parties shall meet and confer in good faith effort
to agree upon an alternative to termination that will afford the non-defaulting
Party the benefit of its bargain in this Development Agreement. If those
discussions are not successful in resolving the dispute, the non-defaulting Party
desiring to terminate this Development Agreement shall deliver to the defaulting
Party a written “Final Notice of Intent to Terminate” this Development
Agreement.
(b) Within 60 days after the City delivers a Final Notice of Intent to Terminate to a
defaulting Party, the City Council shall review the matter as set forth in California
Government Code sections 65865, 65867, and 65868 and sections 17.94.210–
17.94.220 of the City’s zoning ordinance. Termination shall be effective 30 days
after such City Council review, unless the default is sooner resolved to the mutual
satisfaction of the Parties.
(c) Within 60 days after Avila Ranch delivers a Final Notice of Intent to Terminate to
City, the City Council shall consider whether City should take any further
curative action. Termination shall be effective 30 days following such City
Council consideration (or 90 days following delivery by Avila Ranch of a Final
Notice of Intent to Terminate if the City Council fails to complete its
consideration by that date), unless the default is sooner resolved to the mutual
satisfaction of the Parties.
ARTICLE 13. ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE
Section 13.01. Assignment of Interests, Rights and Obligations. Avila Ranch may transfer or
assign (“Transfer”) all or any portion of its Rights and Obligations under this Development
Agreement as to any portion of the Property (the “Transferred Property”) to any person acquiring
an interest in such Transferred Property, including, without limitation, purchasers or ground
lessees of lots, parcels or facilities on such portion of the Property (a “Transferee”). Any such
Transfer shall relieve the transferring party (a “Transferor”) of any and all Rights and
Obligations under this Development Agreement insofar as they pertain to the Transferred
Property, as provided in this Article 13.
Section 13.02. Transfers In General.
Section 13.02.1. In General. In connection with any Transfer of all or any portion of the
Project or the Property, other than a transfer or assignment to a “Non-Assuming Transferee” as
described in Section 13.03 below, or a “Mortgagee” as defined in Section 14.01 below, the
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 64
7
Transferor and the Transferee may enter into a written agreement regarding their respective
Rights and Obligations in and under this Development Agreement (a “Transfer Agreement”).
Any such Transfer Agreement may contain provisions: (i) releasing the Transferor from any
Rights and Obligations under this Development Agreement that relate to the Transferred
Property, provided the Transferee expressly assumes all such Rights and Obligations,
(ii) transferring to the Transferee rights to improve the portion of the Property transferred and
any other Rights and Obligations of the Transferor arising under this Agreement, and
(iii) addressing any other matter deemed necessary or appropriate in connection with the
Transfer.
Section 13.02.02. City Review of Release Provisions.
(a) A Transferor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to seek City’s consent to
those provisions of any Transfer Agreement purporting to release such Transferor
from any Rights and Obligations arising under this Development Agreement (the
“Release Provisions”). If a Transferor fails to seek City’s consent or City does not
consent to any such Release Provisions, then such Transferor may nevertheless
transfer to the Transferee any and all Rights and Obligations of such Transferor
arising under this Development Agreement (as described in Section 13.02.1,
clauses (i) and (ii) above) but, with respect to City, shall not be released from
those Rights and Obligations described in the Release Provisions to which City
has not consented. If City consents to any Release Provisions, then: (i) the
Transferor shall be free from any and all Rights and Obligations accruing on or
after the date of the Transfer with respect to those Rights and Obligations
described in such Release Provisions and (ii) no default hereunder by Transferee
with respect to any Rights and Obligations from which the Transferor has been
released shall be attributed to the Transferor. City may consent, or conditionally
consent, to all, none, or some of the Release Provisions.
(b) City shall review and consider promptly, reasonably and in good faith any request
by a Transferor for City’s consent to any Release Provisions. City’s consent to
any such Release Provisions may be withheld only if: (i) reliable evidence
supports a conclusion that the Transferee will be unable to perform the Rights and
Obligations proposed to be assumed by the Transferee pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement, (ii) the Rights and Obligations are not reasonably allocable among
particular portions of the Project and Property, such as the Transferred Property,
(iii) the Transferor or Transferee fails to provide acceptable security, as and if
reasonably requested by City, to ensure the performance of the Rights and
Obligations proposed to be assumed by the Transferee pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement, or (iv) the Transferor or Transferee fail to provide information
reasonably requested by the City to assist it in making the determinations
described in this paragraph. In no event shall City unreasonably withhold consent
to any Release Provisions. City shall respond within 30 days to any request by a
Transferor for consent to any Release Provisions.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 65
7
(c) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) above, because and to the extent
certain obligations arising under this Development Agreement may not
reasonably be allocable among portions of the Project, City may refuse to release
the Transferor of one portion of the Project from such Rights and Obligations
under this Development Agreement even though the Rights and Obligations are
being or have been assumed by the Transferee of some other portion of the
Project.
Section 13.03. Non-Assuming Transferees. Except as otherwise required by a Transferor, the
Obligations of a Transferor shall not apply to any purchaser of any property that has been
established as a single legal parcel for nonresidential use that does not require any further on-site
or off-site infrastructure. The Transferee in such a transaction and the successors and assigns of
such a Transferee (“Non-Assuming Transferees”) shall be deemed to have no Obligations under
this Agreement, but shall continue to benefit from the Rights provided by this Development
Agreement for the duration of its term. Nothing in this section shall exempt any Non-Assuming
Transferee from the payment of applicable fees, taxes and assessments or from having to comply
with applicable conditions of an Approval or with Applicable Law.
ARTICLE 14. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION
Section 14.01. In General. The provisions of this Development Agreement shall not limit Avila
Ranch’s right to encumber the Property or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon by
any mortgage, deed of trust or other device securing financing with respect to such portion. City
acknowledges that lenders providing such financing and other “Mortgagees” (defined below)
may require certain interpretations and modifications of this Development Agreement and agrees
upon request, from time to time, to meet with Avila Ranch and representatives of such lenders to
negotiate in good faith any such request for an interpretation or modification. City shall not
unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided
such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement.
Any person holding a mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument on all or any portion of
the Property made in good faith and for value (each, a “Mortgagee”), shall be entitled to the
rights and privileges of this Article 14.
Section 14.02. Impairment of Mortgage or Deed of Trust. Except as otherwise specifically stated
in the terms of any security instrument held by a Mortgagee, no default under this Development
Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of
trust on the Property made, or other interest in the Property acquired, by any Mortgagee in good
faith and for value.
Section 14.03. Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If a Mortgagee has submitted a written request
to City as specified herein for notice, City shall use its best efforts to provide to such Mortgagee
written notification of any failure or default by Avila Ranch in the performance of Avila Ranch’s
obligations under this Agreement, which notification shall be provided to such Mortgagee when
such notification is delivered to Avila Ranch.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 66
7
Section 14.04. Right of Mortgagee to Cure. Any Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to cure any failure or default by Avila Ranch during the cure period allowed Avila
Ranch under this Agreement, plus an additional 90 days if, to cure such failure or default, the
Mortgagee must obtain possession of the property as by seeking appointment of a receiver or
other legal process. Any Mortgagee that undertakes to cure any such failure or default shall
provide written notice to City of that fact; provided that no initiation of any such efforts by a
Mortgagee shall obligate such Mortgagee to complete or succeed in any such curative efforts.
Section 14.05. Liability for Past Defaults or Obligations. Subject to the foregoing, any
Mortgagee, including the successful bidder at a foreclosure sale, who comes into possession of
the Project or the Property or any part thereof, shall take such property subject to the Rights and
Obligations of this Development Agreement and in no event shall any such property be released
from any Obligations. Nothing in this Article 14 shall prevent City from exercising any remedy it
may have for a default under this Development Agreement; provided, however, that in no event
shall such Mortgagee be liable personally for any defaults or monetary obligations of Avila
Ranch arising before such Mortgagee acquires or possesses such property.
ARTICLE 15. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 15.01. Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. The Recitals set forth above and the
Exhibits A–J attached hereto are incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Section 15.02. Project is a Private Undertaking. The development Avila Ranch proposes to
undertake is a private development, and Avila Ranch shall exercise full dominion and control
over the Project subject only to Avila Ranch’s limitations and Obligations contained in this
Agreement.
Section 15.03. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge.
Section 15.03.1. In General. If any person not party to this Development Agreement
institutes any administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding challenging the
validity of any provision of this Agreement, any Approval or the sufficiency of any review of
this Development Agreement or any Approval under CEQA (each a “Third Party Challenge”),
the Parties promptly shall meet and confer as to the most appropriate response to such Third
Party Challenge; provided, however, that any such response shall be consistent with Sections
15.03.2 and 15.03.3 below.
Section 15.03.2. Tender to and Conduct of Defense by Avila Ranch. City s hall tender the
complete defense of any Third Party Challenge to Avila Ranch, and upon acceptance of such
tender by Avila Ranch: (i) Avila Ranch shall indemnify City against any and all fees and costs
arising out of the defense of such Third Party Challenge; and (ii) Avila Ranch shall control the
defense and/or settlement of such Third Party Challenge and may take any and all actions it
deems necessary and appropriate in its sole discretion in connection therewith; provided,
however, that Avila Ranch shall seek and secure City’s consent to any settlement of such Third
Party Challenge, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld or delayed.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 67
7
Section 15.03.03. Defense by City. If Avila Ranch should fail to accept City’s tender of
defense as set forth in Section 15.03.2 above, City shall defend such Third Party Challenge and
control the defense and/or settlement of such Third Party Challenge as City decides (in its sole
discretion), and City may take any and all actions it deems necessary and appropriate (in its sole
discretion) in connection therewith; provided, however, that City shall seek and secure Avila
Ranch’s consent to any settlement of such Third Party Challenge, which consent shall not
unreasonably be withheld or delayed. Avila Ranch shall indemnify City against any and all fees
and costs arising out of the City’s defense of such Third Party Challenge. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if Avila Ranch determines for any reason that it no longer intends to develop the
Project, then it may deliver notice of such determination to City and shall not be liable for any
defense costs incurred by City more than 90 days following the delivery of such notice.
Section 15.04. Defense and Indemnity. Avila Ranch shall defend and indemnify City from and
against any and all damages, claims, costs and liabilities arising out of the personal injury or
death of any person, or damage to the property of any person, to the extent such damages,
claims, costs or liabilities result from the construction of the Project by Avila Ranch or by Avila
Ranch’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, except as caused by the negligence or
willful misconduct of City, its officers, employees, contractors, consultants or agents. Nothing in
this Section 15.04 shall be construed to mean that Avila Ranch shall defend or indemnify City
from or against any damages, claims, costs or liabilities arising from, or alleged to arise from,
activities associated with the maintenance or repair by City or any other public agency of
improvements that have been offered for dedication and accepted by City or such other public
agency. City and Avila Ranch may from time to time enter into subdivision improvement
agreements, as authorized by the Subdivision Map Act, which agreements may include defense
and indemnity provisions different from those contained in this Section 15.04. If any conflict
appears between such provisions in any such subdivision improvement agreement and the
provisions set forth above, the provisions of such subdivision improvement agreement shall
prevail.
Section 15.05. Governing Law; Attorneys’ Fees. This Development Agreement shall be
construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any
dispute arising under this Agreement lies in the county of San Luis Obispo and Avila Ranch
hereby consents to personal jurisdiction there for that purpose. The Parties will cooperate to
facilitate venue for any Third Party Challenge set forth in Section 15.03 above in San Luis
Obispo County. Should any legal action be brought by either Party because of any default under
this Development Agreement, to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement, or to
obtain a declaration of rights hereunder, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to such reasonable
and actual attorneys’ fees, and costs as may be fixed by the Court. The standard of review for
determining whether a default has occurred under this Development Agreement shall be the
standard generally applicable to contractual obligations in California. The terms and provisions
of this Section 15.05 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.
Section 15.06. Force Majeure. Performance by any Party of its Obligations hereunder shall be
excused during any period of “Permitted Delay” as hereinafter defined. For purposes hereof,
Permitted Delay shall include delay beyond the reasonable control of the Party claiming the
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 68
7
delay (and despite the good faith efforts of such Party) including, but not limited to: (i) acts of
God, (ii) civil commotion and acts of terrorism, (iii) riots, (iv) strikes, picketing or other labor
disputes, (v) shortages of materials or supplies, (vi) damage to work in progress by reason of fire,
floods, earthquake or other casualties, (vii) failure, delay or inability of the other Party to act,
(viii) as to Avila Ranch only, the failure, delay or inability of City to provide adequate levels of
public services, facilities or infrastructure to the Property, (ix) as to City only, with respect to
completion of the Annual Review or processing applications for Approvals, the failure, delay or
inability of Avila Ranch to provide adequate information or substantiation as reasonably required
to complete the Annual Review or process applications for Approvals; (x) delay caused by
restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than the City; (xi) enactment of
conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, (xii) judicial decisions or similar legal incapacity
to perform, and (xiii) litigation brought by a third party attacking the validity of this
Development Agreement. Any Party claiming a Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party (or
Parties) in writing of such delay within 30 days after the commencement of the delay, which
notice (“Permitted Delay Notice”) shall include the estimated length of the Permitted Delay. A
Permitted Delay shall be deemed to occur for the time set forth in the Permitted Delay Notice
unless a Party receiving the Permitted Delay Notice objects in writing within 10 days after
receiving the Permitted Delay Notice. Upon such an objection, the Parties shall meet and confer
within 30 days after the date of the objection in a good faith effort to resolve their disagreement
as to the existence and length of the Permitted Delay. If no mutually acceptable solution can be
reached, either Party may take action as may be permitted under Article 12 above.
Section 15.07. Waiver
Section 15.07.1. Legal Rights. Avila Ranch acknowledges and agrees that the terms and
provisions of this Development Agreement specifically permit City in some instances to impose
requirements upon the Project that City would not otherwise be able to impose due to a lack of
nexus, rough proportionality or reasonable relationship between the Project and such requirement
or other reasons. To the extent any such requirement is imposed by City upon the Project
consistently with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Avila Ranch waives any right to
challenge judicially the imposition of such requirement by City. Except as otherwise provided in
this Section 15.07.1, City shall comply with Applicable Law.
Section 15.07.2. Other Rights. While Section 15.07.1 prohibits Avila Ranch from
challenging judicially certain City requirements imposed consistently with this Agreement,
nothing in this Development Agreement shall be deemed to abrogate or limit, nor be deemed to
be a waiver by Avila Ranch of, any right of Avila Ranch (whether arising under the United States
Constitution, the California Constitution or otherwise) to request City to refrain from imposing
upon Avila Ranch, the Project or the Property any requirement that this Development Agreement
permits City so to impose or otherwise petition City with respect to any matter related to the
Project or the Property.
Section 15.08. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between the Parties
must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by facsimile (with original forwarded
promptly by regular U.S. Mail) or by Federal Express or other similar courier promising
overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice or communication shall be deemed to be
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 69
7
given and received when delivered to the Party to whom it is addressed. If given by facsimile
transmission, a notice or communication shall be deemed to be given and received upon receipt
of the entire document by the receiving Party’s facsimile machine. Notices transmitted by
facsimile after 5:00 p.m. on a business day or on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday shall be deemed
to have been given and received on the next business day. If given by Federal Express or similar
courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to be given and received when delivered as
shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Such notices or communications shall be given to the
Parties at their addresses set forth below:
If to City to: City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Telecopy/Facsimile: (805) 781-7109
With a courtesy copy to: City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 95330
If to Avila Ranch to: Avila Ranch, LLC
C/O Andy Mangano, Managing Member
3596 South Broad Street, Suite 140
With a courtesy copy to: Meyers Nave
Attn: Jon Goetz
707 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telecopy/Facsimile: (213) 626-2906
Any Party may at any time, change its address or facsimile number for notice by giving 10 days’
written notice to the other.
Section 15.09. No Joint Venture or Partnership. Nothing in this Development Agreement or in
any document executed in connection with it shall be construed as creating a joint venture,
partnership or any agency relationship between City and Avila Ranch. City shall have no
responsibility for public improvements unless and until they are accepted by City in the manner
required by law.
Section 15.10. Severability. If any provision of this Development Agreement is held invalid,
void or unenforceable but the remainder of this Development Agreement can be enforced
without failure of material consideration to any Party, then this Development Agreement shall
not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect, unless amended by mutual consent of the
Parties.
Section 15.11. Estoppel Certificate. Any Party and any Mortgagee may, at any time, and from
time to time, deliver written notice to the other Party or Parties requesting such Party or Parties
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 70
7
to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party: (i) this Development
Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this
Development Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, and if so
amended, identifying the amendments, and (iii) as of the date of the last Annual Review, the
requesting Party (or any Party specified by a Mortgagee) is not in default in the performance of
its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of
any such defaults. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate
or give a written, detailed response explaining why it will not do so within 30 days of receipt of a
request. Each Party acknowledges that such a certificate may be relied upon by third parties
acting in good faith. A certificate provided by City establishing the status of this Development
Agreement shall be in recordable form and may be recorded at the expense of the recording
Party.
Section 15.12. Further Assurances. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other Party or
Parties all such other further instruments and documents and take all such further actions as may
be reasonably necessary to carry out this Development Agreement and the Approvals and to
provide and secure to the other Party or Parties the full and complete enjoyment of its Rights
hereunder.
Section 15.13. Construction.
(a) All Parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation of this
Development Agreement and no presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be
construed against a drafting party shall apply to its interpretation or enforcement.
Captions on sections and subsections are provided for convenience only and shall
not be deemed to limit, amend or affect the meaning of the provision to which
they pertain. If any conflict appears between this Development Agreement and the
rules, regulations or official policies of City, the provisions of this Development
Agreement shall prevail and be deemed to have amended any such conflicting
rules, regulation or official policy as of the Effective Date.
(b) The Parties intend this Development Agreement to be consistent with the
requirements of Chapter 17.94 of the City’s zoning ordinance and it shall be
construed consistently with that intent. Should any conflict arise between this
Agreement and that Chapter 17.94 as it exists on the Effective Date, that Chapter
17.94 shall control.
Section 15.14. Other Miscellaneous Terms. In construing this Agreement, the singular includes
the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine and the neuter; “shall” is mandatory;
“may” is permissive.
Section 15.15. Counterpart Execution. This Development Agreement may be executed in any
number of counterparts and shall be deemed duly executed when each of the Parties has executed
such a counterpart.
Section 15.16. Time. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 71
7
Section 15.17. Good Faith/Fair Dealing. The Parties agree that a covenant of good faith and fair
dealing shall apply to all actions of the Parties. As used herein, this covenant shall mean that the
Parties shall act reasonably, and no Party shall do anything which shall have the effect of
destroying or injuring the rights of any other Party to receive the benefit of its bargain in this
Agreement. Nothing in this Section 15.17 shall detract from the principle of Section 12.02.4 that
neither Party shall be entitled to damages for breach of this Agreement.
Section 15.18. Exhibits.
List of Exhibits:
A – Avila Ranch SP Site Plan
B – Legal Description
C – Financing Plan
D – Phasing Plan
E-1 – Backbone Water Infrastructure
E-2 – Backbone Sewer Infrastructure
E-3 – Backbone Recycled Water Infrastructure
E-4 –Backbone Drainage Infrastructure
F – Figure 5 of Conservation & Open Space Element
G – Affordable/Workforce Housing Plan
H – Water Improvements
I – Water Well Site Plan
J – Bicycle Improvements
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Development Agreement as
of the Execution Date above.
CITY:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal
corporation
By: ______________________________________
Heidi Harmon, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ______________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 72
7
AVILA RANCH:
[Avila Ranch signature block]
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 73
7
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 74
7
Exhibit A
Avila Ranch Site Plan
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 75
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A3Composite Site Plan0 75 150300SCALE: 1”=150’ (24”x36” sheet)REFER TO A6 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A9 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A8 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A7 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A5 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A4 FORADDITIONAL DETAILExhibit 1Packet Pg 767
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A3Composite Site Plan0 75 150300SCALE: 1”=150’ (24”x36” sheet)REFER TO A6 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A9 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A8 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A7 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A5 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A4 FORADDITIONAL DETAILExhibit 1Packet Pg 777
Exhibit B
Legal Description
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 78
7
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 797
Order Number: 4001-4978499 (LI)
Page Number: 7
First American Title
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,
described as follows:
PARCEL A: (A.P.N.: 053-259-004)
PARCEL 2 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. COAL 01-0097, RECORDED
APRIL 9, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003-035673 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932
AND A PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070933 SHOWN ON THE
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 81 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGE 32 IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
NO. 2000-070931 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING
A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF VACHELL LANE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE IN A SOUTHERN DIRECTION ALONG THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND SAID
CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00° 00' 11" WEST, 666.37 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERN CORNER
COMMON TO SAID PARCEL AND THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070930 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID COMMON CORNER ALSO BEING ON SAID
CENTERLINE OF VACHELL LANE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON CORNER AND SAID POINT ON SAID CENTERLINE IN AN
EASTERN DIRECTION ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP,
NORTH 89° 56' 56" EAST, 662.06 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER COMMON TO SAID
PARCELS, SAID COMMON CORNER ALSO BEING ON A LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND WITNESSED BY A
5/8" REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID COMMON CORNER ON SAID
LINE ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION NORTH 89° 58' 55" EAST, 660.52 FEET TO A
POINT ON A LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS AND THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2002-070933 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 0° 08' 06" WEST,
666.27 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER COMMON TO SAID PARCELS AND BEING
WITNESSED BY 5/8" REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE CONTINUING IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION NORTH 89° 56' 56" EAST, 183.40 FEET;
THENCE IN A SOUTHERN DIRECTION THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
SOUTH 00° 00' 00" EAST, 470.92 FEET;
SOUTH 41° 55' 49" WEST, 63.87 FEET;
THENCE IN A WESTERN DIRECTION NORTH 90° 00' 00" WEST, 801.27 FEET TO POINT ON A
LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070930 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AND SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE IN A NORTHERN DIRECTION ALONG SAID COMMON LINE, NORTH 00° 00' 11" EAST,
518.07 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL A-1:
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 80
7
Order Number: 4001-4978499 (LI)
Page Number: 8
First American Title
AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS OVER THE NORTHERLY 30 FEET OF PARCEL 1, AS SAID PARCELS
ARE SHOWN DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE'S RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2000
AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 2000-070930 AND 070931 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL B:(APN: 053-259-005)
PARCEL 1 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. COAL 01-0097, RECORDED
APRIL 9, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003-035672 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932
AND A PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070933 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 81 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGE 32, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
NO. 2000-070931 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING
A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF VACHELL LANE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE IN A SOUTHERN DIRECTION ALONG THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND SAID
CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00° 00' 11" WEST, 666.37 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERN CORNER
COMMON TO SAID PARCEL AND THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070930 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID COMMON CORNER ALSO BEING ON SAID
CENTERLINE OF VACHELL LANE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON CORNER AND SAID POINT ON SAID CENTERLINE IN AN
EASTERN DIRECTION ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP,
NORTH 89° 56' 56" EAST, 662.06 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER COMMON TO SAID
PARCELS, SAID COMMON CORNER ALSO BEING ON A LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND WITNESSED BY A
5/8" REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE CONTINUING IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION NORTH 89° 58' 55" EAST, 660.52 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCEL OF LAND AND THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN
DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070933 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID POINT
BEING SOUTH 0° 08' 06" WEST, 666.27 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER COMMON
TO SAID PARCELS AND BEING WITNESSED BY 5/8" REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP;
THENCE CONTINUING IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION NORTH 89° 56' 56" EAST, 183.40 FEET;
THENCE IN A SOUTHERN DIRECTION THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
SOUTH 00° 00' 00" EAST, 470.92 FEET;
SOUTH 41° 55' 49" WEST, 63.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING IN A SOUTHERN DIRECTION THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES:
SOUTH 10° 13' 54" WEST, 296.48 FEET;
SOUTH 51° 47' 47" WEST, 246.34 FEET;
SOUTH 37° 32' 27" WEST, 206.28 FEET;
SOUTH 55° 33' 57" WEST, 321.08 FEET;
SOUTH 75° 54' 21" WEST, 103.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN LINE OF PARCEL
DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID POINT ALSO
BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF BUCKLEY ROAD;
THENCE IN A WESTERN DIRECTION ALONG SAID SOUTHERN LINE AND SAID CENTERLINE,
SOUTH 89° 56' 32" WEST, 725.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL,
SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION POINT OF SAID VACHELL LANE
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 81
7
Order Number: 4001-4978499 (LI)
Page Number: 9
First American Title
AND BUCKLEY ROAD AND WITNESSED BY A 5/8" REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERN LINE AND SAID CENTERLINE INTERSECTION POINT IN A
NORTHERN DIRECTION ALONG THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND SAID CENTERLINE
OF VACHELL LANE, NORTH 00° 00' 10" EAST, 666.37 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERN CORNER
COMMON WITH SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070930 AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP, SAID COMMON CORNER ALSO BEING ON SAID CENTERLINE OF VACHELL LANE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON CORNER ON SAID CENTERLINE IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION
ALONG A LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS, NORTH 89° 55' 51" EAST, 662.06 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070930 AS
SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID CORNER BEING COMMON WITH A CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF
LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932 AND WITNESSED BY A 5/8" REBAR AND
CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON CORNER IN A NORTHERN DIRECTION ALONG A LINE
COMMON TO SAID PARCELS, NORTH 00° 00' 11" EAST, 148.09 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING SOUTH 00° 00' 11" WEST, 518.07 FEET FROM THE MOST EASTERN CORNER COMMON
TO SAID PARCELS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070930 AND DOCUMENT NO. 2000-
070931 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID COMMON CORNER ALSO BEING ON A LINE OF THE
PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-070932 AND WITNESSED BY A 5/8"
REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON LINE OF SAID PARCELS, NORTH 90° 00' 00" EAST, 801.27
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL C:(APN: 053-259-006)
PARCEL 4 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. COAL 01-0097, RECORDED
APRIL 9, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003-035675 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2000-70932
AND A PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-70933 AS SHOWN ON A
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 81 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY AT PAGE 32 IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY CLERK/RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND LOT 27 AND LOT 28 OF THE HARFORD'S
AND CHAPMAN'S SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 76 OF RECORDS OF
SURVEY PAGE 06 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK/RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
NO. 2000-70931 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 81 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY AT
PAGE 32 IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK/RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER ALSO
BEING A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF VACHELL LANE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE IN
AN EASTERN DIRECTION ALONG THE NORTHERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES: N89°58'01"E, 562.91 FEET; N89°58'01"E, 99.15 FEET TO THE MOST
NORTHERN CORNER COMMON TO SAID PARCEL AND THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
DOCUMENT NO. 2000-70932 AND WITNESSED BY A 5/8" REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS
SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE CONTINUING IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION ALONG THE
NORTHERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-70932 AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: N89°58'01"E, 422.12 FEET;
N89°59'00"E, 239.94 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER COMMON TO SAID PARCEL AND
THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-70933 AND WITNESSED BY A 5/8"
REBAR AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID COMMON POINT ALSO BEING THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERN LINE IN A SOUTHERN
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 82
7
Order Number: 4001-4978499 (LI)
Page Number: 10
First American Title
DIRECTION ALONG A LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS, S00°08'06"W, 666.27 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON LINE IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION N89°56'56"E 183.40
FEET; THENCE IN A SOUTHERN DIRECTION THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
S00°00'00"E, 470.92 FEET; S41°55'49"W, 63.87 FEET; S10°13'54"W, 296.48 FEET;
S51°47'47"W, 246.34 FEET; S37°32'27"W, 206.28 FEET; S55°33'57"W, 321.08 FEET;
S75°54'21"W, 103.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN LINE OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-70932 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE
CENTERLINE OF BUCKLEY ROAD; THENCE IN A EASTERN DIRECTION ALONG SAID SOUTHERN
LINE AND SAID CENTERLINE N89°56'32"E, 1913.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF
SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-70933 AND WITNESSED BY A 5/8" REBAR
AND CAP RCE 12545 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING COMMON WITH THE
SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF LOT 28 OF THE HARFORD'S AND CHAPMAN'S SUBDIVISION AND
ON THE CENTERLINE OF BUCKLEY ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 76 OF
RECORDS OF SURVEY AT PAGE 06 IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK/RECORDER; THENCE
CONTINUING IN AN EASTERN DIRECTION ALONG THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID LOT 28 AND
SAID CENTERLINE OF BUCKLEY ROAD, N89°56'15"E, 1338.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERN
CORNER OF SAID LOT 28 ON SAID CENTERLINE OF BUCKLEY ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERN LINE OF LOT 28 AND SAID CENTERLINE OF BUCKLEY ROAD
IN A NORTHERN DIRECTION ALONG THE EASTERN LINE OF LOT 28 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP
THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: N00°07'52"W, 679.75 FEET; N00°07'50"W, 659.36
FEET TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER COMMON TO SAID LOT 28 AND LOT 27 OF HARFORD'S
AND CHAPMAN'S SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE CONTINUING IN A
NORTHERN DIRECTION ALONG THE EASTERN LINE OF LOT 27 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP
N00°08'28"W, 659.15 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF LOT 27 AND WITNESSED BY
1-1/4" IRON PIPE LS 3877 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERN LINE OF
LOT 27 IN WESTERN DIRECTION ALONG THE NORTHERN LINE OF LOT 27 AND THE NORTHERN
LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-70933 AS SHOWN ON
THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 81 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY AT PAGE 32 IN THE OFFICE OF
COUNTY CLERK/RECORDED OF SAID COUNTY THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
S89°57'07"W, 908.62 FEET; S89°56'55"W, 54.74 FEET; S89°56'55"W, 268.94 FEET;
S89°55'27"W, 323.68 FEET; S89°54'15"W, 323.27 FEET; S89°59'01"W, 324.32 FEET;
S89°55'42"W, 323.55 FEET; S89°59'00"W, 84.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 053-259-004 and 053-259-005 and 053-259-006
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 83
7
Exhibit C
Financing Plan
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 84
7
Draft Report
Avila Ranch Financing Plan
Prepared for:
City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
September 1, 2017
EPS #161181
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 85
7
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 1
2. AVILA RANCH PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 4
Avila Ranch Development Plan ................................................................................. 4
Project Planning and Regulation ............................................................................... 6
3. SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED ................................................................ 7
Municipal Services .................................................................................................. 7
Infrastructure Improvements ................................................................................... 9
4. FUNDING AND FINANCING SOURCES ......................................................................... 11
Avila Ranch Funding Sources ................................................................................. 11
Economic Considerations ....................................................................................... 13
5. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES AND RELATED ACTIONS ...................................................... 14
Appendices
APPENDIX A Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation, Local Area
Maintenance and Fiscal Mitigation Combined
APPENDIX B Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis
List of Tables
Table 1 Sources and Uses of Avila Ranch Infrastructure Financing ...................................... 2
Table 2 Summary of Avila Ranch Services CFD, Preliminary Rate Allocation
at Development Stabilization .............................................................................. 7
Table 3 Infrastructure Costs by Type of Infrastructure ...................................................... 9
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 86
7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Avila Ranch Financing Plan (Financing Plan) identifies the municipal services and
infrastructure required to serve the Avila Ranch Project and describes how these will be funded
and/or financed over time. In addition to providing a general description of how required
municipal services and infrastructure will be funded, the Financing Plan provides a basis for
financial terms included in the Development Agreement and also for the Community Facilities
District Rate and Method of Apportionment.
The Avila Ranch Project will create a new City neighborhood located at the northeast corner of
Buckley Road and Vachell Lane. The Avila Ranch Development Plan allows up to 720 dwelling
units; a “Town Center” with 15,000 square feet of local-serving retail and office uses; 18 acres of
pocket parks, mini-parks and neighborhood parks; and 53 acres of open space, including riparian
corridors and farmed agricultural land. The Financing Plan addresses how the Avila Ranch Project
will pay for both municipal services and the infrastructure needed as the new neighborhood is
constructed and occupied by new residents and businesses.
Municipal services include both “Citywide” services and also local area maintenance services
provide by the City within the Project area. Services covered by the Financial Plan include
maintenance responsibilities for bike paths in the County, and fulfillment of airport noise
complaint mitigation agreed to between the Airport Land Use Commission, the project, and
the San Luis Obispo County Airport. The need for special funding for these services is
created, in part, by the Property Tax Sharing Agreement (adopted by the City and the
County in 2008) as a part of the area’s annexation to the City that provides no property tax
to the City.
Infrastructure needed for the Avila Ranch includes contributions to Citywide, Specific Plan
and other subarea development impact fee programs, mitigating impacts upon regional (off-
site) infrastructure, and funding “backbone” and subdivision-related improvements within the
Project area.
Funding for recurring municipal services will be derived from municipal taxes, service charges
and fees typically levied by the City augmented by a newly created special tax levied by a Mello-
Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) created for the Project Area.
Funding for infrastructure improvements will be derived from a variety of sources including
direct developer equity investment to build or contribute to building needed infrastructure
improvements. Table 1 presents the “sources and uses” of funding for the range of
infrastructure required.
The key source of infrastructure funding will be “developer equity;” it is estimated that the
developer will invest an estimated $57.0 million directly in project-related infrastructure,
including paying the City’s development impact fees, which will be updated as part of the
City’s development impact fee update.
Some of the developer’s investment in City or region-serving infrastructure will be subject to
private reimbursement from other benefitting properties or potential impact fee crediting
from the City because the developer is either “oversizing” the improvement relative to their
nexus-based “fair share” costs, correcting existing deficiencies, or advancing the
improvement before its actual need. Because Avila Ranch is located on the periphery of the
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 87
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
City, and timing of development is in advance of other development projects in the area,
existing infrastructure in both the City and County needs significant upgrading to serve the
needs of the Avila Ranch development.
Additionally, Avila Ranch is required to participate in the cost of future cumulative, regional
facilities that the development impacts. Participation in these projects will be through
mitigation fee payments or participation in City impact fee programs.
Table 1 Sources and Uses of Avila Ranch Infrastructure Financing
The City’s (or other development’s) share of City or region-serving infrastructure will be
funded by the City’s development impact fees, exactions on other developers, and other City
or regional funding sources.
The Avila Ranch CFD may provide an additional source for developer reimbursement and will
provide for capital replacement over time, while also providing funding for City services.
The preparation of the Financing Plan occurred through a cooperative effort between the
Developer team and City staff and their respective consultants, concurrently with preparation of
the Avila Ranch Development Plan and related entitlement documents including the Project
Environmental Impact Report, the Fiscal Impact Report, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map,
Development Plan and the Development Agreement.
As part of the preparation of the Financing Plan, care has been taken to assure that the financial
burdens upon the developer are consistent with the developer’s need for a reasonable return on
its equity investment, that CFD special taxes fall within the City’s related property tax burden
policy, and that the City has identified sources for its (or other development’s share of
infrastructure costs).
Type Description Developer or
Builder Equity
Developer Equity
subject to Credits or
Reimbursement
Community
Facilities District
Special Taxes
City or Regional
Sources
In‐tract Infrastructure Developer builds neighborhood
streets and facilities shown in
Subdivision Map
Backbone Infrastructure Developer builds major
infrastructure serving Specific
Plan Area shown in Subdivision
Map
Regional Infrastructure Nexus‐based share of major
infrastructure (EIR Mitigation,
etc.)
Regional Infrastructure Oversizing of major
infrastructure
Citywide or Areawide
Infrastructure included in
Development Impact Fee
Programs
Fees paid when building permits
issued
Infrastructure Item Funding Source
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 88
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
Finally, the specific actions required to implement and administer the financing mechanisms are
identified in Chapter 5, providing guidance as to how the City will proceed with implementation
following action on the Entitlement Documents.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 89
7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
2. AVILA RANCH PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Avila Ranch Project will create a new City neighborhood within the boundaries of the Airport
Area Specific Plan (AASP), and will be regulated by the Development Plan and Specific Plan
adopted by the City. The Project site is approximately 150 contiguous acres located at the
northeast corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane, and includes three separate parcels: APN
053-259-006, APN 053-259-004, and APN 053-259-005.
Avila Ranch Development Plan
The Avila Ranch Development Plan (Development Plan) allows up to 720 dwelling units; a “Town
Center” with 15,000 square feet of local-serving retail and office uses; 18 acres of pocket parks,
mini-parks and neighborhood parks; and 53 acres of open space, including riparian corridors and
farmed agricultural land. These features are described in the Development Plan text and
appendices, and on pages 25-89 of the Development Plan. The Development Plan also calls for
community gardens, a bicycle and pedestrian pathway along the Tank Farm Creek riparian
corridor, and bike connections to the Chevron Project to the north and the Octagon Barn bike
facilities to the southwest. Another key improvement specified in the Development Plan is the
extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street, consistent with the City’s Circulation
Element.
Residential Uses
The Development Plan includes up to 720 residential units of varied density and type. The R-1
units are proposed to be typical single-family homes with front-loaded and alley-loaded garages.
The R-2 portions of the development obtain access from alleys and common driveways limiting
direct vehicular access points to residential streets. This circulation design allows many of these
R-2 units to front on open space areas or the internal residential collector streets, resulting in
attractive landscaped setbacks rather than a series of driveways. These project circulation
features along with attention to enhancing streetscapes and corridors with landscaping, utilizing
interesting architectural features such as front porches, and maintaining tree-covered sidewalks,
and unobstructed views of surrounding open spaces provide the underlying framework for
creating a walkable and interconnected neighborhood. The R-3 and R-4 units are included at
locations that take advantage of adjacent open spaces, and/or proximity to local jobs, transit,
and shopping.
Table 2 Avila Ranch Development Plan Residential Use Summary
Residential Category Quantity
Single Family R-1 101
Single Family R-2 297
Single Family R-3 197
Single Family R-4 125
Total Residential Units 720
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 90
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
Neighborhood Commercial Uses
The Neighborhood Commercial area will allow for 15,000 square feet of building area. It will
serve as a focal point and activity center for the project, and will provide shared parking for
nearby open space and parks uses, bicycle parking and storage facilities, public plazas for
gatherings and special events, and transit connections. Because of the nearby retail shopping
center on South Higuera Street, this neighborhood center will focus on small-scale convenience
items, and possibly provide some professional service office space.
Parks and Recreation Uses
The Development Plan designates 18 acres of parkland, which exceeds the General Plan parkland
requirement of 16.5 acres (10 acres per 1,000 population per the Parks and Recreation element)
by 1.5 acres. Proposed facilities include a centrally located 9.5-acre neighborhood park as well as
mini-parks, pocket parks, and community gardens. The “Designated Park” area does not include
passive open space and recreational trails, which are counted as part of the “designated Open
Space.” The neighborhood park will be linked to surrounding neighborhoods, the Tank Farm
Creek riparian corridor and to the regional bikeway system by separated Class I bike paths and
Class II bike lanes, and special pedestrian/bike bridges over Tank Farm Creek.
According to the concept plan approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the
neighborhood park will include group BBQs, basketball courts, tot lots, baseball diamonds, soccer
fields, pickle ball courts, tennis courts, a dog park, a skate park, and a community meeting
pavilion area. Eight mini-parks and a pocket park will also serve the neighborhoods. Each will be
one-half to 2.5 acres in size and provide facilities such as community gardens, tot lots, passive
play areas, BBQ and picnic areas, basketball courts, community gardens, dog park, and PC1 - 15
landscaping. These mini- and pocket parks will serve residents within a two-block radius and fill
the few “gaps” in the coverage for the neighborhood park facilities. The mini-parks will be
phased with adjacent residential development to provide park facilities for future residents near
their homes.
Open Space Uses
The Open Space designation is intended to preserve undeveloped or minimally developed land
for preservation of natural resources, production agriculture and public safety. The Land Use and
Circulation Element (“LUCE”) requires 50 percent of the site area to be dedicated as open space,
with up to one-third of that amount allowed to be provided offsite. For this 150-acre project site,
there would be a minimum requirement of 50 acres of onsite open space, with the remainder to
be provided offsite. As proposed, there are 53 acres of open space proposed onsite, which does
not include parks and recreational facilities. The balance of the required open space, 22 acres,
will be provided offsite through open space or agricultural conservation easements, or through
the development impact fee established by the AASP. The Avila Ranch Development Plan
designates the following specific areas for open space:
Planning area creeks, to protect and enhance habitat and recreational values;
Agricultural buffer areas outside of the URL along the Buckley Road frontage and the easterly
project boundary;
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 91
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
The ACOS Reservation Space in conformance with the ALUP; and
Tank Farm Creek corridor as a linear park, bikeway and passive recreation areas.
Project Planning and Regulation
The Avila Ranch Project has been designed to be consistent with the City’s General Plan policy
framework. The Project, however, will require amendment to the Airport Area Specific Plan, to
convert the area from its present commercial designation to a primarily residential area. The
foundational and parallel entitlement documents include the following:
General Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Airport Area Specific Plan
Avila Ranch Development Plan
Avila Ranch Environmental Impact Report
Avila Ranch Fiscal Impact Report
Avila Ranch Development Agreement
Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map and Conditions
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 92
7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
3. SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED
The Financing Plan addresses how the Avila Ranch Project will pay for both municipal services
and the infrastructure needed as the new neighborhood is constructed and occupied by new
residents and businesses.
Municipal Services
Municipal services include both “Citywide” services and also local area maintenance services
provide by the City within the Project area. The need for special funding for these services is
created, in part, by the Property Tax Sharing Agreement (adopted by the City and the County in
February 2008 as a part of a larger annexation of Airport Area Specific Plan properties) that
provides no property tax to the City. The anticipated future municipal services costs have been
calculated based on a fiscal impact analysis of the Avila Ranch Project and also a detailed
assessment of local area maintenance requirements prepared by City staff in collaboration with
the Developer team. Table 2 provides a summary of these municipal services costs which are
further documented in Appendix A – Municipal Services Cost Worksheet.
Table 2 Summary of Avila Ranch Services CFD, Preliminary Rate Allocation at
Development Stabilization
Citywide Services
The Avila Ranch Project is unique from a fiscal perspective given the fact that the Property Tax
Sharing Agreement (with San Luis Obispo County pursuant to Revenue and Tax Code Section 99)
adopted when the area was annexed to the City provides no transfer of property taxes to the
City. This Agreement was adopted by the City because the area at that time was designated in
the City’s General Plan for commercial and industrial uses and these uses were assumed to
generate other taxes (sales and use taxes, etc.) that would offset the cost of providing municipal
services.
The Tax Sharing Agreement follows the framework established in the 1998 Master Agreement
and provides that within the AASP annexation area, no annual property tax increment shall be
transferred from the County to the City, and all existing and future sales tax accruing from
annexed area within the Airport Area are to accrue to the City.
Item Local Area
Maintenance [1]
Fiscal
Mitigation
City CFD
Admin [2]
Contract CFD
Admin [2]Total
Annual Costs in CFD at Buildout $1,168,813 $414,156 $97,500 $33,609 $1,714,079
Annual Cost per Unit at Buildout [3]$1,623 $575 $135 $47 $2,381
Avg. Cost per Unit per Month at Buildout $135 $48 $11 $4 $198
Average Annual Tax Burden 0.28% 0.10% 0.02% 0.01% 0.41%
[1] Includes City and County direct costs, and Transportation and Leisure, Cultural & Social Services operating costs.
[3] Reflects development of 720 units. Does not currently include commercial.
[2] City CFD Admin reflects an FTE to oversee CFD. Contract CFD Admin reflects a 2% charge; to be confirmed.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 93
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
Also, there was a presumption that, in the aggregate and after factoring in existing and
projected sales tax revenues, the 2008 620-acre annexation would be fiscally positive. For
example, the City and County analysis showed that annexation of the Airport Area would be
fiscally beneficial to the City and result in an immediate fiscal "net" revenue (operating revenues
less operating costs) of approximately $450,000 upon annexation of the area (largely due to the
existing sales base in the area), increasing to $750,000 upon build-out. At the time of
annexation in 2008, there were existing sales tax revenues of $300,000 annually in the annexed
area, according to the February 2008 Staff Report. Nevertheless, the City and EPS deemed it
prudent to evaluate the Avila Ranch project on its own to guard against any future volatility in
the sales tax revenues and in light of the fact that a significant shift in land use was being
considered related to the rezoning of the Avila Ranch property from business park to residential
uses.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the Avila Ranch Project documented municipal service
costs and also the municipal revenues that the Project area is expected to generate as it is
constructed and occupied.1 Key citywide services include the following:
General Government
Police protection
Fire protection
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services (includes Park and Landscape Maintenance)
Community Development
Citywide services provided to the Avila Ranch area are estimated to cost some $1.5 million
annually when the Project area is fully developed, before accounting for offsetting municipal
revenue. The net expenditures, after accounting for revenues and off-setting local area
maintenance services, are estimated to cost the City approximately $414,000 per year.2
Local Area Maintenance
The Avila Ranch Specific Plan includes a high standard of infrastructure and public facilities that
will require maintenance. City staff and the Developer team have collaborated to develop a
detailed assessment of the maintenance requirements of the infrastructure facilities, as
documented in Appendix A.
Local area maintenance services provided to the Avila Ranch area are estimated to cost
approximately $1.1 million annually when the Project area is fully developed. Key services
include the following:
Maintenance of parks and greenbelts
Maintenance of residential collectors and arterials, including lighting
Maintenance of the Venture Drive bridge over Tank Farm Creek
1 Avila Ranch Fiscal Impact Analysis, ADE, April 2017
2 Fiscal expenditures reflect the revised fire costs and Avila Ranch’s share. The fire costs were revised
subsequent to the ADE analysis referenced above.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 94
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
Maintenance of storm drains
The Buckley Road bike path (County) and County Airport Sound Abatement services
Infrastructure Improvements
Infrastructure and municipal facilities required to serve the Project include “Backbone” and “In-
tract” Infrastructure as well as “City-serving or regional infrastructure” which is generally located
beyond the Project boundary but require improvement (at least in part) due to development of
the Project area. These future municipal services costs were estimated by conducting a fiscal
impact analysis of the Avila Ranch Project and also a detailed assessment of local area
maintenance requirements prepared by City staff in collaboration with the Developer team.
Table 3 provides a summary of these infrastructure costs which are further documented in
Appendix B – Project Infrastructure Cost Worksheet.
Table 3 Infrastructure Costs by Type of Infrastructure
Backbone and In-tract Infrastructure
The Avila Ranch Project, proposed for a largely undeveloped area, will require the full
complement of local infrastructure to serve the Project area including streets and in-street
utilities, drainage, parks and trails, and bikeways. These improvements are typically divided into
“in-tract” improvements, such as neighborhood streets and utilities, and “backbone”
improvements, including collector streets and public facilities (such as parks) that serve the
whole project area.
Key Backbone Improvements include the following:
Buckley Road Extension from Vachell Lane to South Higuera Street
Venture Road Residential Collector
Tank Farm Creek and Buckley Frontage Bike Path
Type of Infrastructure Total Project
Costs [1]
Transportation $37,234,884
Parks $6,645,500
Water and Sewer $427,500
Public Safety $1,346,250
Intract Improvements $20,896,000
Offsite Improvements $552,000
Total Infrastructure Expenses $67,102,134
Sources: Avila Ranch LLC; City of San Luis Obispo.
[1] Total Project Infrastructure costs whether Avila Ranch is building or
paying fees.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 95
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
Horizon Lane Collector south of Suburban
Earthwood Collector
Various Transit Stops
Improvements to City-serving and Regional Infrastructure
The Avila Ranch project, as it develops, will contribute to the demand for City-serving and
region-serving infrastructure improvements, including the following:
Improvements related to Buckley Road along the Project’s frontage
Vachell Lane improvements
Various sidewalk improvements
Intersection improvements at Tank Farm Road/South Higuera and South Street/South
Higuera
Horizon Lane south of Tank Farm
Bob Jones Trail Bike Path
Vachell Lane Widening
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 96
7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
4. FUNDING AND FINANCING SOURCES
Avila Ranch Funding Sources
Developer Equity
Developer equity will be the primary source of funding for infrastructure improvements needed
to serve the Avila Ranch area. Developer (or builder) equity will pay impact and mitigation fees,
fund construction of all “in-tract” and “backbone” improvements located within the Avila Ranch
area, fund the Project’s “fair share” allocation of off-site “regional” improvements, of which some
will be subject to fee credits, and advance funding over and above the “fair share” costs, a
portion of which will be subject to reimbursement by the City. It is estimated that total developer
equity necessary to fund the backbone and in-tract infrastructure and region-serving
infrastructure (including the amount beyond the nexus-based “fair share” amount) is $57.0
million.
Participation in Area and Citywide Development Impact Fee Programs
The Avila Ranch Project will be subject to the City’s various development impact fee programs,
including the existing Airport Area Specific Plan fees, the Citywide Traffic Impact fee, LOVR
interchange reimbursement fee, special ad hoc fees for environmental mitigation, and water and
sewer connection fees as levied at the time building permits are issued. This obligation typically
involves paying the impact fees at the time individual building permits are issued. Additional fees
are charged by regional agencies including the local school districts. It is important to note that
the current AASP does not include fee categories for residential or retail land uses. During 2017
the City engaged in a comprehensive effort to update and reorganize its impact fees. This update
includes the recalculation of existing impact fees (excluding the water and sewer connection
charges), the consideration of fees for public safety and other community facilities, and the
consolidation and redistribution of cost items included in the City’s area impact fee programs.
The AASP impact fee program will need to be revised or replaced to incorporate appropriate fee
levels for the Avila Ranch project.
Construction and dedication of “in-tract” improvements
As is common practice, the developer of Avila Ranch will build in-tract and backbone
infrastructure within, and on the periphery of, the Avila Ranch area to the specification of the
City as documented in the Tentative Subdivision Map and subsequently dedicate these
improvements and underlying lands to the City.
“Fair Share” allocation of other improvement costs
The development of the Avila Ranch Project will increase traffic on existing roadways and create
demand for other City/County infrastructure. Many of these improvements are facilities located
beyond the project boundary. This additional demand was studied in detail as part of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the mitigation measures identified to maintain policy-
based levels of service on these facilities. The mitigation program includes Avila Ranch
completing improvements along Higuera Road, extending Buckley Road from Vachell to Higuera,
as well as improving Buckley as it fronts the development, among others. The EIR requires these
improvements to be installed ahead of need and improved to the 2035 General Plan buildout
configuration to the extent feasible. Consequently, the project will construct improvements that
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 97
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
are necessary to correct existing deficiencies and to accommodate traffic and other impacts
above and beyond its own impacts.
Funding regional improvements above the “Fair Share” allocation
The Avila Ranch developer has offered to provide funding for regional improvements beyond the
Project boundary, and beyond its fair share to build out the improvement to their ultimate
configuration to maximum extent feasible. While not expressly obligated to do so, such additional
contribution assures that the regional improvements will be built in a timely and efficient
manner, benefiting the developer, the City, and the County. Consequently, there are no
improvements that are being funded directly by the City or others. Funding for the costs above
the project’s fair share will come from future development impact fees generated by the project
itself in the form of AASP, citywide and LOVR impact fees, direct contribution from other projects
benefiting from those improvements, and fees generated elsewhere in the City and AASP. In
some cases, although a project is eligible for reimbursement, Avila Ranch will carry the full cost
burden because a facility is not included in one of the funding mechanisms mentioned above.
Development Impact Fee or Exaction Revenue
Insofar as other developers/builders are obligated to pay their “fair share” of infrastructure
improvements by paying the Citywide and area development impact fees or additional nexus-
based “exactions,” a portion of this revenue will be used for reimbursement for investments
above “fair share” made by the Avila Ranch developer (or other nearby developers that may
advance funding for construction of fee-funded facilities and improvements).
Community Facilities District
The owners of the property have requested and the City has tentatively agreed to form a
Community Facilities District (CFD) subject to Council action for the Avila Ranch area. Such a
CFD, pursuant to the Community Facilities District Act of 1982, allows for the levy of a special
tax on real property located within the designated boundary of the CFD for a range of purposes
including providing funding for municipal services, local area maintenance, and infrastructure. It
is common for the special taxes to be used to service municipal bonds issued for the CFD to fund
new development-related infrastructure; however, the CFD for Avila Ranch will be used to fund
ongoing City services and infrastructure maintenance as described below. Usage of this
financing mechanism is warranted for a number of reasons, including that the project provides
significantly greater amount of parks space, open space, bike trails, and other amenities than
typical of other developments in the City.
The Avila Ranch CFD, as currently envisioned, will provide funding for City service costs not
covered by existing taxes (i.e., “fiscal mitigation”) and also for funding maintenance of municipal
improvements located within the Avila Ranch area. The CFD may also be used as a source of
funding to meet the City’s obligation to reimburse developer funding of regional improvements
above “fair share” and also as a source for repair and replacement of local area serving facilities
(e.g., local streets, drainage and flood protection facilities, and landscaping).
Other Funding Sources
Funding for the City’s share of regional improvement costs may be derived from a variety of
sources typically used by the City to fund infrastructure, including proceeds from federal, State,
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 98
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
and regional grants. However, no grants are currently identified and use of grant funding require
prevailing wage.
Economic Considerations
Project Feasibility
As a part of achieving new development as envisioned in the City’s General Plan and specified in
specific plans or other zoning actions, it is in the interest of the City to cooperate with developers
and builders to promote feasibility of new development, i.e., that new development generates
economic returns sufficient to attract necessary private equity investment and commercial
lending. While market conditions can constrain investment at low points in the business cycle,
over the longer terms the type and amount of development authorized by the City and the costs
imposed for needed infrastructure and facilities should balance so as not to unnecessarily impede
desired development.
Financial Burden Measures
A variety of methods are used to determine the cost burden placed upon new development
associated with providing the necessary infrastructure including in-tract and backbone
infrastructure improvements and contributions to City-serving infrastructure through payment of
impact fees or other mechanisms. The Avila Ranch Project, given the real estate values created
and the total cost of infrastructure improvements, is shown to fall within reasonable levels of
financial burden.
Incidence of Burdens
Depending upon the type of funding relied upon to develop a project, the “incidence” of the
burden (who pays?) varies. Equity provided by the developer for project costs including
contributions to public infrastructure and facilities is a burden on the equity investors in the
project. Special taxes or assessments on real property are a burden on the local homeowners or
businesses subject to these taxes or assessments. Excise taxes (e.g., sales taxes, utility taxes,
transient occupancy taxes) are a burden on those engaging in purchases of these goods. The
City has established CFD policies which place a 1.8 percent “cap” on property tax burdens. The
Avila Ranch project is located in County Tax Rate Area (TRA) 003-022 which has a total current
tax rate of 1.07225 percent,3 including the basic 1 percent rate plus “overrides” related to voter-
approved general obligation bonds and special taxes or assessments. Future additional tax
overrides may also be approved in the future.
In addition to this policy “cap,” market conditions also influence the amount of tax levied. For
example, an increase in the amount of taxes levied on real property will affect a home buyers’
ability to qualify for mortgage financing and in turn, the price they are willing to pay for the new
home. In the City of San Luis Obispo, Home Owners Associations’ burdens range from
approximately $100 per month (peak phases of Serra Meadows, Toscana, Trillium) to a high of
$239 per month at Avivo, a full service condominium project that provides structural
replacement, common open space, and community buildings.
3 San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 99
7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
5. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES AND RELATED ACTIONS
The Financing Plan will be implemented concurrent with approval and subsequent development
of the Avila Ranch area. Key components of implementation will include the following.
Development Agreement
The Entitlement Documents for the Avila Ranch Project will include a Development Agreement, a
contract between the Developer and the City that vests the entitlement over a long term (15 or
20 years) as consideration for extraordinary benefits to be received by the City for granting the
vesting. The Avila Ranch Development Agreement largely provides a framework and security for
funding the regional infrastructure improvements and the related reimbursement to the
Developer for investments that exceed the “fair share” cost allocation for these improvements.
Development Impact Fees and Exactions
The Avila Ranch Project development will be subject to the City’s development impact fees as
they will exist at the time building permits are issued. At the present time, the Project is subject
to the City’s water and wastewater connection fees, transportation impact fee, Airport Area
Impact Fees, Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Fee, parks fees, and public art in lieu fees.
Concurrent with consideration of the Avila Ranch Project, the City is engaged in an effort to
update its development impact fees, potentially resulting in the inclusion of new facilities in the
Citywide fees and also reallocation of infrastructure items among the area impact fees and the
Citywide fees. The Project will also be responsible for building or funding improvements, termed
“exactions,” as specified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Development Agreement
will include further specification regarding the Project’s development impact fee and exaction
obligations.
Fee Obligations
Subject to the terms included in the Development Agreement, new development in the Avila
Ranch Project will pay the fees existing at the time building permits are issued, i.e., be subject to
the fees that result from the Development Impact Fee Update.
Reimbursement Agreement(s)
The Avila Ranch Development Agreement will enable and specify the terms and security for
reimbursement agreements that will be created for each of the individual regional improvements.
Presently, reimbursement agreements are expected for the following off-site, Citywide or
regional facilities:
Suburban Widening east of Earthwood
Horizon Collector south of Suburban to Avila Ranch with right-of-way
Source of Reimbursement Agreement funding
A number of infrastructure improvements are specified in the City’s development impact fee
programs and Environmental Impact Fee mitigation measures that the Avila Ranch Developer will
fund or build beyond its “fair share” allocation of cost. These contributions will be eligible for
reimbursement from fees paid by other developers benefiting from these improvements or from
other sources.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 100
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
Projects Eligible for Private Reimbursement
Two projects have been identified that may be eligible for private reimbursement. Alternatively,
these improvement may be incorporated into the updated Impact Fee Program.
Buckley Road Extension Bike Path
Vachell/Buckley Intersection Control (if installed)
Projects Eligible for Impact Fee Credits
Insofar as the Developer builds or directly funds infrastructure improvements that are included in
one of the City’s development impact fees (e.g., Airport Area, Traffic Impact Fee, etc.), the
Developer is eligible to receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against its fee obligations for these
improvements. The Development Agreement will specify the precise terms of these fee credits.
South Higuera/South Street NB RT Lane (may occur as a private reimbursement)
Tank Farm/Higuera SB LT and WB LT
South Higuera Sidewalk
Tank Farm Creek Bike Path and Bridges
Community Facilities District
A CFD, as enabled by the Community Facilities District Act of 1982, allows a local jurisdiction to
levy a special tax within a specified area to pay for public services and/or infrastructure needed
within the area. Over the past three decades, CFDs have become a common mechanism for
cities to fund services and finance development-related infrastructure. The levy of any special tax
and any related bond issuance is subject to voter approval, if the area is inhabited approval by
two-thirds of the voters in the area is required. If fewer than 12 voters are located in the area,
approval by the landowners is required (Avila Ranch area currently has no residential uses).
City Policy and Approach
The City of San Luis Obispo has not, before this Avila Ranch Project, created any CFDs. The City
has, in anticipation of Avila Ranch and other development-related financing requirements,
adopted policies and procedures related to CFDs that guide formation of the Avila Ranch CFD. A
key policy adopted by the City is that “aggregate” property tax burden within the City should not
exceed 1.8 percent of assessed value annually.
Funding Capacity
The funding capacity of a CFD is based upon the type and amount of development within the
bounds of the CFD and the amount of the special tax levied against each parcel. Special taxes
levied as part of a CFD must clearly specify a “rate and method of apportionment” which defines
the amount of the tax levied on each parcel and how the amount may be increased (indexed)
over time to account for inflationary cost increases. Generally, CFD special taxes are limited to a
fraction of the 1 percent property tax allowed under Article 13 A of the State Constitution.
The funding capacity of the Avila Ranch Project, taking account of the market value of
development being created, the existing general and special taxes, and the City’s established
special tax “cap” of 1.8 percent, is estimated to be approximately $2.9 million annually. Given
market conditions and maximum equivalent HOA rates in the community of $200 per month, and
the significant amount of smaller multifamily units, the aggregate tax burden on residential units
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 101
7
Draft Avila Ranch Financing Plan
September 1, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Financing Plan\Avila Ranch Draft Financing Plan_09-01-17.docx
may limit this capacity to below this maximum, resulting in a funding capacity of approximately
$1.7 million per year.
Special Tax Components
The Avila Ranch CFD is primarily being formed to provide a source for funding Citywide services
and the maintenance and replacement of public facilities and infrastructure within the Project
area. The “Rate and Method of Apportionment” that will be developed as part of CFD adoption
will specify how the Avila Ranch special taxes shall be allocated to these uses. Based upon
current cost analysis, the allocation of CFD special tax funding at full development of the Avila
Ranch Project area would be as follows:
Citywide Services $414,000
Local Area Maintenance (City) $1.1 million
County Services $66,000
Capital Reimbursement (TBD)
CFD Administration (City) $97,500
CFD Administration (Contract) $33,500
CFD Administration
The City will be required to administer the CFD from year to year. Given the nature of the special
tax (a fixed tax rate plus an index-based inflator), this administration is quite simple, involving
sending documentation to the County Tax Collector as the annual property tax bills are prepared.
This service is typically provided by consultants to the City and costs approximately $10,000 to
$20,000 per year depending upon the size of the CFD and complexity of the special tax. There
will be some additional administration required by the Finance Department to control CFD funds
consistent with the terms of the Rate and Method of Apportionment and related financial
reporting (in the CAFR, etc.).
Formation Process
It is anticipated that the CFD formation will be initiated at the time the Avila Ranch Entitlement
Documents are considered for adoption by the City Council. The following steps must be
accomplished as part of the CFD formation process:
Develop CFD concept and document costs to be funded
Map CFD Boundary and conduct voter determination (occupied area or unoccupied?)
Prepare Rate and Method of Apportionment
Adopt Resolution of Intention
Adopt Resolution of Formation
Conduct election (or obtain landowner approval)
Adopt Ordinance to Levy Special Tax
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 102
7
APPENDIX A:
Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation,
Local Area Maintenance, and Fiscal Mitigation Combined
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 103
7
Table A-1Summary of Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation at Development StabilizationItemLocal Area Maintenance [1]Fiscal MitigationCity CFD Admin [2]Contract CFD Admin [2]TotalAnnual Costs in CFD at Buildout$1,168,813 $414,156 $97,500 $33,609 $1,714,079Annual Cost per Unit at Buildout [3]$1,623$575$135$47 $2,381Avg. Cost per Unit per Month at Buildout$135$48$11$4$198Average Annual Tax Burden0.28% 0.10% 0.02% 0.01%0.41%[1] Includes City and County direct costs, and Transportation and Leisure, Cultural & Social Services operating costs.[3] Reflects development of 720 units. Does not currently include commercial.[2] City CFD Admin reflects an FTE to oversee CFD. Contract CFD Admin reflects a 2% charge; to be confirmed. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8-01-2017.xlsxExhibit 1Packet Pg 1047
Table A-2Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation, Local Area Maintenance and Fiscal Mitigation CombinedAnnual Revenue/ExpenditureTotal 1 2 3 4 5 6Per Unit (720 Units)Units179292141971010Cumulative Units 179208422619720720Duration/Years30.5222City ComponentLocal Area MaintenanceAnnual Local Area Maintenance Costs($1,103,267) ($319,764) ($100,763) ($77,667) ($365,700) ($239,373)$0($1,532)CFD Project Delivery (Admin. Costs)($97,500)($45,000)($6,752)($5,204)($24,504)($16,040)$0($135)Total LAM Component($1,200,767) ($364,764) ($107,515) ($82,871) ($390,204) ($255,412)$0($1,668)Fiscal MitigationAnnual Fiscal Revenues $850,605 $226,093 $37,043 $226,790 $212,760 $141,120 $6,797 $1,181Annual Fiscal Expenditures $1,529,825 $377,472 $61,155 $451,280 $415,430 $212,987 $11,500 $2,125less Park and Landscape Maintenance$213,528 $42,706 $0 $40,037 $130,786 $0 $0 $297less Transportation$51,536$12,565$2,059$15,334$13,985$7,170$423$72Revised Subtotal, Fiscal Expenditures$1,264,761 $322,201 $59,096 $395,909 $270,659 $205,817 $11,077 $1,757Net Fiscal Impact($414,156) ($96,108) ($22,053) ($169,119) ($57,899) ($64,697) ($4,280) ($575)CFD CalculationsTotal City Costs in CFD (LAM and Fiscal)$1,614,923 $460,872 $129,568 $251,990 $448,104 $320,109$4,280 $2,243Administrative Charge (at 2%)$32,298$9,217$2,591$5,040$8,962$6,402$86$45Total CFD Costs (Annual)$1,647,221 $470,090 $132,159 $257,030 $457,066 $326,512$4,366 $2,288Cumulative CFD Costs$470,090 $602,249 $859,279 $1,316,344 $1,642,856 $1,647,222Cumulative Annual CFD Cost per DU$2,626$2,895$2,036$2,127$2,282$2,288Cumulative Monthly CFD Cost per DU$219$241$170$177$190$191 $191Development Value by Phase$414,360,200 $118,050,500 $19,125,500 $99,320,500 $100,174,500 $77,689,200 $4,500,000Cumulative Development Value$118,050,500 $137,176,000 $236,496,500 $336,671,000 $414,360,200 $418,860,200 $581,750Average Annual CFD Tax Burden by Phase0.40%0.44%0.36%0.39%0.40%0.39% 0.39%County ComponentLocal Area Maintenance($65,546) ($13,425) ($13,721) ($16,050) ($14,775) ($7,575)$0($91)Combined CFD CalculationsTotal Costs (with County) in CFD$1,680,469 $474,297 $143,289 $268,040 $462,879 $327,684$4,280 $2,334Administrative Charge (at 2%)$33,609$9,486$2,866$5,361$9,258$6,554$86$47Total CFD Costs (Annual)$1,714,079 $483,783 $146,155 $273,401 $472,136 $334,238$4,366 $2,381Cumulative CFD Costs$483,783 $629,938 $903,339 $1,375,475 $1,709,713 $1,714,079Cumulative Annual CFD Cost per DU$2,702.70 $3,028.55$2,141$2,222$2,375$2,381Cumulative Monthly CFD Cost per DU$225$252$178$185$198$198 $198Development Value by Phase$414,360,200 $118,050,500 $19,125,500 $99,320,500 $100,174,500 $77,689,200 $4,500,000Cumulative Development Value$118,050,500 $137,176,000 $236,496,500 $336,671,000 $414,360,200 $418,860,200 $581,750Average Annual CFD Tax Burden by Phase0.41%0.46%0.38%0.41%0.41%0.41% 0.41%Cost Allocation per Unit per Month$225.23 $252.38 $178.38 $185.17 $197.88 $198.39Recommended Rate per Unit per Month$225.00 $225.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00Annual CFD Revenue by Phase$483,300 $561,600 $1,012,800 $1,485,600 $1,728,000 $1,728,000Cost$483,783 $629,938 $903,339 $1,375,475 $1,709,713 $1,714,079Phase Cash Flow($483) ($68,338)$109,461 $110,125 $18,287 $13,921Cumulative Operating Reserve($483) ($68,821)$40,640 $150,765 $169,052 $182,973Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Avila Ranch LLC; ADE; Kosmont; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Phase/Revenue and ExpensesEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8-01-2017.xlsxExhibit 1Packet Pg 1057
Table A-3Local Area Maintenance Annual Cost AssumptionsAvila Ranch CategoryAsset ActivityCost Interval (years)Cost Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost/Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6179292141971010City Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBridgePed/Bike Bridges100 Each100,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1 1 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance Medians0.083 SF0.04$ 0.48$ 00000Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance Parkway0.083 SF0.02$ 0.24$ 60,540 9,100 7,000 29,820 41,900 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Parkway Water (1.21 AF/Ac per WSA)1.000 Acre-Foot3,560.00$ 3,560.00$ 1.68 0.25 0.19 0.83 1.16 - Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance RAB0.083 SF0.04$ 0.48$ 2,289 4,578 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Drainage Basin Inspection1 Each600600.00$ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Maintain Water Quality BMPs Monthly0.083 SF0.030.36$ 19,368.00 4,248.00 2,520.00 15,480.00 12,564.00 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Inspect Water Quality BMPs per rain0.333 SF0.010.03$ 19,368.00 4,248.00 2,520.00 15,480.00 12,564.00 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLandscape Retaining50 SF38.00$ 0.76$ 7,250 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessLandscape Sound Berm0.083 SF0.02$ 0.20$ 29,131 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Ongoing Open Space Maintenance1 Acre19.48$ 19.48$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Operating - Natural Resources Protection1 Acre89.61$ 89.61$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceOperational--Ranger Services1 Acre73.04$ 73.04$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceRanger Vehicle1 Acre5.00$ 5.00$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path Rehabilitation50 SF14.50$ 0.29$ 24,480 12,840 5,760 10,080 19,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path Sealing8 SF0.80$ 0.10$ 24,480 12,840 5,760 10,080 19,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Energy (1/75 LF)1 Each13.00$ 13.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Maintenance1 Each12.00$ 12.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Pole Replacement75 Each3,000.00$ 40.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Replacement25 Each2,500.00$ 100.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Vegetation Removal0.25 SF0.05$ 0.20$ 32,640 17,120 7,680 13,440 25,600 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Shelters/Pergolas)50 SF150.00$ 3.00$ 400 600 2,900 4,000 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Coatings)10 SF1.67$ 0.17$ 400 600 2,900 4,000 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social ServicesNeighborhood WellnessParkOperating - Parks Maintenance1 Acre10,162.47$ 10,162.47$ 3.14 1.34 0.81 10.38 2.58 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Energy Costs1 Acre360.00$ 360.00$ 3.14 1.34 0.81 10.38 2.58 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Cost (Avg 1.49 AF/Ac per Parks Plan)1 Acre-Foot3,560.00$ 3,560.00$ 4.68 2.00 1.21 3.84 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Replacement75 Each60,000.00$ 800.00$ 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Pump and Booster10 Each4,000.00$ 400.00$ 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Energy Cost0.083 Acre-Foot133.33$ 1,600.00$ 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot Rehabilitation40 SF14.50$ 0.36$ 17,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot Sealing10 SF0.80$ 0.08$ 17,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParks Major Maintenance1 Each Park8,448.28$ 8,448.28$ 2 2 1 2 2 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPlay Equipment Maintenance15 Each Site100,000.00$ 6,666.67$ 2 2 1 2 2 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyStorm DrainCapital Creek Maintenance15 Each100,000.00$ 6,666.67$ 1.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessTreePark Tree8 Each300.00$ 37.50$ 154 26 25 234 131 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Community SafetyTreeRiparian Tree Removal - Storm Event20 Acre150.00$ 7.50$ 5.74 2.37 1.65 2.16 6.16 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge Deck Maintenance20 SF50.00$ 2.50$ 3,360 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge Replacement100 SF1,700.00$ 17.00$ 3,360 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Energy1Each15.00$ 15.00$ 24 5 10 11 14 - Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Maintenance1 Each12.00$ 12.00$ 24 5 10 11 14 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Pole Replacement75 Each5,000.00$ 66.67$ 24 5 10 11 14 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Replacement25 Each2,500.00$ 100.00$ 24 5 10 11 14 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreets Operating - Street Maintenance1 SF0.06$ 0.06$ 193,680 42,480 25,200 154,800 125,640 - Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Drainage Inlets100 Each13,500.00$ 135.00$ 16 4 8 8 4 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Manholes100 Each9,500.00$ 95.00$ 21 4 5 11 4 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Operating - Flood Control1 LF3.25$ 3.25$ 6,800 550 2,075 2,380 5,500 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Pipeline100 LF350.00$ 3.50$ 6,800 550 2,075 2,380 5,500 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Rehabilitation (Private--Maintained by Homeowners)Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Sealing (Private--Maintained by Homeowners)Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsCurb and Gutter75 LF35.00$ 0.47$ 10,700 2,400 5,000 6,460 9,100 Residential Collectors and ArterialsTransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreets Roadway Rehabilitation75 SF15.00$ 0.20$ 193,680 42,480 25,200 154,800 125,640 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreets Roadway Sealing10 SF1.25$ 0.13$ 193,680 42,480 25,200 154,800 125,640 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsReplace Sidewalk100 SF25.00$ 0.25$ 62,700 12,900 29,000 47,100 41,900 Residential Collectors and Arterials Leisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessTreeStreet Tree (25 LF/Each Side)10 Each300.00$ 30.00$ 600 104 80 365 56 319,764$ 100,763$ 77,667$ 365,700$ 239,373$ -$ County Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path Rehabilitation40 SF 14.50$ 0.36$ 18,096 Parks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path Sealing8 SF 0.80$ 0.10$ 18,096 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Energy 1 Each 13.00$ 13.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Maintenance 1 Each 12.00$ 12.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Pole Replacement 75 Each 3,000.00$ 40.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Replacement 20 Each 1,500.00$ 75.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Vegetation Removal0.25 SF 0.05$ 0.0200$ 18,096 Parks and GreenbeltsBridge Ped/Bike Bridges 100 Each 100,000.00$ 1,000.00$ - County NoiseDU 75.00$ 179 29 214 197 101 Subtotal--County13,425$ 13,721$ 16,050$ 14,775$ 7,575$ -$ Quantity by PhaseSubtotal--City Maintained Assets w/CFD AllocationEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8‐01‐2017.xlsxExhibit 1Packet Pg 1067
Table A-3Local Area Maintenance Annual Cost AssumptionsAvila Ranch CategoryAsset ActivityCity Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBridgePed/Bike BridgesParks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance MediansParks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance ParkwayParks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Parkway Water (1.21 AF/Ac per WSA)Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance RABParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Drainage Basin InspectionParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Maintain Water Quality BMPs MonthlyParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Inspect Water Quality BMPs per rainParks and GreenbeltsTransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLandscape RetainingParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessLandscape Sound BermParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Ongoing Open Space MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Operating - Natural Resources ProtectionParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceOperational--Ranger ServicesParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceRanger VehicleParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path RehabilitationParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path SealingParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Energy (1/75 LF)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Pole ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Vegetation RemovalParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Shelters/Pergolas)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Coatings)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkOperating - Parks MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Energy CostsParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Cost (Avg 1.49 AF/Ac per Parks Plan)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Pump and BoosterParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Energy CostParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot RehabilitationParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot SealingParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParks Major MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPlay Equipment MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyStorm DrainCapital Creek MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessTreePark TreeParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Community SafetyTreeRiparian Tree Removal - Storm EventResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge Deck MaintenanceResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge ReplacementResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light EnergyResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light MaintenanceResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Pole ReplacementResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light ReplacementResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreets Operating - Street MaintenanceResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Drainage InletsResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain ManholesResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Operating - Flood ControlResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain PipelineResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Rehabilitation (Private--MaintainResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Sealing (Private--Maintained by Residential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation StreetsCurb and GutterResidential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation Streets Roadway RehabilitationResidential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation Streets Roadway SealingResidential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation StreetsReplace SidewalkResidential Collectors and Arterials Leisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood Wellness Tree Street Tree (25 LF/Each Side)County Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path RehabilitationParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path SealingParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light EnergyParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Pole ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Vegetation RemovalParks and GreenbeltsBridge Ped/Bike BridgesCounty NoiseSubtotal--CountySubtotal--City Maintained Assets w/CFD AllocationTotal Units Annual Cost/Item CFD Allocation Allocation to CFD Allocation Comment/Rationale Comment 720 2.00 2,000$ 2,000$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but general community benefit- -$ -$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 148,360.00 35,606$ 35,606$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 4.12 14,671$ 14,671$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit Acre-Ft price provide by City6,867.00 3,296$ 3,296$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 5.00 3,000$ 3,000$ 100% Inspect and Report on Basin 54,180.00 19,505$ 19,505$ 100%yqygroadway surface 54,180.00 1,625$ 1,625$ 100% Inspect BMPs per significant rain event 7,250.00 5,510$ 5,510$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 29,131.00 5,826$ 5,826$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 33.90 660$ 660$ 100% Normal City Responsibility33.90 3,038$ 3,038$ 100% Normal City Responsibility33.90 2,476$ 2,476$ 100% Normal City Responsibility33.90 170$ 170$ 100% Normal City Responsibility72,360.00 20,984$ 20,984$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit72,360.00 7,236$ 7,236$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 1,045$ 1,045$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 965$ 965$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 3,216$ 3,216$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 8,040$ 8,040$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit96,480.00 19,296$ 19,296$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit7,900.00 23,700$ 23,700$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,0007,900.00 1,319$ 1,319$ 100%18.25 185,465$ 185,465$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000 Not sure what this covers; direct maintenance 18.25 6,570$ 6,570$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,00011.73 41,746$ 41,746$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000yy@ (of $9.98 CCF 2017 Base Water 1.00 800$ 800$ 100%1.00 400$ 400$ 100%1.00 1,600$ 1,600$ 100%gFT17,200.00 6,235$ 6,235$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,00017,200.00 1,376$ 1,376$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,0009.00 76,034$ 76,034$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000 Break down by Acre? 9.00 60,000$ 60,000$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000yequipment/improvements replaced every 15 years 1.00 6,667$ 6,667$ 100% Normal City Responsibility570.00 21,375$ 21,375$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,00018.08 136$ 136$ 100% Normal City Responsibility3,360.00 8,400$ 8,400$ 100% Normal City Responsibility3,360.00 57,120$ 57,120$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 960$ 960$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 768$ 768$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 4,267$ 4,267$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 6,400$ 6,400$ 100% Normal City Responsibility541,800.00 30,929$ 30,929$ 100% Normal City Responsibility Not sure what this covers; R&R covered elsewhere40.00 5,400$ 5,400$ 100% Normal City Responsibility45.00 4,275$ 4,275$ 100% Normal City Responsibility17,305.00 56,248$ 56,248$ 100% Normal City Responsibility17,305.00 60,568$ 60,568$ 100% Normal City Responsibility- -$ -$ 0% Maintained by homeowners - -$ -$ 0% Maintained by homeowners 33,660.00 15,708$ 15,708$ 100% Normal City Responsibility Full replacement ever 70 years 541,800.00 108,360$ 108,360$ 100% Normal City Responsibility total city currently spends on this item) 541,800.00 67,725$ 67,725$ 100% Normal City Responsibility Every 8 years. What is the current city schedule? 193,600.00 48,400$ 48,400$ 100%1,205.00 36,150$ 36,150$ 100% Normal City Responsibility, primarily local benefitSame as Park Tree; BRE is $35 1,103,267$ 1,103,267$ 1,103,267$ 18,096 6,560$ 6,560$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I 18,096 1,810$ 1,810$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I 20 261$ 261$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 20 241$ 241$ 100%County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 20 804$ 804$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 20 1,508$ 1,508$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 18,096 362$ 362$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I - -$ -$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I 720 54,000$ 54,000$ 100% Per ALUC Approval Condition65,546$ 65,546$ 65,546$ CFD AllocationEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8‐01‐2017.xlsxExhibit 1Packet Pg 1077
Table A-4
Fiscal Mitigation Assumptions
Budget Category Total
General Fund Revenues
Taxes
Property Tax $0
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $297,169
Sales Tax: General $129,987
Sales Tax: Measure G $64,994
Sales Tax: Public Safety $3,220
Utility Users Tax $122,980
Franchise Fees $34,435
Business Tax Certificates $1,463
Real Property Transfer Tax $22,963
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $58,856
Other Charges for Services $38,704
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $3,449
Interest Earnings and Rents $4,263
Other Revenues $2,331
Transfers In
Gas Tax/TDA $35,971
Other $29,820
Total Revenues $850,605
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $294,029
Police $332,799
Fire [1]$398,463
Transportation [2]$51,536
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $130,497
Park and Landscape Maintenance [3]$213,528
Community Development $106,747
Transfers Out $2,226
Total Expenditures $1,529,825
Net Fiscal Impact ($679,220)
Reduce Parks and Landscape Maintenance [4] $213,528
Reduce for Transportation [4] $51,536
REVISED Net Fiscal Impact ($414,156)
[1]
[2] Included in LAM; exclude for Fiscal Mitigation.
[3] Included in LAM; exclude for Fiscal Mitigation.
[4] Included in LAM.
Increased per City allocation 7-28-2017; reflects cost of operating station
and Avila Ranch's share (25% of 590 acres).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8‐01‐2017.xlsx
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 108
7
APPENDIX B:
Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 109
7
Table B-1Summary of Infrastructure FundingType of InfrastructureTotal Project Costs [1] Avila Ranch Pro Rata Share Total Cost of Projects Built by Avila Ranch Additional Mitigation or Impact Fees Being Paid Amount of Potential Private Reimbursement Amount of Potential Impact Fee Credit for Built Projects Final Out of Pocket for Avila Ranch Transportation $37,234,884 $17,622,154 $21,226,500 $5,883,194 ($561,350) ($3,759,000) $22,789,344 Parks $6,645,500 $6,645,500 $6,645,500 $6,645,500 Water and Sewer $427,500 $427,500 $427,500 $427,500 Public Safety$1,346,250 $1,346,250 $1,346,250 $1,346,250 Intract Improvements$20,896,000 $20,896,000 $20,896,000 $20,896,000 Offsite Improvements$552,000 $552,000 $552,000 $552,000 Total Infrastructure Expenses$67,102,134 $47,489,404 $51,093,750 $5,883,194 ($561,350)($3,759,000) $52,656,594 [1] Total Project Infrastructure costs whether Avila Ranch is building or paying fees.Sources: Avila Ranch LLC; City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Capital Costs&Fees\Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost Analysis_09-01-2017.xlsxExhibit 1Packet Pg 1107
Table B-2
Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis
Item Total Project
Cost Estimate
Implementation/
Participation by
Avila Ranch
Nexus
Allocation to
Avila Ranch
Allocation to Avila
Ranch (Absent Credits
or Reimbursements)
Percent Up-Front
Amount
Reimbursement
Agreement
Requested/
Recommended?
If Yes, Amount
Subject to Private
Reimbursement
T1 Transit Stops $75,000 Build 100.0%$75,000 100% $75,000 No
T2 Buckley Road Widening - Vachell to Avila PL $2,294,500 Build Ph 1 & 4 50.0%$1,147,250 100% $2,294,500 No
T3 Suburban Sidewalk Sidewalks W/O Earthwood (Existing
Deficiency)$125,000 Build Phase 1 100.0%$125,000 100% $125,000 No
T4 Suburban Signal Modifications $125,000 Build Phase 1 100.0%$125,000 100% $125,000 No
T5 Venture Residential Collector $2,612,000 Build Phase 1,2,3 100.0%$2,612,000 100% $2,612,000 No
T6 Buckley Frontage Bike Path $655,000 Build Phase 1, 4 100.0%$655,000 100% $655,000 No
T7 Horizon/Jesperson Collector Avila Ranch $2,163,000 Build Phase 4 75.0%$1,622,250 100% $2,163,000 No
T8 US 101/S. Higuera Interchange - Prepare PS&E for SB
Ramp Metering $50,000 Complete Phase 1-
2 100.0%$50,000 100% $50,000 No
T9 County Offsite Improvements related to Buckley Road
Intersections (at HWY 227 and Davenport Creek) (T34)$430,000 Payment to County N/A N/A 100% $430,000 No
T10 Vachell Lane Widening, LTL @ Venture, misc sidewalks
and Class II Bike Lanes $650,000 Build Phase 1 50.0%$325,000 100% $650,000 No
T11 Earthwood Collector Suburban to Venture $418,000 Build Phase 1 75.0%$313,500 100% $418,000 No
T12 Buckley Road Extension - Vachell to South Higuera $6,000,000 Build Phase 2 25.0%$1,500,000 100% $6,000,000 No
T13 Suburban Widening E/O Earthwood $450,000 Build Phase 4 34.7%$156,150 100% $450,000 Yes $293,850
T14 Horizon Collector South of Suburban to Avila Ranch
w/ROW $770,000 Build Phase 4 75.0%$577,500 100% $770,000 Yes $192,500
T15 South Higuera/Vachell Lane $150,000 Build Phase 2 50.0%$75,000 100% $150,000 Yes $75,000
T16 Tank Farm/Higuera SB Dual LT $470,000 Build Phase 1 13.4%$62,980 100% $470,000 No $0
T17 Tank Farm Creek Bike Path $860,000 Build Phase 1,2,3 75.0%$645,000 100% $860,000 No
T18 Tank farm Creek Bikepath - Chevron s/o TFR $934,000 Build phase 4 if
ROW 100.0%$934,000 100% $934,000 No
T19 Tank Farm/Higuera WB Dual RT $670,000 Build Phase 4 13.4%$89,780 100% $670,000 No $0
T20 Buckley Extension Bike Path $500,000 Build Phase 2 25.0%$125,000 100% $500,000 No
T21 US 101/LOVR Interchange - Install SB Ramp Metering $250,000 Build Phase 1 100.0%
$250,000 100% $250,000 No $0
T22 South Higuera/South Street NB RT Lane $370,000 Build Phase 1 30.8%$113,960 100% $370,000 Yes 1 $0
T23 South Higuera Sidewalk - Vachell to LOVR $125,000 Build Phase 1 100.0%
$125,000 100% $125,000 No
T24 South Higuera Sidewalk - City Limit to LOVR $80,000 Build Phase 2 24.3%$19,440 100% $80,000 No
Subtotal:$21,226,500 $11,723,810 $21,226,500 $561,350
T25 LOVR Interchange (Impact Fees remaining after
crediting from above)$3,172,464 Pay Impact Fees 100.0%$3,172,464 100% $3,172,464 No
T26 Citywide TIF Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid -
reduced for potential TIF Credit shown above) $ 1,501,920 Pay Impact Fees $1,501,920 100% $ 1,501,920 No
T27 Horizon Lane S/O Tank Farm to Suburban $594,000 Pay Impact Fees 25.0%$148,500 0%$0 No
T28 Prado/Higuera NB Dual LT $750,000 Pay Impact Fees 8.5%$63,750 0%$0 No
T29 Prado/Higuera Cumulative Improvements (Dual LT, RT, 2 Thru) $2,000,000 Pay Impact Fees 0.0%$0 0%$0 No
T30 AASP Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid - reduced for
potential AASP Credit shown above)$0 Pay Impact Fees $0 100%$0 No
T31 LOVR/Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,540,000 Pay MIT Fees 25.4%$645,160 25.4% $645,160 No
T32 Bob Jones Trail Bike Path $1,250,000 Pay MIT Fees 5.8%$72,500 5.8% $72,500 No
T33 Buckley/Vachell Intersection $650,000 Pay MIT Fees 16.5%$107,250 16.5% $107,250 No
T34 Buckley/HWY 227 Intersection $2,700,000 Pay MIT Fees 2.7%$72,900 10.0% $270,000 No
T35 Tank Farm/Higuera NB RT extension $850,000 Pay MIT Fees 13.4%
$113,900 13.4% $113,900 No
Subtotal:$16,008,384 $5,898,344 $5,883,194 $0
Total All Transportation:$37,234,884 $17,622,154 $27,109,694 $561,350
Parks - Land and Improvements (18 acres) $6,645,500 100.0%$6,645,500 100% $6,645,500 No
Water and Sewer $427,500 100.0%$427,500 100% $427,500 No
Public Safety - Interim Fire Station $1,346,250 100.0%$1,346,250 100% $1,346,250 No
Intract Improvements - Not Specified Above $20,896,000 100.0%$20,896,000 100% $20,896,000 No
Offsite Improvements - Not Specified Above $552,000 100.0%$552,000 100% $552,000 No
Subtotal:$29,867,250 $29,867,250 $29,867,250
Grand Total:$67,102,134 $47,489,404 $56,976,944 $561,350
Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata or AASP If Amended into P
Build Project (Eligible for City TIF Fee Credits/Reimburs
Pay Fee - LOVR
Pay Fee - Citywide TIF
Pay AASP Fee (or Mitigation Fee as Identified)
Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata
Build Project (Potential Private Reimbursement)
Build Project (No Reimbursement)
Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem
Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem
Build Project (Eligible for LOVR Credits)
Allocation to Avila Ranch Developer Equity
Projects to be Built by Avila RanchAvila Ranch Pay Impact Fees/Mitigation FeeOther Costs
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Capital Costs&Fees\Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost Analysis_09-01-2017.xlsx
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 111
7
Table B-2
Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis
Item Total Project
Cost Estimate
T1 Transit Stops $75,000
T2 Buckley Road Widening - Vachell to Avila PL $2,294,500
T3 Suburban Sidewalk Sidewalks W/O Earthwood (Existing
Deficiency)$125,000
T4 Suburban Signal Modifications $125,000
T5 Venture Residential Collector $2,612,000
T6 Buckley Frontage Bike Path $655,000
T7 Horizon/Jesperson Collector Avila Ranch $2,163,000
T8 US 101/S. Higuera Interchange - Prepare PS&E for SB
Ramp Metering $50,000
T9 County Offsite Improvements related to Buckley Road
Intersections (at HWY 227 and Davenport Creek) (T34)$430,000
T10 Vachell Lane Widening, LTL @ Venture, misc sidewalks
and Class II Bike Lanes $650,000
T11 Earthwood Collector Suburban to Venture $418,000
T12 Buckley Road Extension - Vachell to South Higuera $6,000,000
T13 Suburban Widening E/O Earthwood $450,000
T14 Horizon Collector South of Suburban to Avila Ranch
w/ROW $770,000
T15 South Higuera/Vachell Lane $150,000
T16 Tank Farm/Higuera SB Dual LT $470,000
T17 Tank Farm Creek Bike Path $860,000
T18 Tank farm Creek Bikepath - Chevron s/o TFR $934,000
T19 Tank Farm/Higuera WB Dual RT $670,000
T20 Buckley Extension Bike Path $500,000
T21 US 101/LOVR Interchange - Install SB Ramp Metering $250,000
T22 South Higuera/South Street NB RT Lane $370,000
T23 South Higuera Sidewalk - Vachell to LOVR $125,000
T24 South Higuera Sidewalk - City Limit to LOVR $80,000
Subtotal:$21,226,500
T25 LOVR Interchange (Impact Fees remaining after
crediting from above)$3,172,464
T26 Citywide TIF Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid -
reduced for potential TIF Credit shown above) $ 1,501,920
T27 Horizon Lane S/O Tank Farm to Suburban $594,000
T28 Prado/Higuera NB Dual LT $750,000
T29 Prado/Higuera Cumulative Improvements (Dual LT, RT, 2 Thru) $2,000,000
T30 AASP Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid - reduced for
potential AASP Credit shown above)$0
T31 LOVR/Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,540,000
T32 Bob Jones Trail Bike Path $1,250,000
T33 Buckley/Vachell Intersection $650,000
T34 Buckley/HWY 227 Intersection $2,700,000
T35 Tank Farm/Higuera NB RT extension $850,000
Subtotal:$16,008,384
Total All Transportation:$37,234,884
Parks - Land and Improvements (18 acres) $6,645,500
Water and Sewer $427,500
Public Safety - Interim Fire Station $1,346,250
Intract Improvements - Not Specified Above $20,896,000
Offsite Improvements - Not Specified Above $552,000
Subtotal:$29,867,250
Grand Total:$67,102,134
Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata or AASP If Amended into P
Build Project (Eligible for City TIF Fee Credits/Reimburs
Pay Fee - LOVR
Pay Fee - Citywide TIF
Pay AASP Fee (or Mitigation Fee as Identified)
Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata
Build Project (Potential Private Reimbursement)
Build Project (No Reimbursement)
Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem
Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem
Build Project (Eligible for LOVR Credits)
Developer Final Equity
(Not Subject to Credit
or Reimbursement)
If No and If
Developer Equity
is 100%,
Value to City
If No and If
Developer Equity
is 100%,
Value to County
TIF AASP AASP (Future) LOVR
$75,000
$2,294,500 $1,147,250
$125,000
$125,000
$2,612,000
$655,000
$2,163,000 $540,750
$50,000
$430,000 $430,000
$650,000 $214,500 $110,500
$418,000 $104,500
$6,000,000 $1,125,000 $3,375,000
$156,150
$577,500
$75,000
$470,000 $0
$815,000 $45,000 $0
$934,000 $0
$670,000 $0
TBD $500,000 $93,750 $281,250
$250,000 $0 $0
$ 370,000 $0
$ 125,000 $0
$ 80,000 $0
$ 575,000 $2,889,000 $45,000 $250,000 $16,906,150 $2,078,500 $5,344,000
$3,172,464 $0
$1,501,920
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0
$645,160
$72,500 $72,500
TBD $107,250 $542,750
TBD $270,000 $270,000
TBD $113,900 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,883,194 $615,250 $270,000
$575,000 $2,889,000 $45,000 $250,000 $22,789,344 $2,693,750 $5,614,000
$6,645,500 $0
$427,500
$1,346,250 $0
$20,896,000
$552,000
$29,867,250
$575,000 $2,889,000 $45,000 $250,000 $52,656,594 $2,693,750 $5,614,000
Amount Subject to Fee Credit
Fee Credit and Reimbursement
Agreement Status
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Capital Costs&Fees\Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost Analysis_09-01-2017.xlsx
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 112
7
Exhibit D
Phasing Plan
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 113
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A24Phasing PlanPhase 3Phase 4Phase 1Phase 6Phase 5Phase 20 75 150300SCALE: 1”=150’ (24”x36” sheet)Ph 6Exhibit 1Packet Pg 1147
Exhibit E-1
Backbone Water Infrastructure
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 115
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A25Recycled Water: ProposedDomestic Water: ProposedUTILITIES LEGENDWater Supply PlanExhibit 1Packet Pg 1167
Exhibit E-2
Backbone Wastewater Infrastructure
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 117
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A26Wastewater PlanPump Station Force Main Gravity SewerTO TANK FARM LIFT STATIONExhibit 1Packet Pg 1187
Exhibit E-3
Backbone Recycled Water Infrastructure
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 119
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A25Recycled Water: ProposedDomestic Water: ProposedUTILITIES LEGENDWater Supply PlanExhibit 1Packet Pg 1207
Exhibit E-4
Backbone Drainage Infrastructure
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 121
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A27Storm DrainsOutfallsBasinSwaleStorm DrainageExhibit 1Packet Pg 1227
Exhibit F
Figure 5 of Conservation & Open Space Element
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 123
7
Conservation and Open Space Element
FOOTHILLSANTA ROSATANK FARMLOS
O
S
O
S
V
AL
L
E
Y MADONNASOUTHBROA
D
CALI
F
O
R
NI
A
HIGUERAFigure 5:Greenbelt Boundaries01230.5MilesCity LimitGreenbelt BoundaryPrevious Greenbelt Boundary
Exhibit 1 Packet Pg 1247
Exhibit G
Affordable/Workforce Housing Plan
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 125
7
Exhibit G
Affordable & Workforce Housing Plan
Affordable Housing Plan
The Avila Ranch project will encourage long term housing affordability by including design and develop-
ment strategies that serve to provide lower cost housing, by including a range of housing sizes and types
that are not typically provided in the community, and by providing a greater number of lower income
inclusionary units than required by the City Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Since the price of houses
over time is most closely related to the size of the dwelling unit, the size of the lot, and costs of mainte-
nance, the project has concentrated on lowering the overall size of market rate dwelling units, and reduc-
ing lot size for market rate units.
Within each of the residential zones there will be dwelling unit sizes ranging from 550 square foot studios
to 1,150 square foot family apartments in the R-4 area, to 2,500 square foot single family detached units
in the R-1 development area. A predominant individual share of the project is in small lot single family R-
2 units (297 out of 720) and attached single family ownership and rental R-3 units (197 units out of 720).
Consequently, the average size of the units across the development is approximately 1,525 square feet.
Maintenance expenses, to the extent feasible, will be included in a Community Facilities District to reduce
the necessity for Homeowner’s Associations, and the higher costs associated with that maintenance and
governance structure. Landscape maintenance and cost of water and utilities will also be reduced because
of the drought tolerant landscaping, smaller lots and other sustainable and cost reducing features.
The City’s Housing Element provides incentives to develop housing in a denser pattern (R3/R4), and with
smaller unit sizes to encourage affordability across the low, mod and workforce income ranges. These
incentives include reduced inclusionary housing requirements for denser projects and for projects with
lower dwelling unit square footages. Conversely, more inclusionary housing is required for projects with
dwelling units that exceed unit sizes of 2,000 square feet. Table 2A of the Housing Element contains these
adjustment factors.
According to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Table 2A, the inclusionary housing require-
ment for the residential component of the project is a total of 67 units, with 22 low and 45 moderate
income units. The project proposes to meet and exceed the residential component requirement by
providing 32 lower income units and 35 moderate income units as show in Table 1 below, which will pro-
vide for deeper affordability and more lower income units than required. In addition, the commercial
component of the project requires a total of 4 units, with 1 low and 3 moderate income units. The project
proposes to meet commercial component requirement by either constructing the units in the project or
by paying an affordable housing in-lieu fee.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 126
7
Table 1
Inclusionary Housing Requirements
Units Required and Units Provided
Units Avg Size Total Floor
Area
Net
Acres
Net Den-
sity
Density
Units
Density
Units/Acre
R-1 Alley 33 2,250 74.250 4.7 7.02 33 7.02
R-1 Front 68 2,250 153,000 8.07 8.43 68 8.43
R-2 Pocket Cottage 76 1,200 91,200 5.67 13.40 76 13.40
R-2 Standard 221 1,750 386,750 21.62 10.22 221 10.22
R-3 Duplex 38 1,750 66,500 4.13 9.20 57 13.80
R-3 Townhome 159 1,375 218,625 6.49 24.50 173 26.66
R-4 Apartments 125 850 106,250 4.39 28.47 115 26.20
Neighborhood Commercial 15,000 1.85
Total 720 1,525 1,096,575 55.07 13.07 743 13.49
Nominal Requirement 108
HE Table 2A Adjustment -41
Constructed Fee Total
Commercial 4
Requirement: 71 Provided: 67
71
Low 23
32 1 33
Moderate 48 35 3 38
The Avila Ranch project will address housing affordability in several ways, most notably through the design
itself, which includes cluster development and many medium and high-density housing units (197 R-3
units and 125 R-4 units), as well as R-2 units that have floor areas that are well below the typical average
for single-family detached units in the community.
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement will be addressed through deed restrictions on some low
income and moderate-income units to be constructed by Avila Ranch, while others will be provided by
dedicating and donating improved land to a non-profit affordable housing provider. However, should an
affordable housing provider fail to construct the units, the obligation to provide for the 24 deed-restricted
low-income affordable housing units remains with Avila Ranch to complete. The following highlights are
summarized from the Development Plan:
• Mix of Residential Densities and Small Lots. There is an intentional mix of residential densities in the
Avila Ranch project that includes a range of R-1 lot sizes, R-2 “four-packs”, “six-packs”, and “eight-
pack” cluster units, and R-3 and R-4 multifamily dwellings, with an emphasis on smaller lot, higher
density units. R-2 small lot single family detached units comprise over forty percent of the residential
units (with building living areas ranging from 1,050 SF for a 2B/1B unit to 2,200 SF 3B/2B unit), and
medium density and above units will comprise over 85 percent of the units in the project. The average
unit size across the entire project is less than 1,550 square feet.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 127
7
• Pocket Cottage Units. The Plan includes 76 “Pocket Cottage” units, which are intended to meet the
needs of young professionals, empty nesters and young families. These units have floor plans ranging
from 1,050 to 1,300 square feet in 2BR/1B, 2BR/2B and 3BR/2B configurations. These units, like the
other cluster units, are arranged around a common landscaped courtyard, and will have access from
a common driveway. These smaller units also have a one-car garage and an adjacent uncovered guest
parking space. This parking reduction is justified by the lower expected occupancy for these smaller
units and the multimodal features of the overall development. A portion of these units will be re-
served for income-qualified workforce households through the Workforce Housing Incentive Program
(WHIP) described below. Nine of the Pocket Cottage units (5 2-bedroom and 4 3-bedroom units)
would be dedicated for Moderate Income, and 13 of these units (6 2-bedroom/1-bath units and 7 3-
bedroom/2-bath units) will be dedicated for the project’s Workforce Housing Incentive Program
(WHIP) program described below. The nine inclusionary moderate-income units will be provided on
in Phases 1 and 3 of the project on Lots 37, 51, 65, 76, 91, 121, 364, 378 and 392. The Workforce units
in the Pocket Cottage series will be provided on Lots 32, 46, 60, 74, 79, 89, 90, 117, 365, 379, 393, 315
or 316.
• R-3 Units and Inclusionary Housing Requirements. The project includes 197 R-3 multifamily units on
11 acres that range in size from 700 square foot for-sale and for-rent studios to 1,750 square foot
duplexes. The R-3 portion will include eighteen (18) for-sale moderate-income units (10 2-bedroom/1-
bath units and 8 3-bedroom, 2-bath units) and twelve (12) WHIP units (6 2-bedroom/1-bath units and
6 3-bedroom/2-bath units). The inclusionary units will be provided on Lot 405 as part of the first 80
R-3 townhomes (and the first 116 R-3 units overall), and the 12 Workforce units will be provided on
Lot 407.
• R-4 Housing and Affordable Housing Development. Finally, the project will include a substantial
number of apartment units that are near employment and shopping at Suburban and Higuera. The R-
4 apartment portion of the project will be directly served by an on-street transit stop and will be within
walking distance of nearby shopping. A 1.2 acre portion of R-4 project will be dedicated to an afford-
able housing provider (Lot 300 of the VTM) at the time that the final map for Phase 1 is recorded to
address the local need for lower income housing and to satisfy, in part, the project’s inclusionary
housing requirements. The lot shall include 24 lower income units. However, should an affordable
housing provider fail to construct the units, the obligation to provide for the 24 deed-restricted low-
income affordable housing units on the lot remains with Avila Ranch to complete. Unit sizes in the R-
4 apartment portion will range from 550 square foot studios to 1,150 square foot units for larger
families. The site to be dedicated is adequate to meet the affordable housing requirement, plus addi-
tional potential units. This site will be improved as part of Phase 1 of the project since it is served by
Earthwood, and can be conveyed to the affordable housing provider during Phase 1. Its development
is not dependent on the completion of improvements in Phase 3 of the project (where it is located),
and construction can start on it after the Buckley Road Extension improvements are completed. This
will allow completion of these low income inclusionary units early in the project, rather than leaving
them to the end. In addition, eight (8) Low Income 2-bedroom/1-bath and eight (8) Moderate Income
2-bedroom/1-bath units will be provided on Lot 301, a market rate apartment development.
• Neighborhood Commercial. The 1.8-acre Neighborhood Commercial portion of the project will gen-
erate a requirement for four additional inclusionary units (1 lower income and 3 moderate income).
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 128
7
Development of this site is anticipated 10+ years, and will be based on market demand. Most of the
NC site is currently located in ALUP Safety Zone S-1-B that precludes residential development; how-
ever, there is a 0.25-acre portion of Lot 603 that is outside and that can accommodate residential
development. The project will include the four inclusionary units in its design, if possible, and subject
to the restrictions of the Specific Plan. If that is infeasible, the project will pay an affordable housing
in-lieu fee per the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Table 2 of the Housing Element.
Overall, the project will provide a total of thirty-two (32) low and thirty-five (35) Moderate Income inclu-
sionary units compared to the city’s requirement for twenty-two (22) Low Income units and forty-five (45)
Moderate Income units. The inclusionary housing product mix has been intentionally skewed toward the
low-income units to ensure that this income group is adequately represented in the project, and to rec-
ognize that the moderate-income groups have adequate market rate opportunities in the R-3, R-2 Pocket
Cottage and R-4 rental portions of the project. Table 2 shows the phasing of the affordable units, and
Exhibit 1 shows the location of these units.
Table 2
Assisted Affordable Housing Phasing Plan
Phase
Program 1 2 3 4 5 6* Total
Low Income Rentals 24
8
1 33
Mod Income Rentals
8
3 11
Moderate Income For-Sale 6
3 18
27
Workforce For-Sale-WHIP 13
12
25
Other Market Rate Work-
force
For Sale 36
18 70
124
Rental
83 86
169
Total 79 - 120 186 - 385
Units in Phase 179 29 214 197 101 4 724
Total-Inclusionary Low 33
Total-Inclusionary Mod 38
Total-Workforce WHIP 25
Total--Market Rate Work-
force
293
Total
389
*Phase 6 represents the Commercial Development and associated Inclusionary Housing Requirement. This will be
met either by development of units within the commercial project or by payment of affordable housing in -lieu fee.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 129
7
Workforce Housing Plan
A special four-point program will be provided to create workforce housing and increase the supply of
housing available to local employees. This program will include providing local preferences for individuals
who work within the City of San Luis Obispo and immediately surrounding area the priority to purchase
or rent a residence within the Project, owner-occupancy restrictions in the single-family detached units,
and a special Workforce Housing Incentive Program which will provide deed-restricted units for workforce
housing eligible households (households earning 121-160% of the Area Median income). This workforce
housing program seeks to target the Project to local employees, reduce the influence of investors in the
limitation of housing choice and availability, provide a down payment assistance program for Workforce
Income families, and provide a certain number of units that will be deed-restricted. The elements of the
program are as follows:
• Local Preference (“SLO Workers First”). Program 10.4 of the City’s Housing Element encourages res-
idential developers to “…sell or rent their projects to those residing or employed in the City first before
outside markets.” Further, the City and project applicants recognize that one of the principal reasons
for the designation of additional residential land in the community in the 2014 Land Use and Circula-
tion Element update was to address the current jobs-housing imbalance. One direct and effective
way of achieving this is to provide priority for existing employees to rent or purchase residences within
the Project. To that end, an interest list has been developed for the Project. Currently, seventy per-
cent (70%) of those on the interest list work in the San Luis Obispo area. Avila Ranch agrees to give
first preference to rent or purchase a residence within the Project to local employees identified on
the interest list. For purposes of this program, the term “local employees” shall include individuals
who are employed in business that are located in geographic areas that are customarily included in
the City’s annual jobs-housing balance analysis in its General Plan Status Report. These areas include
the City’s corporate limits and areas outside the City limits such as Cal Poly, California Men’s Colony,
Cuesta College, agricultural lands within the Edna Valley area and business parks on South Broad
Street. New employees to businesses in these geographic areas with bonafide employment offers will
be considered “local employees” as well. Avila Ranch agrees to maintain and update the interest list
through full build-out of the Project. City and Avila Ranch agree that, operationally, this program will
be administered as follows:
a. Avila Ranch shall maintain the interest list and shall separate and prioritize names of local
employees based on interest in product type.
b. When product becomes available, usually 270-360 days prior to certificate of occupancy
(assuming a 180-day construction period), Avila Ranch shall notify those individuals of the
opportunity to purchase a residence starting with the “top of the list.” Those individuals
shall have approximately 60 days to get pre-qualified to purchase the residence and to
provide Avila Ranch with proof that the individual is a local employee and the time notice
(i.e. paycheck or bonafide offer of employment from a local employer.)
c. If an individual fails to get pre-qualified or fails to provide Avila Ranch with proof of local
employment within the time periods above, then Avila Ranch may remove or put that
name at the end of the interest list.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 130
7
d. Except for the multi-family apartments, Avila Ranch agrees not to sell any units within the
Project to any individual without first offering the unit to a local employee who is on the
interest list for that product type. Upon exhausting all local employees on the interest list
for a product type, Avila Ranch agrees to give priority in the sale of such units to individ-
uals residing in the County (but within Fair Housing constraints and state and local regu-
lations), and finally to individuals from outside the county.
Nothing herein shall preclude Avila Ranch from notifying multiple individuals with the opportunity to
purchase a residence and prioritizing the purchase and sale based on “first in line” principles. Nothing
herein shall preclude Avila Ranch from taking all reasonable actions necessary in order to facilitate
the sale of units within the Project provided such actions are consistent with the “SLO Workers First”
program described herein. Avila Ranch shall, upon request, update the City on its implementation of
this program and provide City with the interest list and proof of employment for all sales made under
this program.
City and Avila Ranch acknowledge that this program described above will accomplish three important
objectives: 1) use new housing to address the current imbalance between existing jobs and housing;
2) ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, that the increased housing in San Luis Obispo
results in a decline in the current commute traffic; and, 3) reduce competition from outside buyers in
the initial offering and sales.
• Owner-Occupancy Restrictions. Avila Ranch agrees to include restrictions in the purchase agreement
and Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the single family detached units (R-1 and R-2)
substantially in the form as set forth in Attachment “A” requiring these units to be restricted to owner-
occupants only for the first five years after sale. In the case of units with Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs), the Principal Dwelling or the ADU will need to be occupied by the property owner. The final
form of these agreements will be determined at the time of development of the first final map, and
will provide for appropriate monitoring and enforcement. This component of the CC&Rs may not be
modified without the City’s written consent. The City of San Luis Obispo shall be a designated third
party beneficiary to these contractual rights and shall have the right to enforce the owner occupancy
requirement. Enforcement and monitoring of the owner occupancy requirement on all single-family
dwellings however, Avila Ranch and/ or in coordination with a qualified housing non-profit. Upon re-
quest, Avila Ranch shall provide City with any information related to Avila Ranch’s implementation
and enforcement of this program.
Workforce Housing Incentive Program (WHIP). Avila Ranch agrees to provide 25 deed restricted
units, including thirteen (13) Pocket Cottage units and twelve (12) R-3 Townhomes, to families in the
Workforce Housing category, defined by the City of San Luis Obispo as household incomes of 121% to
160% of Area Median Income (AMI). This program would require that eligible households have in-
comes no greater than 160% of the then-current Area Median Income (AMI) (Currently estimated at
$133,000 per year) and are income-certified by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo or other
qualified housing non-profit. For these units, prices would be limited to no more than that required
to achieve an Index of Affordability (“Index”) of 31 percent (cost of housing including mortgage prin-
cipal, mortgage interest, taxes and insurance divided by 140% of AMI). The Housing Element does
not specify an Index of Affordability for Above Moderate household; however, the proposed index is
consistent with the requirements of Policy 2.2 of the Housing Element which specifies a 30% Index for
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 131
7
Moderate Income units, with FHA guidelines, and recognizes the energy and occupancy costs savings
proposed as part of the “Net Zero” features of the project. The maximum purchase price would be
equal to 5.65 times (140% of 4.05 multiplier) the median income for each household size. For exam-
ple, the current 4-person (3 bedroom) median household is $83,200 and the associated maximum
price of a 3-bedroom unit would be $470,200, and the maximum purchase price for a two-bedroom
unit would be $423,200. These units would have to be occupied by an income qualifying Workforce
Housing household for a minimum of ten (10) years; if resold within this ten-year period, the units
would need to be sold to another income-qualifying Workforce Housing buyer, and the ten-year af-
fordability period would reset. Thirteen (13) of these Workforce units (6 2-bedroom/1-bath units and
7 3-bedroom/2-bath units) will be provided in the R-2 Pocket Cottage portion of the development and
twelve (12) units will be provided in the R-3 Townhome portion of the project (6 2-bedroom/1-bath
units and 6 3-bedroom/2-bath units). The Workforce units in the Pocket Cottage series will be pro-
vided on Lots 32, 46, 60, 74, 79, 89, 90, 117, 365, 379, 393, 315 or 316, and the 12 Workforce units
will be provided as on Lot 407 (see Exhibit 1).
The deed restrictions and enforcement would be administered in the same manner that the City does
the inclusionary housing requirements. More specifically, prior to recordation of any final map for the
Project, Avila Ranch shall enter into and record an Affordable Housing Agreement and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants on title for the Property per City form incorporating the affordability provisions
set forth herein. Avila Ranch and City acknowledge that as each workforce housing unit is constructed,
a note and deed of trust would be recorded against title to the unit per City form. Avila Ranch acknowl-
edges that the note will be in the amount of the difference between the fair market value of the unit
and the restricted sale price and will be in favor of City. The City of San Luis Obispo Community Devel-
opment Department shall monitor all deed-restricted WHIP units.
Down Payment Assistance Program. Avila Ranch agrees to provide a matching down payment assistance
(DPA) of five percent of the purchase price up to $20,000 as a “silent second” on the initial sale of the 25
Workforce homes. These units would have to be occupied by an income qualifying Workforce Housing
household for a minimum of ten (10) years; if resold within this ten-year period, the units would need to
be sold to another income qualifying Workforce Housing buyer and the 10-year deed restriction would
reset to 10 more years with the new buyer of the home. The DPA loan would be repaid upon sale of the
unit or refinancing, and the proceeds would be placed in a revolving loan fund to assist future workforce,
moderate, or lower income home buyers in Avila Ranch. Unlike a reduction in price that would be cap-
tured by a future seller at the end of the affordability term, this assistance would continue throughout
the life of the funds to assist buyers in the development. The intent is that these funds will be used in
conjunction with the initial 25 Workforce units, but these funds could be used for any income qualifying
household who purchases a home in Avila Ranch after the initial ten-year workforce affordability period.
This will establish a revolving loan fund of approximately $500,000 to be administered by the City of San
Luis Obispo.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 132
7
Attachment A
Sample Owner Occupancy Limitation in
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCRs)
Leases: No agreement for the leasing or rental (a "Lease") of a Principal Dwelling Unit or an Ac-
cessory Dwelling Unit shall be permitted except as provided herein. Within five years of the date of first
occupancy of the Principal Dwelling Unit, there shall be no Lease of the Principal Dwelling Unit without
the prior and express approval of the Board based on the determination of the Board that the Lease is
reasonably necessary to avoid substantial hardship to the Owner (e.g., ownership and leasing of a Princi-
pal Dwelling - Unit for normal investment income purposes would not be permitted). Such hardship may
include temporary reassignment of employment to another location, extended requirements for out of
state personal commitments, and other factors. A Lease of a Principal Dwelling Unit or an Accessory
Dwelling Unit shall be permitted so long as the owner also occupies either the Principal Dwelling Unit or
the Accessory Dwelling Unit and the Accessory Dwelling units meets all of the City’s requirements.
Any Owner who leases a Principal Dwelling Unit or an Accessory Dwelling Unit (after receiving approval
to do so) shall promptly notify the Association and shall advise the Association of the term of the Lease
and the name of each tenant. Any Lease shall be subject in all respects to the provisions of this Declaration,
the Articles, the Bylaws, the Association Rules, the Architectural Rules and applicable agreements be-
tween the Association and any state, local municipal agency; and any Lease shall expressly provide that
the Lease is subject to all such instruments and matters. Said Lease shall further provide that any failure
by the tenant thereunder to comply with the terms of the foregoing documents shall be a default under
the Lease. All Leases shall be in writing.
Any Owner who shall lease or rent his Dwelling Unit shall be responsible for assuring compliance by such
Owner's tenant with this Declaration, the Articles, the Bylaws, the Association Rules and the Architectural
Rules, and shall be jointly and severally responsible for any violation thereof by his tenant. No Dwelling
Unit shall be leased for transient or hotel purposes, for short term vacation rentals, which shall be defined
as rental for any period less than thirty (30) days, or any rental whatsoever. No Dwelling Unit shall be
leased or rented to more than a single family at any time. Tenants under Leases shall not have voting
rights in the Association, but may utilize Common Areas in the same manner as Owners.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 133
7
Attachment B
Sample Purchase Agreement Occupancy Addendum
ADDENDUM “__” to
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
(_______________)
OCCUPANCY PERIOD AND USE AS PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE addendum
PROPERTY: Lot ___ of Tract No.
Address: _____________________________________________________ ________
This is an addendum (the “Addendum”) to the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property (the “Con-
tract”) dated , 20______, between __________________, as “Seller,” and the
undersigned, as “Buyer,” concerning the property described above (the “Property”). This Addendum
modifies the Contract as set forth below. All terms used as defined terms below shall have the same
meaning as when used in the Contract unless expressly stated otherwise in this Addendum.
Seller desires to sell the Property only to a Buyer only if Buyer will occupy the Property as Buyer’s principal
residence for at least five (5) years. Buyer acknowledges that imposition of the minimum occupancy pe-
riod contained in this Addendum, and Seller’s limitation of selling only to owner-occupants is a material
consideration, and that Seller is forfeiting potential additional profits by selling to Buyer and other owner-
occupants. Therefore, to induce Seller to agree to sell the Property to Buyer, Buyer represents and agrees
as follows:
1. Use as Principal Residence for five years. Buyer represents and warrants to Seller : (a) that Buyer
is purchasing the Property for use as Buyer’s principal residence; and, (b) that Buyer will occupy
the Property as Buyer’s principal residence upon the Close of Escrow; and, (c) that Buyer shall not
attempt to transfer Buyer’s rights under the Contract nor enter into any agreement for the lease,
sale or other transfer of the Property which would result in Buyer’s failure to occupy the Property
as Buyer’s principal residence and hold title thereto in fee simple for a period of five (5) years
from the Close of Escrow of Buyer’s purchase of the Property (the “Occupancy Period”). The
provisions this Paragraph and the accuracy of the above representations and warranties consti-
tute a covenant of Buyer and a condition precedent to Seller’s performance under the Contract.
In the case of Property with a Principal Residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit, the Buyer shall
occupy either the Principal Residence or the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Failure of Buyer to occupy
the Principal Residence shall not constitute a breach of this Addendum.
2. Transfer Prior to Close of Escrow. Any attempt by Buyer to assign Buyer’s rights under the Con-
tract and/or to lease, sell or otherwise transfer the Property prior to the Close of Escrow for the
sale of the Property without Seller’s prior written consent shall constitute both of the following:
(1) Buyer’s default under the Contract, entitling Seller, at its sole election, to terminate the Con-
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 134
7
tract and retain Buyer’s deposit pursuant to Paragraph the Contract; and, (ii) the failure of a con-
dition precedent to Seller’s obligation to sell the Property to Buyer. Seller’s remedies may occur
prior to or after the Close of Escrow for the sale of the Property to Buyer. If the Buyer breaches
the provisions of this Addendum and the Escrow for the sale of the Property to Buyer has closed,
Seller shall be entitled to damages as set forth in Paragraph 4 of this Addendum.
3. Seller’s Right to Terminate CONTRACT. Buyer understands and agrees that Seller has the unilat-
eral right, in its sole discretion, to terminate the Contract and cancel the Escrow in accordance
with Paragraph 2 above, if Buyer takes or has taken any of the following actions: (a) assigns the
Contract to another person prior to the Close of Escrow; or, (b) advertises, lists or otherwise offers
the Property for sale or rent to others at a time or manner which would result in the failure or
inability of the Buyer to reside in the Property for the full Occupancy Period; or,, (c) enters an
agreement to sell or rent the Property which would cause Buyer to move from the Property prior
to the expiration of the Occupancy Period; or, (d) takes any other action which indicates to Seller
that Buyer does not have a bona fide intention of residing in the Property as Buyer’s principal
residence for the full Occupancy Period.
4. Transfer Subsequent to Close of Escrow. Except for “hardship” situations as described in Exhibit
“A” to this Addendum, attached hereto, any sale, lease or other transfer by Buyer under which
Buyer either fails to occupy the Property for the Occupancy Period or transfers fee simple title to
the Property prior to the expiration of the Occupancy Period shall constitute Buyer’s default under
the Contract. Any such default shall entitle Seller to any of the following remedies: (a) in the case
of a sale or other transfer of fee title to the Property, Seller shall be entitled to the amount of the
appreciation of the Property which has occurred after the Close of Escrow; or, (b) in the case of
a lease or other occupancy agreement, the greater of (i) the actual rent and/or other economic
consideration or (ii) the fair market rental value of the Property (collectively, “Rent”) payable to
or for the benefit of Buyer during the Occupancy Period in connection with such lease or other
occupancy agreement. For purposes of this Addendum, “appreciation” shall be mean the differ-
ence between (i) the fair market value of the Property at the time of Buyer’s sal e thereof, less
Buyer’s customary costs of resale such as broker’s commission, escrow fees and title costs, and
(ii) the Total Purchase Price of the Property plus Buyer’s actual cost paid for any improvements
made by Buyer to the Property, as evidenced by paid unrelated third-party invoices. Buyer shall
pay appreciation to Seller concurrently with the sale or other transfer of fee title to the Property
by Buyer. Buyer shall pay Rent to Seller within the first five (5) days of each calendar month during
the Occupancy Period.
5. No Unreasonable Restraint. Buyer acknowledges that the purpose of this Addendum is to comply
with Seller’s intention to sell homes only to persons who will occupy them as a principal residence,
to obtain a stabilized community of owner-occupied homes, to prevent a shortage of available
homes to the local workforce, and to prevent a shortage of homes to permanent residents of San
Luis Obispo. Buyer agrees that the provisions and restrictions set forth in this Addendum do not
constitute an unreasonable restraint upon alienation of the Property.
6. Survival: severability grant. All of the covenants contained herein shall survive the delivery and
recordation of the deed conveying the Property from Seller to Buyer and the Close of Escrow. The
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 135
7
provisions of this Addendum shall be independent and severable, and a determination of invalid-
ity or partial invalidity or enforceability of any one provision or portion hereof shall not affect the
validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Addendum or the Contract.
7. Subordination. Buyer hereby acknowledges and agrees that a violation of this Addendum by
Buyer shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any first mortgage or deed of trust made in
good faith and for value by Buyer, and that the covenants and provisions of this Addendum shall
be inferior and subordinate to the lien of any such first mortgage or deed of trust recorded con-
currently with the deed conveying the Property to Buyer.
8. Entire Agreement. This Addendum and Exhibit “A” hereto contain the entire agreement between
Buyer and Seller concerning the matters set forth herein. All prior discussions, negotiations and
agreements, if any, whether oral or written, are hereby superseded by these documents. No
addition or modification of this Addendum or the Contract shall be effective unless set forth in
writing and signed by Buyer and an authorized officer of Seller.
9. Attorney’s Fees. In the event of controversy, claim or dispute relating to breach of the terms of
this Addendum, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party reasonable
expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
10. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Addendum.
11. Capitalized Terms. Various capitalized terms used in this Addendum are defined in the Agree-
ments and shall have the same meaning as set forth herein, unless otherwise indicated herein.
Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has read the provisions of this Addendum and that Buyer understands
the provisions and finds them to be reasonable.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum and make if effective as of the date of
Seller’s acceptance indicated below.
“SELLER”
By: ______________________
Its: ______________________
Seller’s Acceptance
Date: , 20_
“BUYER”
_____________________
(Signature)
____________________
(Signature)
____________________
(Signature)
Buyer’s Acceptance
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 136
7
Date: , 20_
EXHIBIT “A” TO ADDENDUM “__”
The following events shall be deemed to constitute “hardship” situations under which Buyer may transfer,
sell, assign, convey or lease (each of which is “a Transfer”) its right, title and interest in the Property prior
to either (a) Close of Escrow, or (b) occupying and holding title to the property for a period of five y (5)
years from Close of Escrow:
A Transfer resulting from the death of Buyer;
Transfer by Buyer where the spouse of Buyer becomes the only co-owner of the Property with Buyer;
A Transfer resulting from a decree of dissolution of marriage or legal separation or from a property set-
tlement agreement incident to such decree;
A Transfer by Buyer into a revocable inter vivos trust in which Buyer is a beneficiary;
A Transfer, conveyance, pledge, assignment or other hypothecation of the Property to secure the perfor-
mance of an obligation, which transfer, conveyance, pledge, assignment or hypothecation will be released
or re-conveyed upon the completion of such performance;
A Transfer by Buyer where necessary to accommodate a mandatory job transfer required by Buyer’s em-
ployer (not including Buyer, if Buyer is self-employed);
A Transfer necessitated by a medical or financial emergency, proof of which emergency has been deliv-
ered to Seller, and has been approved by Seller in its reasonable discretion;
A Transfer which, in the reasonable judgment of Seller, constitutes a “hardship” situation consistent with
the intentions of this Addendum and this Exhibit “A” thereto.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 137
7
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 138
7
Exhibit H
Water Improvements
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 139
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A25Recycled Water: ProposedDomestic Water: ProposedUTILITIES LEGENDWater Supply PlanExhibit 1Packet Pg 1407
Exhibit I
Water Well Site Plan
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 141
7
AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLANMay 2, 2017#1011023A3Composite Site Plan0 75 150300SCALE: 1”=150’ (24”x36” sheet)REFER TO A6 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A9 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A8 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A7 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A5 FORADDITIONAL DETAILREFER TO A4 FORADDITIONAL DETAILExhibit 1Packet Pg 1427
Exhibit J
Bicycle and Multimodal Improvements
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 143
7
Exhibit J
Bicycle and Multimodal Improvements
Development Plan Features
Pedestrian and Bicycles:
1. Class I Bike Paths. Construct Class I multi-use paths in accordance with the project site plan and
connect them to the off-site transportation network consistent with the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The Buckley Extension Class I bike lane will be provided ahead of the street
improvements, such to availability of right of way.
2. Class II Bike Lanes. Construct 8-foot Class II “buffered” bike lanes on all Residential Collectors and
Commercial Collectors in the Project (Earthwood, Venture, Jesperson and Horizon), and on offsite
roads including Vachell and Buckley along the project frontages. The Buckley Extension shall
include a 8’ buffered bike lane in addition to the Class I. Offsite Earthwood to Suburban shall be
minimum 6’ bike lane width if parking is removed subject to approval of the Director of Public
Works. Buffered bike lane shall use appropriate separation devices, subject to approval of the
Director of Public Works, that will assist in providing positive separation between vehicles and
bicyclists.
3. Bike Bridges. Construct three bike bridges across Tank Farm Creek, one for eastbound traffic on
the south side of Buckley to provide east-west connectivity on Buckley Road, and the other along
the north side of Buckley on the southern side of Phase 1. An additional bike bridge across Tank
Farm Creek will be constructed between Phase 2 area and Phase 5 area as part of phase 5
development or when the offsite Chevron Class I facility is constructed, whichever occurs sooner.
4. Tank Farm Creek Bike Path Connectivity. The Chevron portion of the Tank Farm Creek Class I
bike path will be constructed by the project to improve connectivity subject to the following: 1)
city provides the right of way; 2) connection is made in conjunction with Phase 4 (onsite Tank
Farm Creek bike path will be completed in Phase 3; 3) any right of way expense should be paid for
by the City and any bike and ped improvement should be included within the reimbursement
agreement; and, 4) City will ensure that the cost of the improvements will be completely
reimbursed by the end of the buildout.
5. Octagon Barn/Buckley Road Connectivity. The Land Conservancy and SLO Bike Club have noted
that the portion of the Bob Jones Trail between the Octagon Barn and the Buckley Extension is a
missing link. The County currently has a ROW reservation (but not an irrevocable offer) for this
area. The project will construct this subject to ROW being provided. ROW should/could be
acquired at the time Buckley Extension ROW is secured from the same property owner.)
6. Bikes and E-Bikes. E-bikes have been identified as a potential asset to increasing the range and
frequency of bike usage, including work trips and weekly shopping trips. The project will provide
a $750 voucher to each R-1, R-2 and R-3 Duplex household. Each separate R-3 Townhome and R-
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 144
7
4 development shall provide a pool of bikes and e-bikes, at an initial rate of one bike per seven
units (28 e-bikes for the R-3, and 18 e-bikes for the R-4), with at least half of the pool being e-
bikes. The R-4 and R-3 owners/HOAs would be responsible for operation of this pool and it shall
be maintained in perpetuity.
7. Pedestrian Improvements. Pedestrian improvements will be provided along Suburban, Vachell
and Higuera to eliminate the missing links of sidewalks and/or elimination of non-ADA compliant
crossings. Appendix F shows the scope of these improvements.
8. Enhanced Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity. These changes include narrower vehicle lanes
and wider bike lanes on internal streets. Vehicle lanes have been narrowed to 10 feet while
bicycle lanes have been widened to a full 8-foot buffered bike lane standard. These buffered bike
lanes occur on all internal major streets, including Earthwood, Venture, Jesperson and Horizon.
Special at-grade “speed table” pedestrian street crossings per Sheets A15 and A16 have also been
included to provide for the traffic calming and a continuous walking experience. Finally,
pedestrian through connections have been specified along and between residential blocks. This
results in a pedestrian intersection density of over 500 intersections per square mile, well in
excess of the standard established by LEED and the Smart Growth Coalition.
Car Sharing:
1. Shared Mobility strategies will be included to reduce the necessity for additional vehicles for
each family. Car sharing would be provided in the development at an initial rate of one car per
50 residences, with at least 50 percent of that fleet in the form of electric vehicles. Vehicles
would be stored onsite in guest parking spaces, near public parks and on where approved by the
City on public streets.
Transit:
1. Provision of transit stops on the project site. Phase 1 will include a transit stop on Earthwood
north of Venture, and Phase 4 will include a transit stop at the Town Center.
2. The project site will also be served by bus service from the San Luis Coastal Unified School District.
Transit stops will be provided throughout the project in accordance with their requirements.
3. The project shall ensure adequate transit services are provided to the project by the 50th unit of
Phase I development.
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval:
1. All Mitigation Measures and Conditions of approval as identified in final Council resolution for the
project shall be implemented.
Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 145
7
Exhibit 1 Packet Pg 1467
Exhibit 1 Packet Pg 1477
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 148
7
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AT 175
VENTURE DRIVE FROM BUSINESS PARK/SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (BP-SP)
AND CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (C/OS/SP) TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AS
AMENDED.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1638 (2017 Series) rezoning property at 175 Venture Drive.
DISCUSSION
On September 19, 2017, the City Council voted 5-0 to introduce Ordinance No. 1638, rezoning
property at 175 Venture Drive from Business Park/Specific Plan (BP-SP) and
Conservation/Open Space/Specific Plan Area (C/OS/SP) to be consistent with the Avila ranch
Development Plan and with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan as amended, to
enable the development of 720 residential units and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood
commercial on a 150-acre site north of Buckley Road, which would also include 18 acres of
parks and 53 acres of designated open space within the project boundaries. Ordinance No. 1638
is now ready for adoption. The Zoning Map change will become effective 30 days after its
adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On September 19, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1832 (2017 Series) certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Avila Ranch project and adopting CEQA findings
and a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation and monitoring plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
A fiscal impact analysis for the Avila Ranch project was prepared by Applied Development
Economics. This is the same firm that prepared the fiscal and economic analysis for the General
Plan update in 2014. In summary, the analysis shows that the project at full buildout will
generate about $850,600 per year in general fund revenues and $1.3 million per year in
municipal service costs. The average annual cost revenue deficit is $494,887. This analysis also
includes Local Revenue Measure revenues for sales tax. The numbers are based on the current
cost estimates and tax sharing agreement with the County and can be positively impacted based
on the outcome of the ongoing negotiations with the County. The Community Facilities District
(CFD) for the project is proposed to be structured to ensure that at a minimum the City’s cost are
offset by contributions from the CFD.
Packet Pg 149
8
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the rezone. The City Council may continue its review of the
rezone to a date certain if additional time or information is needed to make a decision. If
additional information is needed, direction should be provided to staff so that it can be
presented on that date.
2. Deny the rezone. The City Council may deny the rezone, based on findings that the zoning
designation change is not consistent with the General Plan or other policy document. This
action is not recommended because the rezone is necessary for consistency with the Avila
Ranch Development Plan and with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan as
amended.
Attachments:
a - Map Ordinance
Packet Pg 150
8
O 1638
ORDINANCE NO. 1638 (2017 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REZONING PROPERTY AT 175 VENTURE
DRIVE FROM BUSINESS PARK/SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (BP-SP) AND
CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (C/OS-SP) TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AS AMENDED, COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE “AVILA
RANCH” AREA, IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN AS SPECIAL
FOCUS AREA 4 (“SP-4”)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 9, 2017, and recommended approval of the amendment to the City’s Zoning Map consistent
with the Avila Ranch Development Plan (Exhibit 1, attached) as part of the entitlement process for
the Avila Ranch project (GENP 1319-2015; SPEC/ER-1318-2015; SBDV 2042 2015; OTHR-
0455-2017; 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 September 19,
2017, for the purpose of approving the Rezone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revision is co nsistent with the
General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan as amended (related to the Avila Ranch project), the
purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the project
(SCH #2015081034) that addressed impacts related to the Rezone at its public hearing of
September 19, 2017; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of
the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Packet Pg 151
8
Ordinance No. 1638 (2017 Series) Page 2
O 1638
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby finds that this
action has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) and the
City’s local standards. The City prepared an Initial Study and, based on information contained in
the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a
significant environmental impact on certain resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064 and 15081, and based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project to analyze potential
impacts on the environment. The City Council certified the EIR on September 19, 2017, pursuant
to Resolution No. 10832 (2017 Series) made certain CEQA findings and determinations and
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation and Monitoring Program .
Resolution No. 10832 (2017 Series) is incorporated herein by this reference, and made a part
hereof as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. The Rezone allows the implementation of the Avila Ranch Development Plan by
rezoning the site to be consistent with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan as
amended, and the Avila Ranch Development Plan.
2. The proposed Rezone is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies
and map as amended related to Avila Ranch, including the land uses and development
pattern envisioned for the area for following reasons: 1) The proposed Rezone would
facilitate the General Plan Land Use map as amended; 2) The Airport Area Specific Plan
land use map was amended to reflect the General Plan development parameters and map
for the area.
3. A certified Final EIR for the project considered and provided appropriate mitigation
measures for the project as envisioned that is consistent with the Rezone.
4. The proposed Rezone will not create non-conforming uses at the site because the
site is currently undeveloped.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of San Luis Obispo hereby approves the Rezone
as shown in attached “Exhibit 1”, which is consistent with the land use designations included in
the Airport Area Specific Plan as amended, to facilitate future development consistent with the
Avila Ranch Development Plan and related Vesting Tentative Tract Map as conditioned, with
said conditions described fully in City Council Resolution No. 10832 (2017 Series).
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance,
Packet Pg 152
8
Ordinance No. 1638 (2017 Series) Page 3
O 1638
and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____________, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED
by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _______ day of __________, 2017, on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
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 153
8
Ordinance No. 1638 (2017 Series) Page 4
O 1638
Exhibit 1. Avila Ranch Area Zoning Map
Packet Pg 154
8
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Mark Sadowski, Building & Safety Supervisor
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.15 TO PROVIDE
AN EXPEDITED AND STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS; AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.04.020 F.2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT
FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A PRIOR AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1637 (2017 Series) enacting Municipal Code amendments associated with
electric vehicle charging stations and code amendment findings.
DISCUSSION
On September 19, 2017, the council voted 5:0 to introduce Ordinance 1637 (2017 Series) for the
implementation of an expedited process for permit application review of electric vehicle
charging stations in compliance with Government Code 65850.7 and approved findings to
support a Municipal Code/California Building Code amendment. The ordinance is now ready for
adoption. The amendment will become effective 30 days after final passage of the Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may choose to not adopt the ordinance. This alternative is not recommended as
the City will not be in compliance with Government Code Section 65850.7, the state law
regulating Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting, and, without a finding to support the
amendment to the CBC to lower the height of fences requiring a permit, the city cannot
require a building permit for fences between 6 and 7 feet high. This would result in a conflict
between SLOMC 17.16.050 B.2, which requires zoning approval for a fence over 6 feet in
height but no building permit if less than 7 feet in height. This creates confusion and
difficulty in enforcement.
2. The Council may choose to revise the ordinance and adopt only the ordinance to comply with
Government Code Section 65850.7 and not make the finding to support the existing
amendment to the CBC. This alternative is not recommended as the City would then require
applicants to obtain a zoning approval for a fence over 6 feet in height without a building
permit if not over 7 feet in height. Compliance and inspection would be difficult to enforce
resulting in reduced compliance.
Attachments:
a - Final Ordinance
Packet Pg 155
9
O ________
ORDINANCE NO. 1637 (2017 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 15.15 TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED
AND STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND BY AMENDING SECTION
15.04.020 F.2 OF CHAPTER 15.04 TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT TO
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING
CODE
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo recognizes the importance
of “Green Technology” and has made Climate Action a Major City Goal and by this Ordinance
seeks to (1) implement Assembly Bill 1236 and (2) adopt findings to support amendment of the
California Building Code as Adopted in Municipal Code 15.04.020 F. 2; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and the City of San Luis Obispo have consistently
promoted and encouraged the use of fuel-efficient electric vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the State of California recently added Government Code Section 65850.7,
which requires local agencies to adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited and streamlined
permitting process for electric vehicle charging systems; and
WHEREAS, creation of an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle
charging stations would facilitate convenient charging of electric vehicles and help reduce the
City’s reliance on environmentally damaging fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5, local jurisdictions are
permitted to amend the California Building Standards Code as reasonably necessary based on
local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, provided such amendments are not less
restrictive than the requirements found in the State codes; and
WHEREAS, the California Health and Safety Code, Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5,
requires the City Council to make express findings that each such amendments are reasonably
necessary; and
WHEREAS, such findings must be made available as a public record and a copy thereof,
with each such amendment, shall be filed with the California Building Standards Commission
and/or the Department of Housing and Community Development; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
to provide citizens with the greatest degree of fire, life and structural safety in buildings in the
most cost effective manner by adopting that body of regulations referred to as the California
Building Standards Code with amendments specific to the City of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, adoption of Ordinance 1612, which made required findings for various
Packet Pg 156
9
Ordinance No. 1637 (2017 Series) Page 2
O 1637
local amendments to the California Building Standards Code, inadvertently neglected to specify
appropriate findings for an amendment in Municipal Code Section 15.04.020 F. 2 and such
findings are required by the Building Standard Commission in amending the California Building
Code;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The project is exempt from environmental
review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)), as the project
involves updates and revisions to existing regulations. The proposed code amendments are
consistent with California law, specifically Government Code section 65850.7 and the CA
Health & Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5. It can be seen with certainty that the
proposed Municipal Code text amendments will have no significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 2. Chapter 15.15, of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code,
establishing an expedited, streamlined permitting process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations,
is hereby added to read as follows
Chapter 15.15
EXPEDITED PERMIT PROCESS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
Sections:
15.15.010 Purpose and intent.
15.15.020 Definitions.
15.15.030 Applicability.
15.15.040 Electric Vehicle Charging Station requirements.
15.15.050 Applications and documents.
15.15.060 Permit review and inspection requirements.
15..010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an expedited, streamlined electric vehicle charging
station permitting process that complies with California Government Code Section 65850.7 so
long as the action does not supersede the building official’s authority to identify and address
higher priority life-safety situations. This chapter encourages the use of electric vehicle charging
stations by removing obstacles and unreasonable barriers to, and minimizing costs of, permitting
electric vehicle charging stations. This chapter allows the city to achieve these goals while
protecting the public health and safety.
15.15.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms, phrases and words used in this ordinance shall be
construed in compliance with the definitions set forth in Government Code Section 65850.7:
A. “Electric vehicle charging station” or “charging station” means any level of electric
vehicle supply equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with Article
625 of the California Electrical Code, as it reads on the effective date of this section, and
Packet Pg 157
9
Ordinance No. 1637 (2017 Series) Page 3
O 1637
delivers electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric
vehicle.
B. “Electronic submittal” means the utilization of one or more of the following: email; the
Internet; facsimile.
C. “Feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact”
includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation
imposed by the city on another similarly situated application in a prior successful
application for a permit.
D. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
15.15.030 Applicability.
A. This chapter applies to the permitting of all electric vehicle charging stations in the city.
B.Routine operation and maintenance shall not require a permit.
C.Electric vehicle chargers installed on listed historic properties shall be found consistent
with the historic preservation ordinance including historic preservation guidelines and
Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties, as deemed
necessary by the Community Development Director.
15.15.040 Electric vehicle charging station requirements.
A.All electric vehicle charging stations shall meet all applicable health and safety standards
and requirements imposed by local, state and federal law.
B. An electric vehicle charging station shall meet all applicable safety and performance
standards established by the California Electrical Code, the Society of Automotive
Engineers, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and accredited testing
laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public
Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.
15.15.050 Applications and documents.
A. All documents required for the submission of an electric vehicle charging station
application shall be made available on the city website. The building official shall adopt,
and post on the city’s website, a standard plan and checklist of all requirements with
which electric vehicle charging stations shall comply to be eligible for expedited review.
B. Electronic submittal of the required permit application, plans and documents by email or
the internet shall be made available to all electric vehicle charging station permit
applicants.
Packet Pg 158
9
Ordinance No. 1637 (2017 Series) Page 4
O 1637
C. The city will accept an electronic signature on all forms, applications and other documents
in lieu of a wet signature by an applicant.
D. The electric vehicle charging station permit process, standard plan(s), and checklist(s)
shall substantially conform to recommendations for expedited permitting, including the
checklist and standard plans contained in the most current version of the “Plug- In
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Permitting Checklist” of the” Zero-Emission Vehicles in
California: Community Readiness Guidebook” published by the Office of Planning and
Research.
15.15.060 Permit review and inspection requirements.
A. The building official shall implement an administrative, nondiscretionary review process
to expedite approval of electric vehicle charging stations.
B. If an application is deemed incomplete, a written correction notice detailing all
deficiencies in the application and any additional information or documentation required
to be eligible for expedited permit issuance shall be sent to the applicant for
resubmission.
C. Review of the application shall be limited to the building official’s review of whether the
application meets local, state, and federal health and safety requirements.
D. The building and safety division shall issue a building permit, the issuance of which is
nondiscretionary within five business days for residential installations, and ten business
days for commercial installations upon receipt of a complete application that meets the
requirements of the approved checklist and standard plan.
E. The building official may require an applicant to apply for an administrative use permit if
the official finds, based on substantial evidence, that the electric vehicle charging station
could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety
F. If an administrative use permit is required, the city may deny such application if it makes
written findings based upon substantive evidence in the record that the proposed
installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid, as defined, the adverse impact.
Such findings shall include the basis for the rejection of the potential feasible alternative
for preventing the adverse impact. Such decisions may be appealed to the city planning
commission
G. Any condition imposed on an application shall be a feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon health and safety at the lowest possible cost.
H. Approval of a permit for any electric vehicle charging station shall not be conditioned on
the approval of an electric vehicle charging station by an association, as that term is
defined in Civil Code Section 4080.
Packet Pg 159
9
Ordinance No. 1637 (2017 Series) Page 5
O 1637
I. Only one inspection shall be required and performed by the building and safety division
for electric vehicle charging stations eligible for expedited review.
J. The inspection shall be done in a timely manner and should include consolidated
inspections.
K.If an electric vehicle charging station fails inspection, a subsequent inspection is
authorized.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby determines that the provisions of Section 105.2
of the 2016 California Building Code are required to be modified to be more restrictive
requirements than those set forth in the California State Building Standards, in order to protect
life, preserve property and enhance public safety, and are hereby modified, changed and
amended, due to the findings contained herein above and below.
SECTION 4. Findings. The City Council finds that each of the changes or
modifications to measures referred to therein are reasonably necessary because of local climatic,
geological, or topographical conditions in the area encompassed by the boundaries of the City of
San Luis Obispo, and the City Council further finds that the following findings support the local
necessity for the changes or modifications:
FINDING 1
That for the most part, the soils in the City of San Luis Obispo are medium to highly expansive
in nature, and such soils may cause damage to foundations, structures and underground utilities if
not properly mitigated through known construction techniques. Furthermore, a significant part
of the City lies on hills and rolling topography subject to earth slides and movements and present
problems to developments constructed in such areas due to surface water drainage and disposal.
The above-described conditions support the imposition of requirements more restrictive than
those set forth in the California State Building Standards Code and, in particular, support the
imposition of greater requirements than those set forth in Sections 105.2 of the 2016 California
Building Code
SECTION 5. Section 15.04.020 F. 2 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 15.04.020 AMENDMENTS; CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
F. Amend Chapter 1, Division II, Section 105.2, Building items 2 to read as
follows:
Work exempt from permit.
Building
2. Fences not over 6 feet 7 feet high.
SECTION 6. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a copy
of this ordinance to the California Building Standards Commission as required by California
Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7.
Packet Pg 160
9
Ordinance No. 1637 (2017 Series) Page 6
O 1637
SECTION 7. If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have
passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish
the intent of this ordinance.
SECTION 8. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
with the ayes and noes shall be published at least 5 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 19th day of September 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of 20__, on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 161
9
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 162
9
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Xenia Bradford, Finance Director
Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Tim Bochum, Public Works Deputy Director
Isaac Shuck, Fleet Supervisor
SUBJECT: STREETS MAINTENANCE DUMP TRUCK, TRANSFER DUMP TRAILER,
AND SWEEPER TRUCK, SPECIFICATION NO. 91589 & 91595 REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL TO FINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the release of a Request for Proposals seeking a lender to finance approximately
$600,000 loan for the purchase of a street sweeper and dump truck.
DISCUSSION
Background
The replacement of the heavy-duty dump truck, transfer dump trailer, and street sweeper truck
used daily by the Streets Maintenance staff, was approved as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan
in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Each unit is used daily by the Streets Maintenance Division and critical
for asphalt and paving operations.
The street sweeper and the dump truck were proposed to be purchased through debt financing
with the financial plan. This action seeks authorization to open a Request for Proposals to receive
competitive financing in the amount of approximately $600,000. The current quotes obtained by
Public Works department amount to $565,000 for the two items, which is lower than the adopted
estimated budget for this project. The final cost to purchase the dump truck and the street
sweeper will be determined by the financing agreement and the interest rate.
The lender will be competitively chosen based on the results from the Request for Proposals for
debt financing and staff will return to Council for authorization to complete the purchase of the
street sweeper and the dump truck and to execute all documents for the debt financing.
Cooperative Purchase versus Local Purchase
Heavy Duty Dump Truck and Transfer Dump Trailer
Staff recommends a purchase to Gibbs Truck Center of Santa Maria in the amount of
$256,204.06 for one 2018 International HX Series heavy duty dump truck including a Reliance
transfer dump set.
Pursuant to City purchasing guidelines, staff explored use of a multi-year cooperative purchasing
agreement with the National Joint Powers Association (NJPA) Contract No. 08176-NVS, to
purchase a heavy-duty dump truck outfitted with a transfer dump set. This resulted in a quote in the
amount of $256,204.06 through its approved dealer, Gibbs Truck Center of Santa Maria, for a dump
Packet Pg 163
10
truck and transfer dump set that met City specifications. There is no local dealer within the City
limits for comparative pricing.
Street Sweeper
Staff recommends a purchase to Schwarze Industries, Inc. in the amount of $303,052.06 for a 2018
Freightliner M2 heavy duty truck outfitted with a Schwarze M6 Avalanche sweeper unit.
Pursuant to City purchasing guidelines, staff explored use of a multi-year cooperative purchasing
agreement with the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) Buy Contract No. SW04-16, to
purchase a heavy-duty truck outfitted with a street sweeper unit. This resulted in a quote in the
amount of $303,052.76 through its approved dealer, Sweeper Shop, for a heavy-duty truck with a
street sweeper unit that met City specifications. There is no local dealer within the City limits for
comparative pricing.
FISCAL IMPACT
Lease Purchase
The City has strategically used lease options as ways to reduce significant variations in the costs
of replacing vehicles or other specialty equipment. Due to the high cost of the dump truck and
sweeper, staff proposed and Council approved debt financing of these two vehicles in the 2017-
19 Financial Plan (FY 2017-18) to stabilize the annual costs needed to be paid from the Fleet
Fund. Staff is seeking the authorization to advertise for a financed purchase agreement for the
acquisition of the new dump truck and sweeper truck. These purchases are budgeted and
approved for replacement as part of the 2017-18 Financial Plan. In the 2017-19 Financial Plan,
page A1-28 the estimated debt financing to acquire these vehicles. The proposed annual lease
payments are within the budgeted amounts in the financial plan and the proposed financing was
reviewed by PFM, the City’s independent financial advisor. The purchase costs for each vehicle
listed in the table below are within the approved 2017-19 Financial Plan budget estimates. The
total costs include final up fitting accessory costs installed by City Fleet staff.
Project 91589
Adopted
Budget Fiscal Year Purchase Cost
Total Cost
(Includes Final
Up Fitting)
Heavy Duty Dump Truck 290,000 17-18 $256,204.06 $260,000.00
Transfer Dump Trailer Included 17-18 Included Included
Project 91595
Adopted
Budget Fiscal Year Purchase Cost Total Cost
Sweeper Truck 305,000 17-18 $303,052.06 $305,000.00
ALTERNATIVES
Deny Funding and Purchase. The City Council could choose to deny advertisement for
requests for proposals to finance the dump truck and the street sweeper or defer to a later time.
Staff does not recommend this option as the replacements were approved as part of the 2017-18
Financial Plan. The vehicles above have met their useful target life in both years and mileage.
Packet Pg 164
10
Denying or deferring the purchase could result in costly maintenance and repairs due to aging
vehicles.
Attachments:
a - San Luis Obispo RFP Financing update
Packet Pg 165
10
50 California Street
Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA
94111-2552
415-982-5544
415-982-4513 fax
www.pfm.com
September 26, 2017
Request for Proposals
To: Interested Parties
From: Public Financial Management, Inc.
Re: Request for Proposals – Approximately $600,000 Loan (Specification #91627)
City of San Luis Obispo – Equipment Financing
The City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) is seeking a lender to provide approximately
$600,000 in financing to for the purchase of a street sweeper and dump truck (the “Loan”).
The Loan will be secured by lease payments payable from the General Fund of the City.
Outstanding lease revenue bonds of the City are currently rated AA by both Fitch and S&P.
The City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo is one of the principal cities of the Central Coast of California. Located
about 200 miles northwest of Los Angeles and 235 miles southeast of San Francisco, the
City has a population of approximately 48,000 and an area of 13 square miles. It is the
largest city by population in San Luis Obispo County and is also the county seat. The City is
a full service municipality, providing public safety, public utilities, transportation, leisure,
cultural, social, and community development services to its residents. It is also home to
California Polytechnic State University.
The Loan
The City is seeking proposals from commercial banks and other qualified institutions to
provide the Loan with a lease/leaseback structure. The Loan will be used to purchase a
street sweeper and dump truck. The equipment will be the underlying leased assets. Any
financing proposal should take into account that procurement of the equipment may take
up to six months from the time financing closes and that lease payments cannot be made
until the City has received the equipment.
Key Financing Terms Sought by the City Include:
• Tax-exempt
• Amortization generating level annual debt service
• Fixed interest rate(s) quoted at terms of:
o Three years
o Five years
Packet Pg 166
10
City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Proposals
Page 2
• Ability to prepay prior to maturity
• No debt service reserve fund
Proposal Requirements
Please see Appendix A for the direct loan proposal requirements.
Financial Information
To assist you in the preparation of your proposal, the City’s Comprehensive Annual
Financial Reports for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016 and for prior years, as well as the
2016-17 Adopted Budget, can be found on the City’s website at:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/finance-and-it/online-
documents
Requirement to Register as a Proposer
All proposers must register using BidSync (www.BidSync.com).
Submission Requirements (Hard and PDF copies)
Hard copies of Proposals must be received at the City’s Finance Department at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 and PDF versions must be received by the individuals
listed below no later than 3:15 p.m. PT on October 5 2017. Please email the PDF version
of the proposal to the individuals listed below:
Sarah Hollenbeck Patrick Malloy Kevin Dong
Managing Director Senior Analyst Senior Analyst
Public Financial Management,
Inc.
Public Financial Management,
Inc.
Public Financial Management,
Inc.
(415) 982-5544 (415) 982-5544 (415) 982-5544
hollenbecks@pfm.com malloyp@pfm.com dongk@pfm.com
Communication Regarding this RFP
Questions regarding this RFP must be submitted via BidSync on or before the date and time
listed below. All other communications regarding this RFP should be directed to the
contracts listed above. Attempts by or on behalf of a prospective or existing vendor to
contact or influence any member of the selecting committee, any member of the City
Council or any employee of the City with regard to the acceptance of a proposal may lead to
elimination of that vendor from further consideration.
Packet Pg 167
10
City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Proposals
Page 3
Schedule
The tentative schedule of events for the financing is as follows:
Distribution of Request for Proposals October 04, 2017
Deadline for questions regarding the RFP October 09, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.
Answers to Questions Posted October 12, 2017
Deadline for Proposal submission October 18, 2017 at 3:00 p.m.
Public Opening of Proposals October 18, 2017 at 3:15 p.m.
Public Opening Location: Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Anticipated Closing October 31, 2017
Other Information
Please state the period for which your proposal is firm and any closing conditions that are
assumed. The City will use its best efforts to answer any questions and provide additional
information requested in connection with your response to this Request for Proposals. The
information provided in this Request for Proposals or in connection with it should be
considered confidential and should be appropriately controlled. The City reserves the right
to seek additional information from any and all responding parties. The City reserves the
right to reject any and all proposals, to waive minor informalities in the proposals, and to
enter into any arrangement deemed by the City to be in its best interest regardless of price
or other particular factors. The City will not be liable for any costs incurred by any parties
in replying to this request.
Packet Pg 168
10
Appendix A: Proposal Requirements
1. Experience with Similar Financings
Briefly describe your recent (past 24 months) experience with similar financings
involving California municipalities. Provide the following information in summary
form:
Include the following information for up to five (5) of the most recent similar
financings:
(a) Name of borrower
(b) Amount of financing
(c) Sale/funding date
(d) Rating (if any)
(e) Maturity term (describing any prepayment ability, restriction or
penalty)
(f) Interest mode (fixed or variable) and rates
(g) Financial covenants and security
2. Organizational Capacity and Assigned Personnel
Please describe your organization’s capacity to provide the proposed funding.
Where is your institution headquartered? What office will be serving the City on this
transaction? Provide summary resumes highlighting the appropriate experience and
expertise of your key personnel that would be assigned to this transaction.
3. Interest Rates
A. Interest Rates: Identify your proposed interest rates for the financing. If the rates
are not fixed at the time of your proposal submission, explain when the rates will be
locked and how such rates are determined. Provide an example of the calculation
with the resulting rates based on market conditions as of September 20, 2017.
B. Principal Payments: Indicate your preferred principal payment schedule
(monthly, annual, etc.) and any alternatives you might consider.
C. Prepayment Terms: Identify your proposed prepayment terms, including any
lockout period, prepayment dates and price(s).
D. Reporting Covenants: Identify any reporting requirements you will require on the
financing.
If you would like to provide your response for this section in the form of a proposed
term sheet, you may do so.
4. Notice of Litigation/Regulatory Action
Packet Pg 169
10
City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Proposals
Page 5
Provide information regarding any filed, pending or threatened litigation or
regulatory action during the last five years against your firm or related firms
involving any Federal, State or local government unit or instrumentality or Federal,
State, local, or industry regulatory body or instrumentality. Provide information
about any Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, or other
government entity inquiries or subpoenas that your firm
Packet Pg 170
10
City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Proposals
Page 6
has had in the past 24 months related to direct purchases of tax-exempt and taxable
municipal securities.
5. Potential Conflicts of Interest
Please indicate any current or historical engagement or relationship that could be
deemed to represent or create a conflict of interest with the City if your firm were
selected for this financing.
6. References
Please provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of up to three (3)
persons from institutions for whom you have provided financing on similar
transactions who may be contacted by the City or its financial advisor.
7. Proposed Financing Fees and Upfront Costs
A. Purchaser Fees: Indicate your fees for the financing structure(s) proposed in 3
above.
B. Counsel Fees: Identify who would serve as your counsel on this transaction and
provide a fee estimate including a “not to exceed” amount. Please note that the
primary legal documents will be drafted by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, the
City’s bond counsel.
The City reserves the right to negotiate fees with any proposer.
8. Contingencies
Identify any and all contingencies of your proposal. If your firm is selected to work
with the City, how much time do you anticipate a full commitment to take?
9. Authorization and Signatures
A completed Signature Page included as the final page to this Request for Proposals
(reproductions are acceptable), signed by an authorized representative of your firm,
must accompany your Proposal.
Packet Pg 171
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 172
10
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Ryan Betz, Senior Analyst
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE 2017-18 BUDGET’S INCORPORATION
OF A LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB-1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution confirming FY 2017-18 Budget’s incorporation of a list of projects funded
by SB-1: The Road Repair and Accountability including the estimated useful life of the projects.
DISCUSSION
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017),
which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The Act intends to address
basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and
local streets and road system, SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel
sales taxes and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in
future years. As part of the Act, the bill created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account (RMRA) to fund road maintenance and other projects. The City is estimated to receive
$1.1 M in RMRA funding over the 2017-19 Financial Plan period.
To receive RMRA funding, cities and counties must include the list of projects in their adopted
budget that provides a description of the project, location, proposed schedule of completion and
estimated useful life of the improvement [Streets and Highways Code (SHC) § 20134(a)(1)] to
the California Transportation Commission by October 16, 2017. The initial project list is for
projects using SB-1 funds for FY 2017-18.
As part of a public hearing on June 20, 2017, the City adopted 2017-19 Financial Plan and 2017-
18 Budget. The 2017-19 Financial Plan included a list of the following transportation capital
improvement projects to be funded by RMRA. These are:
1) Safe Routes to School Implementation: Foothill Crossing - This project will construct
bicycle and pedestrian improvements as part of a Safe Routes to School Plan for the
Pacheco and Bishop Peak Elementary Schools. (Financial Plan, Pages E2-116,117)
2) Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard - Design and construct Phase 1 of the bicycle
boulevard on Broad Street from US 101 to Foothill. (Financial Plan, Pages E2-128-131)
Since SB-1 guidelines had not yet been produced when the Financial Plan was adopted, the
estimated useful life of these project improvements was not included in the adopted 2017-19
Financial Plan. This is required to be submitted as part of the project listing to the Commission to
receive apportionment of RMRA funds. The following table reiterates the projects, adopted
budgets, estimated completed dates and the estimated useful life of the improvement, as required
Packet Pg 173
11
by the California Transportation Commission.
Project Location 2017-18 2018-19 Anticipated
Year of
Completion
Estimated
Useful Life
(min)
1. Safe Routes
to School
Intersection of
Foothill Blvd./Ferrini
Rd.
$300,000 2018 20 years
2. Broad Street
Bike
Boulevard
Broad Street, from
US Hwy. 101 to
Foothill Blvd.
$18,000 $180,000 2019 20 years
Total Approved Budget Project
Costs:
$318,000 $180,000
Estimated SB-1 Funding (subject to
change)
$313,300 $834,400
Although the deadline for project listing submittal that is due in October is only for FY 2017-18,
the table above shows also shows the one projects already approved by Council for use of SB-1
funds in the next fiscal year of the program.
The table also identifies that estimated additional funding in FY 2018-19 that may be available to
the City in year two of the program. These fund estimates were not fully known at the time of the
budget approval and are still subject to change by the CTC. As shown, in FY 2018-19 it is likely
that additional SB-1 funding will become available for use by the City on high priority projects.
However, due to the newness of these programs, this amount is likely to change as California
Transportation commission continues to refine estimates of potential revenue. Finally, a repeal
effort has been launched to overturn the legislature’s enactment of SB-1. This repeal, if qualified,
will likely be on the November 2018 ballot and could affect available revenues in FY 2018-19
and beyond.
Staff will be bringing additional budget recommendations for these funds to Council as part of
either Mid-Year Budget later this year or the Supplemental budget process in 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact resulting from approval of this item. Individual projects
funded under this revenue source will be required to satisfy environmental review, if required, as
part of project development and approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no new fiscal impact to this request, however, the estimated total RMRA funding in
2017-18 for the Safe Routes to School and Broad Street Bike Boulevard projects is currently
adopted at $318,000 in FY 2017-18 and $180,000 in FY 2018-19. Depending on additional
revenue estimates by the CTC and State Controller, additional funding may be available for
Packet Pg 174
11
programming at a later time.
The initiative to repeal SB-1 is currently circulating for petition, if enough signatures are
achieved the initiative would appear on the November 6th, 2018 ballot. Staff is aware of the
potential for repeal and if that occurs staff will reassess options and return to Council with
recommendations for budget amendments as necessary. It is not anticipated that funding for FY
2017-18 will be effected by the repeal measure.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the resolution and fund the two capital improvement projects. This is not
recommended as the projects are eligible for RMRA funding. Each of the projects improves
critical safety needs on the City’s local streets and road system.
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - 50500 Safe Routes to School Implementation Foothill Crossing.dotx
c - 50500 Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard
Packet Pg 175
11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE 2017-18 BUDGET’S
INCORPORATION OF A LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB 1: THE
ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the California legislature and signed into law by the
Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls
statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the
residents of the City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which
projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, in the City budget,
which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule
for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $313,000 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year
2017-18 from SB 1 and up to $834,400 in FY 2018-19; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into
our community’s transportation priorities, and budgeting process that has been adopted by City
Council that includes a full listing of Capital Improvements Projects and funding sources including
SB-1; and
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System and other goals such as the
complete streets elements and bicycle and pedestrian safety to develop the SB 1 project list to
ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet
the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate
streets/roads, and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City this year and similar
projects into the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment
found that the County of San Luis Obispo’s streets and roads are in an “at-risk” condition but the
City of San Luis Obispo’s streets and roads are in a “good” condition, regardless this revenue will
help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade and make critical
improvements to transportation that will assist in greenhouse gas emission reductions and active
transportation safety; and
WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, continued reductions in the
State gas tax as well as lack of indexing of the federal and State gas tax to key indicators such as
inflation has reduced available revenue to the City for these purposes; and
Packet Pg 176
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads
in California, and people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system, incorporating complete street
elements and improving active transportation facilities provides well-paying construction jobs and
boosts local economies; and
WHEREAS, the local street and road and active transportation system is critical for farm
to market needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, greenhouse gas emission reductions and
commerce; and
WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition
will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian
experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State
achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads
infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets
infrastructure and active transportation projects, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and
practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. That any City projects utilizing SB-1 funding will adhere to SB-1 program
requirements, including but not limited to: incorporating, as feasible, complete
streets components into basic infrastructure maintenance projects and a minimum
useful life of 20 years; and,
3. The $318,000 budget for fiscal year 2017-18 and $180,000 for FY 2018-19 shown
in the adopted City of San Luis Obispo 2017-19 Financial Plan (Pages E2-116,117
and E2-128,129) is confirmed and amended to incorporate the following year of
completion and useful life criteria for two projects planned to be funded with Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (SB-1) revenues:
Packet Pg 177
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
Project Location 2017-18 2018-19 Anticipated
Year of
Completion
Estimated
Useful Life
(min)
1. Safe Routes
to School
Intersection of
Foothill
Blvd./Ferrini Rd.
$300,000 - 2018 20 Years
2. Broad Street
Bike
Boulevard
Broad Street, from
US Hwy. 101 to
Foothill Blvd.
$18,000 $180,000 2019 20 Years
Total SB1
Funding
$318,000 $180,000 -
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2017.
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
Packet Pg 178
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
R ______
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 179
11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION: FOOTHILL CROSSING - FY 2017-18
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives:
Multimodal Transportation
☐ Measure G Priority:
Purpose and Need
This project will construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements as part of a Safe Routes to School Plan for the
Pacheco and Bishop Peak Elementary Schools. The project will address roadway crossing needs at Foothill
Boulevard as well as surrounding the two schools. This project will complement the Broad Street Bicycle
Boulevard and the Ramona Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The project will construct
improvements at the intersection of Foothill/Ferinni that includes additional traffic control, sidewalk, curb &
gutter changes, and increased traffic warning devices.
Status
The 2015-17 Financial Plan allocated $45k to formulate a Safe Routes to School plan.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 40
Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 50
Project Administration CIP Engineering 16
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Eng 10
Packet Pg 180
11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Anticipated Facility Life Span: 15 years
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Design (952)$45,000 $50,000 $95,000
Construction (953)$250,000 $250,000
Total $45,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $345,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Grant $300,000 $300,000
General Capital Outlay $45,000 $45,000
Total $45,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $345,000
*The project is proposed to be funded by SB1.
Packet Pg 181
11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD - FY 2017-18, FY 18-19, FY 19-20
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives: Multimodal
Transportation
☐ Measure G Priority:
Purpose and Need
Design and construct Phase 1 of the bicycle boulevard on Broad Street from US 101 to Foothill. The project
description in currently under study and may include bikeway enhancements along Broad, Chorro and other
area streets.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The planning was included under the Bicycle
Transportation Plan Implementation. Planning for this project is underwa y and expected to be completed fall
2017.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Manager Transportation Engineering 100
Contract Management Transportation Engineering 40
Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 40
Packet Pg 182
11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Study (951)$45,000 $18,000 $63,000
Construction (953)$180,000 $270,000 $450,000
Total $45,000 $18,000 $180,000 $270,000 $0 $0 $513,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $90,000 $90,000
Grant $18,000 $180,000 $270,000 $468,000
Total $90,000 $18,000 $180,000 $270,000 $0 $0 $558,000
*The project is proposed to be funded from SB1.
Packet Pg 183
11
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 184
11
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
SUBJECT: WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
Approve funding for the preparation of a Water and Wastewater Rate Study in an amount not to
exceed $50,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City Council is currently reviewing its water and wastewater rate structures through a series
of study sessions which will yield an updated structure reflecting City Council goals. To meet the
requirements of Proposition 218 and recent legal challenges to water rates, the Utilities
Department must conduct a comprehensive Water and Wastewater Rate Study to support the
action the Council takes on a rate structure. This Study will identify cost-based rates to balance
the short and long-term financial sustainability of the City’s Water and Sewer Funds.
While City staff usually conducts water and wastewater rate reviews internally, with peer review
by HDR Engineering, Inc., the City’s last comprehensive rate study was prepared in 2005-06
when the City changed to monthly meter reading and volumetric wastewater billing. Best
practices for utility providers is to work with a consultant who specialize in cost of services
analysis for water and wastewater industry and prepare a rate study based on Council policy
direction. The need for this study was not identified as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan,
therefore funding is not available in the current Water and Wastewater operating budgets.
However, given the complexity of the study and structural considerations for the rate changes, it
is recommended that the consulting firm will need to be engaged.
The goal of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study is to provide adequate and sustainable funding
to the City’s Water and Sewer Fund for operation, maintenance, and capital needs while
developing rates that are stable, equitable, and cost-based. The Study would use methodologies
generally accepted in the industry (i.e. the American Water Works Association M1 Manual and
the Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice) to establish the proposed rates. The
Study will include three components: 1) a revenue requirement analysis; 2) a cost of service
analysis; and 3) a rate design analysis through the following tasks:
1. Develop a projection of water consumption to reflect the “new normal” given the reductions
in consumption following the drought.
2. Develop a revenue requirement analysis that reflects the City’s historical, and projected,
operating needs over the next ten-year period and meet the City’s financial policies (e.g.,
target reserve balances, debt service coverage ratios, renewal and replacement funding).
3. Develop a capital funding plan that provides the capital improvement needs and funding
Packet Pg 185
12
sources, while minimizing impacts to rates.
4. Determine the impacts to rates and a rate transition plan to adequately fund operating and
capital needs, and debt obligations.
5. Develop a cost of service analysis to equitably allocate the costs between customer classes.
6. Develop average unit costs as part of the cost of service analysis to establish the cost-basis of
the proposed rates.
7. Develop alternative cost-based rate structures for each customer class.
8. Develop a drought rate structure.
The Water and Wastewater Rate Study is estimated to cost $50,000 and will take approximately
six months to complete. Staff would utilize a consultant from the City’s On-Call Water and
Wastewater Engineering Services list to complete this study.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required for the approval of funding and preparation of a water and
wastewater Cost of Services study.
CONCURRENCES
The Finance Department concurs with the recommendation to fund the preparation of a Water
and Wastewater Rate Study from the Water and Sewer Funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the study is proposed to come from Water Fund and Sewer Fund unreserved
working capital, which have available balances based on unaudited financial statements per June
30, 2017, of $18,955,394 and $28,074,582 respectively. These balances are above mandatory
reserve levels for operating reserves and rate stabilization funds.
Beginning Balance Study Cost Ending Balance
Water Fund $18,955,394 $25,000 $18,930,394
Sewer Fund $28,074,582 $25,000 $28,049,582
$50,000
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the authorization of the budget for the Water and Wastewater Rate Study. The
Council could decide not to authorize the budget for the Rate Study and recommend to staff
that the Study proceed at a later time. Staff does not recommend this option, as accelerating
the Study is a high priority.
Packet Pg 186
12
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE A BULKHEAD FEATURE AND
CHANGE APPROVED BUILDING COLORS ON A REMODELED
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1135 SANTA ROSA STREET
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the
Architectural Review Commission.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On September 11, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission, by a vote of 5-0-1 (with
Vice-Chair Soll absent) denied a request by the appellant, 33 Tons, LLC, to modify the
application ARCH-0846-2015, under which the remodeling and expansion of a commercial
building at 1135 Santa Rosa was approved (see Attachment B). The modifications requested
were: a change in the building’s approved colors; and elimination of a cut -tile bulkhead feature
that was proposed along the bottom of wall surfaces along the Marsh Street side of the building
(see Attachment C).
In making its decision, the Commission found that the requested changes are not consistent with
Design Principles set out in General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policies 4.20.4 (Building
Height) and 4.20.6 (Sidewalk Appeal), and with several sections of the City’s Community
Design Guidelines. The new color scheme results in a building that is perceptibly heavier and
more massive, losing the balance and rhythm among building forms that the approved color
scheme provides, inconsistent with General Plan policies calling for new buildings to fit in with
the context and scale of existing development. The elimination of the cut -tile bulkhead would
remove from the project design an architectural detail that is encouraged by General Plan
policies for sidewalk appeal.
The appellant filed an appeal of this decision on September 18, 2017, for consideration by the
Council.
DISCUSSION
Background
The project was first reviewed by the Commission on May 18, 2015, and by a unanimous vote of
7-0 approved the application on July 6, 2015,1 subject to several conditions including the
1 Minutes of prior meetings are provided in Attachment D (Project Approvals). Prior Agenda Reports are available
Packet Pg 187
13
following:
Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building
permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by
the ARC. […]. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping,
or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or
Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. (Condition 1)
In completing the project, the approved design and colors were changed without approval,
contrary to the terms of Condition 1 of project approval. The building color was changed to a
single shade of grey which did not match the color scheme approved by the Commission, and a
cut-tile bulkhead feature on the Marsh Street side of the building was not installed (see Figure 1).
A Notice of Violation (Attachment E) was sent to the property owner on May 19, 2017, as a
courtesy warning, seeking voluntary correction of the observed violations. The applicant
requested that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) consider approval of the proposed
modifications to the approved design and colors, in order to allow retention of the single-color
scheme and elimination of the cut-tile
bulkhead feature.
On July 10, 2017, the Commission
reviewed the proposed changes and by
a vote of 5-0-1 (with Commissioner
Beller absent) continued consideration
of the request to a future date
(Attachment D). Direction was
provided to the applicant to work with
staff toward a solution that would be
more consistent with approved colors
and design, using appropriate base and
accent colors to provide differentiation
and articulation of building forms that would reduce the perceived massiveness of the building,
to maintaining and a human-scale element for variety and interest along the Marsh Street
frontage.
In response to this direction, the applicant has concluded that no such solution could be reached,
stating in subsequent communication (Attachment G) that, among other points, the building is,
on the whole, consistent with applicable Community Design Guidelines, and that no applicable
guideline requires or suggests multiple colors for buildings, or covers articulation and detail of
wall surfaces.
Site Location and Project Description
The site is located at the northwest corner of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets at the edge of the
in the Architectural Review Commission Document Archive on the City’s website:
www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/architectural-review-commission/
Figure 1: Remodeled building, as completed
Packet Pg 188
13
Downtown-Commercial (C-D) Zone, across the street from Cheng Park, a small “pocket park,”
with office and commercial buildings in the vicinity. The site was developed with a two-story
commercial building originally constructed in 1982 as a bank branch. The remodeling project,
reviewed and approved under application ARCH-0846-2015, and completed in April, 2017,
expanded the building within the existing building footprint, transforming it into a more
rectangular, contemporary design (see Figure 2), and adding two residential units on a new third
floor. The approved project has a two-color scheme consisting of alternating lighter and darker
shades of grey, and a cut-tile bulkhead on the south elevation, along a portion of the Marsh Street
frontage.
Colors and Building Design
As mentioned in the Project Description above, the approved color scheme employs two
complementary shades of grey as the primary building colors: a lighter shade cal led “Oyster
Haze” and a darker shade named “City Loft” (see Figure 3). These complementary colors
provide differentiation and articulation of the building’s component forms that lessened the
perceived massiveness of the building as a whole.
Figure 1: Rendering of project, depicting approved color scheme
Packet Pg 189
13
The project was instead completed using a single color, a darker shade of grey described as
“Custom Merlex Blend.” Its application as a single-color scheme results in a monolithic
appearance that lacks the contrast, relief, and visual interest evident in the approved two-color
scheme. Wood wall surfaces and window glass area on building elevations seen from Santa Rosa
and Higuera provide a measure of contrast and visual interest, but the building exhibits a notably
heavier, more massive appearance when viewed from Marsh Street, at the southwest corner of
the building (Figure 3). The articulation of building forms provided by the contrasting shades of
the approved colors is lost, which affects the balance and rhythm among these forms. General
Plan policies set expectations for the quality and design of new development in the City,2 which
are set out in greater detail in the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Guidance on balance,
articulation, and massing, is provided in Chapter 2 of Community Design Guidelines:
Keep building elements in proportion. Proportion, continuity, harmony,
simplicity, rhythm and balance should prevail in building design. Building
elements should be balanced and in proportion to one another. (§ 2.2 (A))
Strive for interest, not clutter. The City encourages well-articulated, but not
cluttered building elevations. Large roof and wall planes unrelieved by
shadow or texture interest are generally not acceptable… (§ 2.2 (B))
Pay attention to details. Attention to detailing, and emphasis on vertical and
horizontal articulation, are encouraged as tools to visually reduce the
apparent mass of a building. (§ 2.2 (C))
Specific guidelines for development downtown are provided in Chapter 4, including guidance on
careful attention to finish materials to enrich a building’s character and avoid monotony:
Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several
aspects including color, texture, and materials. (§ 4 (D) (1))
2 Land Use Element Polices 12.3 and 4.20.6
Figure 2: Approved color scheme (left); color, as completed (right)
Packet Pg 190
13
Bulkhead
Approved project plans included a cut-stone bulkhead feature along the Marsh Street side of the
building (Figure 4), and this feature was not installed on the completed building. The applicant
requested that the ARC approve the elimination of this feature, describing it as contrary to the
honest use of materials; as a “stuck-on” treatment not fitting with the style of the building, and
mimicking a flood control feature not required on this site (see item 2, Attachment C).
Design guidelines identify bulkheads as a desirable element of a commercial building façade,
particularly in the downtown area, that should be prominent and visible.3 They are described as a
base from which windows rise, and are common elements on downtown buildings, including
several in the surrounding area. A suitable decorative element incorporated into the wall surface,
consistent with the building’s contemporary style, and consistent with guidelines for honest use
of authentic materials and treatments4 would provide variation and visual interest, as encouraged
by Community Design Guidelines:
Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be varied
and interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank walls
discourage pedestrian traffic. This can be achieved in a number of ways
including: […] Constructing the facade with small human scale materials such
as brick or decorative tile along bulkheads… (§ 4.2 (C) (5))
Conclusion
Changes proposed by the applicant to the approved colors and building design are not consistent
with applicable Community Design Guidelines. The modified color scheme results in a building
that is perceptibly heavier and more massive, as seen approaching it along Marsh Street. Its
monolithic appearance has lost the balance and rhythm between building forms that the approved
colors provided. Omission of the cut-tile bulkhead eliminates a small human scale, pedestrian-
oriented, element that is a common, and encouraged, element on buildings within the downtown
area. It is recommended that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Architectural Review Commission denying the request for changes to approved colors and
3 Community Design Guidelines § 4.2(C)(7)
4 Community Design Guidelines § § 1.4(A)(1) & 2.2(D)
Figure 3: Bulkhead feature, as approved (left); missing on completion (right)
Packet Pg 191
13
project design.
CONCURRENCES
As consideration of the requested changes to approved colors and building design (elimination of
bulkhead feature) is limited to evaluation of the consistency of those changes with applicable
design guidelines, the appellant’s request was not circulated to other departments for review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This application is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).
FISCAL IMPACT
The decision made by Council will have no direct fiscal impact to the City. Expenses related to
changes that would need to be made to the building to achieve consistency with the approvals
granted for the project would be borne by the project applicant.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of this item to a future date, providing further direction to staff or
applicant; or
2. Uphold the appeal allowing modifications to approved colors and project design, based on
findings of consistency with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines.
Attachments:
a - Council Resolution
b - Resolution ARC-1018-17
c - Summary of Requests for Modification
d - Project Approvals
e - Notice of Violation (May 23 2017)
f - Approved Plans
g - Applicant Response
h - Appeal Form
Packet Pg 192
13
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST TO MODIFY APPROVED COLORS AND BUILDING DESIGN
FOR A REMODELED BUILDING, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 3, 2017 (1135 SANTA
ROSA STREET, APPL-1070-2017)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval for the remodeling
of a commercial building, and an addition of a third floor with two new dwellings, to the building
located at 1135 Santa Rosa Street, on July 6, 2015 (Resolution No. ARC-1013-15), under
application ARCH-0846-2015; 33 Tons, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on July 10, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
application ARCH-0722-2017, 33 Tons, LLC, applicant, to consider modification of the
application ARCH-0846-2015, including requested changes to approved colors and elimination of
a bulkhead feature from the project design, and continued consideration of the request to a date
uncertain, providing direction to the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on September 11, 2017, to further consider the requested changes to
approved colors and elimination of a bulkhead feature from the project design, and denied the
request; and
WHEREAS, On September 18, 2017, Ben Kulick of 33 Tons, LLC filed an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission’s decision to deny the request for changes to approved building
colors and project design; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a publi c hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 3,
2017, to consider the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s decision; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Packet Pg 193
13
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
a) The requested changes to approved colors and project design are not consistent with
General Plan Land Use Policy 4.20.4 which states that new buildings are to fit
within the context and scale of existing development. The proposed new
monochromatic building color scheme results in a building that is perceptibly
heavier and more massive, as seen approaching it along Marsh Street, losing the
balance and rhythm among building forms that the approved color scheme
provides. Further, elimination of the cut-tile bulkhead feature along the Marsh
Street façade removes from the project design an architectural detail that is
encouraged for sidewalk appeal (Land Use Element Policy 4.20.6)
b) The requested modifications are not consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines. The proposed new monochromatic building color scheme results in the
loss of articulation and of balance and rhythm between building forms that the
approved color scheme provided, causing the building to appear perceptibly heavier
and more massive, as seen approaching it along Marsh Street. The resulting
appearance does not exhibit the harmony, rhythm, and balance sought by guidance
provided in § 2.2 (A), the careful balance of articulation encouraged by § 2.2 (B),
or the attention to detail and emphasis on articulation to visually reduce the apparent
mass of a building called for in § 2.2 (C). Further, the proposed elimination of the
cut-tile bulkhead removes a small human-scale element that provides variation and
interest to the wall surface at the Marsh Street level, contrary to the intent of
§ 4.2 (C) (5) encouraging such variation and interest.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This application is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will
disapprove, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal filed by Ben
Kulick of 33 Tons, LLC, upholding the Architectural Review Commission’s decision to deny
change to approved building colors and project design.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Packet Pg 194
13
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
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 195
13
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg 196
13
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg 197
13
Architectural Review Commission
Request for Modification
1135 Santa Rosa
Summary of Requests for Modification
1) Resolution No. ARC‐1013‐15
Corrective Action: Obtain approval from the Community Development Director or Architectural Review
Commission for the change of colors on the building
Approval Request:
The building color accurately reflects the color and style of neighboring properties and is the approximate
same color saturation as the ARC approved color. Architectural colors should be selected and appropriate
for the design intent, architecture, and time period of construction. Building colors that do no prove
successful are easily modified in the future. 1135 Santa Rosa is innovative and fully compatible with the
surrounding buildings. See complete package, presentation, and support.
2) Resolution No. ARC‐1013‐15
Corrective Action: Obtain approval from the Community Development Director or Architectural Review
Commission for the change in material [Bulk Head Removal]
Approval Request:
Modify ARC conditions to eliminate the bulkhead on the Marsh street elevation.
Justification:
1) Per Guidelines: “Materials should be used honestly.” A bulkhead is for flood control. This building
is not in a FEMA flood zone.
2) Per Guidelines: “Materials should be used honestly.” Applying a bulkhead to one elevation does
not serve the purpose of flood control.
3) Per Guidelines: “Artificial or decorative façade treatments, where one or more unrelated
materials appear stuck on to a building should be avoided.” This material is stuck on and is an
unrelated material.
4) The bulkhead is does not fit with the architectural style of the building and this feature is not a
historic feature of San Luis Obispo, but a recently applied element to new buildings per flood
control to serve a SPECIFIC purpose not required on this building. This element is a FEMA
requirement not required in anyway on this building. This feature is not historic nor is this
building in a historic zone.
3) Resolution No. ARC‐1013‐15
Corrective Action: Obtain approval from the Community Development Director or Architectural Review
Commission for the visible rooftop equipment or modify the placement of roof‐mounted equipment so that
it is not visible, or provide screening to conceal the equipment from view of public streets, and neighboring
properties, consistent with Community Design Guidelines § 6.1 (D).
Approval Request:
No modification requested. Mechanical screening is being installed.
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg 198
13
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
July 6, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and
Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: The minutes of June 15, 2015, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1135 Santa Rosa Street. ARCH-0846-2015; Continued review of the remodeling
of and addition to an existing commercial building, including the addition of two
dwellings on the third floor. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA; C-D
zone; 33 Tons, LLC, applicant.
Senior Planner Dunsmore introduced the item, noting that it had been continued from
the May 18, 2015, meeting. Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff
report, recommending that the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain with
specific direction to modify the project design.
Bryan Ridley, project architect, summarized the history of the project; noted changes
made to the proposal subsequent to the prior hearing; emphasized the factors lending
the project its compatibility with surroundings and Community Design Guidelines.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The following individuals spoke in support of the project, noting its positive impact upon
the corner of Santa Rosa and Marsh Streets and the surrounding area, and commenting
that the proposed project is a significant improvement upon the building currently at the
site:
Debby Nicklas, SLO;
David Walker, SLO;
Jeff Wolcott, SLO;
Alan Iftiniuk, SLO;
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 199
13
ARC Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 2
Jim Agee, SLO;
Barbara Agee, SLO;
Kenyon Tsao, SLO;
Carla Walker, SLO;
Jay Beck, SLO;
Steve Owens, SLO;
Ping Tsao, SLO;
Ian Parkinson, SLO;
Kevin Okimoto, SLO;
Jory Brigham, SLO;
Paul Prins, Atascadero;
Mark Thompson, SLO;
Dionne Avaki, SLO;
Dan Copp, SLO;
Ron Barbieri, SLO;
Scott and Julia Starkey, SLO;
Su Tsao, SLO;
Karl Lepper, SLO.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen noted concern that the project has not fully complied with downtown
design guidelines for a project on the edge of downtown; thanked members of the public
for attending; noted support for windows as proposed.
Commr. Curtis spoke in support of changes to the proposal made since the previous
hearing; commented that various elevations seem to have differing window patterns;
noted concern about the use of dark colors such as the gray stone. Curtis spoke in
support of widening windows for increased transparency at sidewalk level and adding
emphasis to the entrance.
Commr. Root noted no objection to there being no entrance on Marsh Street; spoke in
support of allowing eclectic styling; noted to desire to see additional articulation of
exterior walls such as cornices.
Commr. Nemcik spoke in support of the pedestrian scaling; commented that the
proposal appears consistent with design guidelines; noted readiness to approve with
conditions; noted support for windows as proposed.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie spoke in support of changes made to the proposal since the previous
hearing; concurred with Commr. Curtis’s comments regarding color palette and window
transparency; noted readiness to approve with conditions.
Chair Wynn spoke in support of greater transparency of windows at the ground level ;
noted support for the eclectic style and entry door interior to the site.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 200
13
ARC Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 3
In response to inquiry from the Commission, applicant Bryan Ridley agreed to work with
staff to resolve sound attenuation measures relating to balcony depth, contained in
Condition 7.
On motion by Vice-Chair Ehdaie, seconded by Commr. Soll, to adopt a resolution
approving the project based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff
report, with the following revisions:
A. Finding 2. shall be revised to read “[…] applicable to projects in the downtown
commercial zone” rather than “[…] applicable to commercial projects.”
B Condition 2. shall be modified to indicate that the applicant is strongly
encouraged to widen the three windows at sidewalk level along the building’s
Marsh Street frontage, in order to increase transparency.
C. Condition 3. shall be revised to read “Provide additional articulation along the
Marsh Street elevation at the stucco/plaster walls to enhance the shadow
pattern, to the satisfaction of staff.”
D. Condition 5. shall be eliminated.
E. Condition 6. shall be eliminated.
AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Soll, Root, Nemcik, Wynn, Curtis, and Andreen
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Dunsmore gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items, noting a
joint meeting with the Cultural Heritage Committee to be held July 13, 2015.
3. Commission:
Chair Wynn requested that Commission meeting minutes from 2015 be made
available in the City records archive on the website.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 201
13
ARC Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 4
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on July 20, 2015.
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 202
13
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
May 18, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen,
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: The minutes of May 4, 2015, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1135 Santa Rosa Street. ARCH-0846-2015; Review of the remodeling of an
existing commercial building, including the addition of two dwellings on the third
floor; C-D zone; 33 Tons, LLC, applicant.
Senior Planner Dunsmore noted public comment that had been received and distributed
to Commissioners prior to the meeting. Chair Wynn noted correspondence received
directly from Dean Miller.
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission adopt a resolution granting final approval to the project, based on findings
and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Bryan Ridley, project architect, SLO, summarized the history of the site and project,
noting a desire to work with staff to refine design details such as signage and
landscaping, and responded to Commission inquiries.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
David Brodie, SLO, commented on the high visibility of the building’s location; stated
that its design lacks any characteristics tailored to fit the San Luis Obispo area.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 203
13
ARC Minutes
May 18, 2015
Page 2
Dixie Cliff, SLO, noted the importance of constructing and retaining noteworthy works of
architecture and San Luis Obispo; opined that the proposed design would benefit from
emulating architectural details of neighboring buildings.
Jim Duenow, SLO, spoke in opposition to the proposed design; noted the tall, planar
faces and generic feel of the design.
Frances Gibbs, SLO, inquired as to the applicant’s plan for maintaining wood features
proposed for the exterior of the building; noted similar features in the area that appear to
be deteriorating.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns
relating to generic styling, lack of harmony with surrounding buildings and downtown
context, lack of façade articulation, and lack of pedestrian context.
Commr. Curtis spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns relating
to upper-story massing, the lack of integration with street frontage, lack of traditional
design elements, lack of vertical articulation, and the non-conformity of wood siding with
Community Design Guidelines.
Commr. Nemcik spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns about
lack of pedestrian context, lack of conspicuous entryways, and the lack of delineation
between commercial and residential spaces; expressed approval of the buil ding’s
massing.
Commr. Root spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns about the
height of the site wall, wood siding, general lack of articulation on all sides, lack of
pedestrian access, lack of downtown context, and about the need to attenuate
residential noise intrusion amplified by third-story overhangs.
Commr. Soll spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concerns about
pedestrian access, lack of conspicuous entryways, lack of integration with street
frontage, and lack of neighborhood and downtown context.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie spoke in opposition to the project in its proposed location; noted the
landmark, focal nature of the site; noted concern about the lack of downtown context,
lack of delineation between commercial and residential uses, and lack of visual access
into commercial uses; spoke in support of contemporary styling.
Chair Wynn spoke in opposition to the design as presented; noted concern about lack of
conformity to Community Design Guidelines requiring “small-town scale” and avoidance
of “boxy” styling; lack of downtown context; lack of articulation on all sides; lack of
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 204
13
ARC Minutes
May 18, 2015
Page 3
transparency and visual access into commercial uses; lack of pedestrian scale, and the
height of the site wall.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Root, to continue the project to a
date uncertain, and encourage the applicant to return for conceptual review of a
substantially redesigned proposal addressing the following:
Incorporate pedestrian scale
Relate to the downtown context
Avoid the use of boxy forms
Reconsider the scale and mass of the building
Consider the use of traditional design elements with commercial/residential
delineation
Incorporate a third-story setback to reduce apparent mass
Decrease height of site wall at parking area
Address maintenance of wood siding or incorporate an alternate material
Incorporate street-oriented, more accentuated pedestrian entrances
Increased transparency at lower floor
Address potential of acoustic bounce from third-story overhang
Address design integrity in conformity with Community Design Guideline
3.1.A.3
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
The Commission recessed at 6:08 p.m. and reconvened at 6:14 p.m. with all members
present.
2. 3000 Calle Malva. ARCH-0592-2014; Continued review of 18 single-family home
designs and approval of concept designs for future homes with an approved
addendum of environmental impact; R-1 zone; Margarita Ranch SLO, LLC,
applicant.
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission adopt a resolution approving the project, based on findings and subject to
conditions which she outlined. Staff noted the Commission’s previous review of the
project and distributed a revised resolution incorporating conditions resulting from the
Commission’s previous direction.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 205
13
ARC Minutes
May 18, 2015
Page 5
a. Add the following Finding: Finding #5: Design of the previously approved
subdivision warrants an adjustment to 11 lots within the Planned Development
where garages are not recessed in accordance with Section 2.2.5 of the
Margarita Area Specific Plan.
b. Add the following Finding: The lot width and overall design of the previously
approved subdivision severely limits the opportunities for house designs that
include front porches that extend in front of garages, therefore an adjustment to
the requirements of the specific plan is warranted.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Dunsmore gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items.
4. Commission:
Commr. Root noted concern about the predicament posed by ultra-modern styles
being presented for approval, in that they are unlikely to stand the test of time.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on June 1, 2015.
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 206
13
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 207
13
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 208
13
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 209
13
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 210
13
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 211
13
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 212
13
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, July 10, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
July 10, 2017 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Brian Rolph, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Angela Soll, and
Chair Greg Wynn.
Absent: Commissioner Richard Beller
Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell. Other staff members presented reports or
responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 35 Prado Road (25, 29, 35, 41, 43, & 45 Prado Road). ARCH-0653-2017: Conceptual
architectural review of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Resource Recovery Facility
(WRRF) Upgrade Project that includes new discharge requirements, increased capacity,
replacement of aging infrastructure, maximized recycled water production and incorporated
interpretive features and public amenities; PF zone, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen started the staff report presentation, and introduced
discussion items to the Commission.
Applicant Representative Dave Hix, Deputy Director of Wastewater of the Utilities
Department of the City of San Luis Obispo continued the staff report, presenting
questions to Commission. Program Manager for Water Systems Consulting Jeff Szytel,
and Principal Jeff McGraw, and Architect Jean von Bargen Root, both with MWA
Architects, were introduced.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 213
13
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 10, 2017 Page 2
Assistant Design Project Manager Jennifer Phillips from CH2M, gave a presentation of
the overall site plans.
Architect Jean von Bargen Root from MWA Architects, gave a presentation on her
work on the project, highlighting community asset goals, and the “Learning Center”
portion of the project.
Applicant Representative Dave Hix responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Ben Kulick, San Luis Obispo, commented on colors and designs – commended
architects on design.
-- End Public Comment –
The Commission discussed the proposed conceptual design and provided direction to
the Applicant team and staff.
2. 1135 Santa Rosa Street. ARCH-0722-2017: Review of requested modifications to
application ARCH-0846-2015, to allow elimination of a bulkhead feature and change
approved building colors on a remodeled commercial building (exempt from environmental
review); C-D zone, 33 Tons, LLC, applicant.
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report, and outlined the details of
the original project approval granted by the Commission, discussed the Notice of
Violation that was sent to the applicant about observed violations of conditions of
project approval, and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant Ben Kulick, Stalwork, Inc. provided a report on the colors of the building,
and supplied pictures of the building, discussing bulkheads and other features of the
building and nearby buildings. He spoke of this project’s comparison with the
architecture of surrounding buildings.
Applicant Ben Kulick and Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell responded to Commission
inquiries.
Public Comments:
Chair Wynn acknowledged receipt of five written correspondence items.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of himself and James Lopes,
expressed that the colors previously approved by the Architectural Review Commission
recognize more appropriately the effects of climate change.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 214
13
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 10, 2017 Page 3
David Walker, San Luis Obispo, likened the diversity of architecture in the city to
Barcelona and London, and commended the architect on the use of colors on the
project.
Bryan Ridley, resident of San Luis Obispo and architect on the project with Stalwork,
Inc., referenced the City’s Community Design Guidelines in explaining his support of
the current design, materials, and colors of the project.
Russ Brown, San Luis Obispo and Chair of Save Our Downtown, referenced
communication from Alan Cooper and others from the Save Our Downtown
association, requested the Commission reject the request for changes, and maintain the
original color approved by the ARC.
Rachel Drake, San Luis Obispo, inquired about the details behind the change in color
from the originally agreed-upon plans.
-- End Public Comment –
Commission discussion followed.
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR WYNN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROLPH,
CARRIED 5-0-1, with Commissioner Beller absent, to continue the project to a date
uncertain, but no longer than 120 days, and to direct the applicant to work with staff
toward a solution that would be more consistent with the original project approval,
using appropriate complementary building colors to reduce the perceived massing of
the building, and to provide a human-scale element for variety and interest along the
Marsh Street frontage similar to the approved cut-tile bulkhead.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is -scheduled for Monday, July 17, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg 215
13
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg 216
13
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg 217
13
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg 218
13
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg 219
13
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Pg 22013
ATTACHMENT 6Packet Pg 22113
1
Oetzell, Walter
From:Ben Kulick <ben@stalwork.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:53 PM
To:'Greg Wynn'
Cc:Davidson, Doug; Dietrick, Christine; Ansolabehere, Jon; Oetzell, Walter; Oetzell,
Walter; 'Greg Coates'; Carla Walker; jay@stalwork.com
Subject:ARC Hearing
Attachments:Santa Rosa 1135 CDG Matrix.xlsx; SLO Downtown Mapping 15.0605.pdf
Greg:
Thank you for chairing the meeting Monday regarding our ARC application.
Below is a list of information pertaining to the 1135 Santa Rosa Project and I would appreciate you ensuring that
ARC understands what the guidelines do and do not contain. I believe rendering a decision on the project has
fallen out of the appropriate guidelines.
Multiple representations were made to Chapter 3 which does not apply to Downtown buildings, including the staff
report presented to you. This is actually erroneous information and not applicable.
Items in Chapter 3 (NOT APPLICABLE):
Chapter 3 ‐ Commercial and Industrial Project Design The commercial areas outside of the Downtown, and the
City’s manufacturing/industrial areas present special urban design challenges. The present character of these areas
reflects both the architectural styles of nonresidential, automobile‐oriented development that were predominant
when most of the structures in each area were built, and various modernization and renovation efforts thereafter.
This Chapter provides guidelines for new and renovated commercial and industrial structures outside of the
Downtown.
NOT APPLICABLE
1) Avoidance of box‐like forms
2) Variety of siding materials
3) Design Details: These may include varying colors, reveals, an external wainscot or bulkhead at the
building base to reduce apparent bulk, cornices and parapet details, and moldings
4) Façade articulation
5) Building walls should incorporate the same quality and level of detail of ornamentation on each elevation
visible from a public right‐of‐way
6) The architectural style, and the shape and massing of neighboring structures
7) The exterior colors of a building are as important as the materials in determining how people think
about the building and its surroundings. Colors should be compatible with the existing colors of the
surrounding area but need not duplicate existing colors
8) Accent colors should be used thoughtfully and complement the base color or a variation of its hue,
either weaker or stronger
9) The use of muted tones for the structure's base color is recommended. Color should not be used as an
attention getting device
10) A structure with a pitched roof, or pitched roofs over key building elements can sometimes project a more
small town image and reinforce the pedestrian orientation that is prominent in many parts of San Luis
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 222
13
2
Obispo. Structures with flat roofs and parapets can be appropriate with special attention to the wall‐to‐
parapet juncture, and to cornice details.
11) A building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion. Horizontal and vertical wall
articulation should be expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed windows and entries, awnings,
full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades. See Figure 3‐3
12) Neighborhood compatibility. In designing a building, it is important to analyze the areas surrounding the
building site to find elements of compatibility that can be used in a new design
13) Avoid “boxy” structures with large, flat wall planes by articulating building forms and elevations to
create interesting rooflines, building shapes, and patterns of shade and shadow
These items were referred to regularly at last night's ARC meeting incorrectly and inappropriately as these
standards are completely inapplicable. I ask you to please make it clear to ARC NONE of the above criteria are
applicable to this project.
Chapter 4 ‐ Downtown Design Guidelines (APPLICABLE)
1) Multi‐story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upper floor offices and
residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which
assists in maintaining their viability. (AKA massing and LARGE buildings are encouraged, not discouraged.
Please make that clear.)
2) Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including
design amenities, housing and retail land uses. NOT APPLICABLE SUB‐SECTIONS
a. Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground
floor. On upper floors, consider using windows or other architectural features that will reinforce
the typical rhythm of upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings and
provide architectural interest on all four sides of the building; NOT APPLICABLE
b. Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other decorative features to
decrease the vertical appearance of the walls; NOT APPLICABLE
c. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into smaller scale elements; NOT
APPLICABLE
d. Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building; NOT APPLICABLE‐ Please
make it very clear to ARC this section is 100% not applicable.
e. Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within and around the project
site and choose materials and colors to enhance lighting effects with respect to available solar
exposure. NOT APPLICABLE
3) Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with parapets, AND
ESSENTIALLY FLAT FACADES. (This was been referenced in every ARC meeting on this project, downtown
buildings are actually REQUIRED to be boxes with flat facades, please make this clear. By guideline
buildings should be zero set back on all sides)
4) Dividing the facade into a series of display windows with smaller panes of glass;
5) Providing traditional recessed entries; and
6) Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the sidewalk, but should sit above a base, commonly
called a “bulkhead,” of 18 to 36 inches in height (NO STOREFRONT ON MARSH) (ARC had us lower the
windows, rendering a bulkhead inappropriate, including against guideline)
7) Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects including color,
texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and
brick are encouraged
8) Exterior plaster (smooth troweled preferred). (This finish has been continuously and repeatedly
criticized by the ARC. Smooth Trowel is the only material in section 4 listed as preferred. Please correct
ARC on the guidelines and stress the importance of removing their personal opinions.)
9) Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone), and precast concrete
10) Clear glass windows
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 223
13
3
11) The following exterior finish materials are considered inappropriate in the downtown and are
discouraged: Mirrored glass and heavily tinted glass Windows with false divisions (i.e., a window
where the glass continues uninterrupted behind a surface mounted mullion) Vinyl and aluminum siding
Painted or baked enamel metal awnings Rough “Spanish lace” stucco finish Plywood siding
Corrugated sheet metal Corrugated fiberglass Split face concrete block Exposed concrete block
without integral color.
12) Windows. Windows that allow pedestrians to see the activities within the ground floors of downtown
buildings are important in maintaining the pedestrian orientation of the downtown. Ground floor
windows adjacent to sidewalks encourage pedestrians to linger, while extensive blank walls do not.
13) Awnings. Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible and compatible with the
storefront.
14) Other details. A number of other details should be incorporated into exterior building design to add a
degree of visual richness and interest while meeting functional needs. These details include such items as:
a. Light fixtures, wall mounted
b. Balconies, rails, finials, corbels, plaques, etc.
c. Crafted artworks.
In our review of the meeting I don’t believe a single design element was referenced to the appropriate guideline
nor was a specific guideline by chapter and letter referenced in the meeting. Specific wording from the guidelines
WAS referenced and ALL from the wrong chapter. This project is not in a historical zone and those design
parameters are completely irrelevant as well. This requires correction and training for your commission by city
staff and the chairperson.
There is absolutely NO guideline requiring or suggesting multi‐color buildings. Actually quite the contrary. What
the ARC “thinks” looks better has absolutely nothing to do with the application of the guidelines. ARC should be
corrected on this and refer to the guideline. There is not a SINGLE reference in a section that governs this building
in reference to multiple colors. NOT ONE.
Additionally the majority focus of the meeting was on a zero set back side of the building. This should be a solid
uninterrupted wall by GUIDELINE. Any articulation or detail what so ever is actually outside of guideline. This
elevation is not in public view by rule, it borders another zero set back property. Please clarify this with the
committee. Asking for color or thinking this wall surface lacks articulation or detail is not in ARC privy and the
standard is a flat continuous wall.
I have attached a design matrix to exhibit the building meeting not some, but every single applicable guideline.
This is the process ARC should review, not personal preferences. Also attached is a downtown map that clearly
shows the uniqueness of this building site. You will NOTE not one criteria is color. This is because this is not a
guideline.
I respectfully request you call another ARC meeting and approve the project “as‐is” in light of the committee’s
misapplication of standards.
I was also disappointed that the ARC requests renderings and photos of neighboring properties on a routine basis. I
supplied photos at the hearing. As you may or may not be aware, your committee did not look at them. I believe
this is disrespectful to the applicant. This comment was made to me by most of the audience members. I surely
noticed as well.
Thank you Greg.
STALWORK, INC.
CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 224
13
4
License #948012
P.O. Box 391
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
O 805.542.0033
F 805.542.0837
ben@stalwork.com
www.stalwork.com
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 225
13
1135 Santa Rosa - Remodel + Addition6/5/2015Community Design Guidelines MatrixSECTION GUIDELINEYES NO NOTES4.2.AStreet orientation. Buildings in the downtown should be located at the back of the sidewalk unless space between the building and sidewalk is to be used for pedestrian features such as plazas, courtyards, or outdoor eating areas.NAProject adapts an existing building and its inherited footprint which is setback ~5' from Marsh Street's sidewalk and ~15' from Santa Rosa Street's sidewalk, which includes a 10' no-building easement.4.2.B Height, scale. Multi-story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upperfloor offices and residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which assists in maintaining their viability.XProject is three stories tall which includes residential uses at the third floor.4.2.B Multi-story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge.XProject provides setbacks above the 2nd floor at the building corners adjacent to the public right-of-way. The 3rd floor, by setbacks, is reduced to 81% of the floor below. There is no historic pattern of development at this site for setbacks.4.2.B.1 The height and scale of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development and provide human scale and proportion.X No existing development pattern. Human scale and proportion is provided through the sizing of windows, mature trees, site walls, and pedestrian site entries.4.2.B.1.a In no case may the height of a building at the back of sidewalk exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-wayXCondition met. Right-of-way is 70' wide. Project height is 40'.4.2.B.1.b New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions.XNo adjacent buildings. Corners are setback from Public Right-of-Ways to provide visual transition.4.2.B.1.c For new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources there shall be a heightened sensitivity to the mass and scale of the significant buildings.NA Not Applicable, there are no adjacent buildings on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.4.2.B.1.d The project provides upper story setbacks from the front building façade along the street consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Portions of the building above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building’s frontageX Project is less than 50' tall. No setback required per Figure 4-34.2.B.2 New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them.XLine of sight from YCLC Cheng Park to distant mountains is west of the project, no obstruction.4.2.B.3 New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh,Higuera or Monterey Streets at noon on December 21st.XBuilding is on the northerly side of Marsh, no shading impacts to the northerly sidewalk.4.2.B.4 Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses.NANot applicable. Project is not a "tall building" as it is less than 50' tall. However, project provides housing uses to meet land use policy objectives.4.2.B.5.a Utility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the building, or in a sub-grade vault.X PG&E disallows vaults for their transformers, a cut-stone enclosure is proposed in conformance with 6.1.G.2. Other utilities are screened from view and are not visible from public view.4.2.B.5.b Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department requirements.XBackflow prevention device is located in an existing closet, and is concealed from view.ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 22613
4.2.B.5.c Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the project frontage.XSidewalks are ~10' in width existing and to remain. As an existing footprint the entire building is set back ~5' from Marsh Street and ~16' from Santa Rosa Street.4.2.B.5.d Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions should not exceed 20%of the project frontage on any facing street.X Service access is provided via the City alley, 0% of project frontage.4.2.C Façade design. New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows, doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that complement existing structures, without copying their architectural style.XExisting context is eclectic, including modern aesthetics, and is generally not composed of the elements listed. The nearby buildings which feature these elements are not "significant adjacent examples" by any measure. See also 4.2.D.14.2.C.1 Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or curvilinear lines, or large pointed or slanted rooflines should generally be avoided.XRoof is flat, and steps occasionally. Facades are essentially flat and are expressed by different width planes that setback and change materials per 4.2.4.d4.2.C.2 Proportions in relation to context. Buildings should be designed with consideration of the characteristic proportions (relationship of height to width) of existing adjacent facades, as well as the rhythm, proportion, and spacing of their existing door and window openings.XNo existing adjacent facades to serve as reference. As a larger building than the surrounding context, setbacks are employed at the east, south, and west corners and the entire west elevation above the 2nd floor. The 3rd floor, by setbacks, is reduced to 81% of the floor below.4.2.C.3 Storefront rhythm. A new building facade that is proposed to be much "wider" than the existing characteristic facades on the street should be divided into a series of bays or components, defined by columns or masonry piers that frame windows, doors and bulkheads. Creating and reinforcing a facade rhythm helps tie the street together visually and provides pedestrians with features to mark their progress down the street.NAThe proposed facades continues the existing façade on the street as it is a remodel and addition project. No existing characteristic facades on the street are available to reference. Per ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the ground floor windows on Marsh Street were expanded to increase ground floor transparency. A pedestrian oriented window was added facing Santa Rosa Street at the site entry.4.2.C.4 Individual storefront proportions. Storefronts should not overpower the building façade, and should be confined to the area framed by the support piers and the lintel above, consistent with classic “Main Street” architecture.NA"Main Street" architecture requires adjacent parcels with multiple zero lot line buildings. This existing developed project site and existing building footprint does not fit that pattern.4.2.C.5 Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be varied and interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank walls discourage pedestrian traffic.XWall surfaces at the street level feature large window openings, deck overhangs, awnings, and horizontal wood siding. The existing structural bank vault prevents the corner from being more visually porous.4.2.C.5.a Dividing the facade into a series of display windows with smaller panes of glass.XPer ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the entirety of the window scheme was revised, including new proportions, groupings, and subdivision into smaller human scale panes of glass.4.2.C.5.b Constructing the facade with small human scale materials such as brick or decorative tile along bulkheads.XPer ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction a decorative cut-stone bulkhead was added along the Marsh Street frontage, which ties-in to the cut-stone site and sign walls. The horizontal application of natural clear-sealed wood at the street corner provides human scale and texture, carried around to the site and building entries.4.2.C.5.c Providing traditional recessed entries. X The main entry is recessed, and the site entry which is more prominent provides recess from the street.4.2.C.5.d Careful sizing, placement and overall design of signage. X Signage is carefully sized and placed with an emphasis on pedestrian scaled elements at the street corner and the site entrance.4.2.C.6 Doorways. Doorways should be recessedXThe main entry is recessed, and the site entry which is more prominent provides recess from the street.ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 22713
4.2.C.7 Bulkheads. Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the sidewalk, but should sit above a base, commonly called a “bulkhead,” of 18 to 36 inches in height. Bulkheads should bedesigned as prominent and visible elements of building facades, and should be treated sensitively to ensure compatibility with the overall appearance of the building. Desirable materials for bulkhead facing include those already common in the downtown: ornamental glazed tile in deep rich hues, either plain or with Mediterranean or Mexican patterns; dark or light marble panels; and pre-cast concreteXPer ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction a decorative cut-stone bulkhead was added along the Marsh Street frontage, which ties-in to the cut-stone site and sign walls.4.2.D Materials and architectural details. While downtown buildings have a variety of materials and architectural details, several consistent themes in these aspects of design in the downtown have helped to define its distinctive character.XSee following subsections that describe in more detail the downtown themes.4.2.D.1 The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are encouraged. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's overall character.XMany of the materials feature integral color and while not common, the wood siding proposed is very rich in color and texture, and is scaled to the pedestrian, extending from the street corner to the building and site entries.4.2.D.1 Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings.NANo significant adjacent buildings.The following materials are considered appropriate for buildings within the downtown.-Exterior plaster (smooth troweled preferred)-Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone), and precast concrete-New or used face-brick-Ceramic tiles (bulkhead or cornice)-Clapboard (where appropriate)-Glass block (transom)-Clear Glass windowsXUsed (smooth troweled)Used (bulkhead and site/sign walls)Used (interpretive application as natural clear sealed cedar)UsedThe following exterior finish materials are considered inappropriate in the downtown and are discouraged:-Mirrored glass and heavily tinted glass-Windows with false divisions-Vinyl and aluminum siding-Painted or baked enamel metal awnings-Rough “Spanish lace” stucco finish-Plywood siding-Corrugated sheet metal-Corrugated fiberglass-Split face concrete block-Exposed concrete block without integral colorXNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 22813
4.2.D.2 Storefront remodeling often covers original decorative details, or retains them only as visual “leftovers.” Existing details should not be wasted in remodeling efforts. If enough remain, they can be restored as part of the original design. If only a few remain, they can be incorporated as design features in a new storefront. In either case, the design of changes to a façade should grow out of the remaining traditional details and create a harmonious background that emphasizes those details.NANo applicable traditional details for retention from the existing structure dated to the early 1980's.4.2.D.3 Doors and storefront systems should be of materials and have details and ornament appropriate to the building wall materials.XAluminum frame windows and door with substantial frames are appropriate to the smooth troweled cement plaster.4.2.D.4 Windows that allow pedestrians to see the activities within the ground floors of downtown buildings are important in maintaining the pedestrian orientation of the downtown. Ground floor windows adjacent to sidewalks encourage pedestrians to linger, while extensive blank walls do not.NAThis site is approved for ground floor use via Administrative Use Permit, in part because of the low pedestrian traffic and acknowledgement that this is not a frequently trafficked site by pedestrians. Ground floor windows are provided, and extensive blank walls are not present. An existing bank vault prevents adding windows at the street corner. Per ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the ground floor windows were increased in height for greater transparency.4.2.D.5 Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible and compatible with the storefront.XA large awning extends from the building entry along the north elevation to emphasize the site/entry. Awnings should occur where pedestrians are emphasized.4.2.D.6 Other details. A number of other details should be incorporated into exterior building design to add a degree of visual richness and interest while meeting functional needs.X Per ARC and subsequent Planning Staff direction the project provides expressive wall mounted light fixtures, balcony railings, and expressed metalwork at wall caps and window sills for detail and shadowlines. 4.2.E Public spaces, plazas and courtyards. Public spaces on downtown sites should be designed as extensions of the public sidewalk by providing pedestrian amenities such as benches and fountains,and by continuing the pavement treatment of the sidewalk.NANot applicable. Transient populations are a real concern at this location near the creek. While the site can be controlled via private means, benches and other pedestrian furniture along the public right-of-way is too much of an attractor. At the building entry side benches are provided where building security can be maintained.ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 22913
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 23013
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 23113
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 23213
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 23313
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 23413
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg 23513
Packet Pg 236
13
Packet Pg 237
13
Packet Pg 238
13
Packet Pg 239
13
Packet Pg 240
13
Packet Pg 241
13
Packet Pg 24213
Packet Pg 24313
Packet Pg 24413
Packet Pg 24513
Packet Pg 246
13
Packet Pg 247
13
Packet Pg 248
13
Packet Pg 249
13
Packet Pg 250
13
Packet Pg 25113
Packet Pg 252
13
Packet Pg 25313
Packet Pg 254
13
Packet Pg 255
13
Packet Pg 256
13
Packet Pg 257
13
Packet Pg 258
13
Packet Pg 25913
Packet Pg 26013
Packet Pg 26113
Packet Pg 26213
Packet Pg 26313
Packet Pg 264
13
Packet Pg 265
13
Packet Pg 266
13
Packet Pg 267
13
Packet Pg 268
13
Packet Pg 269
13
Packet Pg 270
13
Packet Pg 271
13
Packet Pg 272
13
Packet Pg 273
13
Packet Pg 274
13
Packet Pg 275
13
Packet Pg 276
13
Packet Pg 277
13
Packet Pg 278
13
Packet Pg 279
13
Packet Pg 280
13
Packet Pg 281
13
Packet Pg 282
13
Packet Pg 283
13
Packet Pg 284
13
Packet Pg 285
13
Packet Pg 286
13
Packet Pg 287
13
Packet Pg 288
13
Packet Pg 289
13
Packet Pg 290
13
Packet Pg 291
13
Packet Pg 292
13
Packet Pg 293
13
Packet Pg 294
13
Packet Pg 295
13
Packet Pg 296
13
Packet Pg 297
13
Packet Pg 298
13
Packet Pg 299
13
Packet Pg 300
13
Packet Pg 301
13
Packet Pg 302
13
Packet Pg 303
13
Packet Pg 304
13
Packet Pg 305
13
Packet Pg 306
13
Packet Pg 307
13
Packet Pg 308
13
Packet Pg 309
13
Packet Pg 310
13
Packet Pg 311
13
Packet Pg 312
13
Packet Pg 313
13
Packet Pg 314
13
Packet Pg 315
13
Packet Pg 316
13
Packet Pg 317
13
Packet Pg 318
13
Packet Pg 319
13
Packet Pg 320
13
Packet Pg 321
13
Packet Pg 322
13
Packet Pg 323
13
Packet Pg 324
13
Packet Pg 325
13
Packet Pg 326
13
Packet Pg 327
13
Packet Pg 328
13
Packet Pg 329
13
Packet Pg 330
13
Packet Pg 331
13
Packet Pg 332
13
Packet Pg 333
13
Packet Pg 334
13
Packet Pg 335
13
Packet Pg 336
13
Packet Pg 337
13
Packet Pg 338
13
Packet Pg 339
13
Packet Pg 340
13
Packet Pg 341
13
Packet Pg 342
13
Packet Pg 343
13
Packet Pg 344
13
Packet Pg 345
13
Packet Pg 346
13
Packet Pg 347
13
Packet Pg 348
13
Packet Pg 349
13
Packet Pg 350
13
Packet Pg 351
13
Packet Pg 352
13
Packet Pg 353
13
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 354
13
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF CITY SUPPORT FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
1. Discuss the public policy purpose of an Inclusionary Housing Program; and
2. Consider authorizing City staff to prepare a letter to the County Board of Supervisors
regarding the County’s Inclusionary Housing Program to be signed by Mayor Harmon.
DISCUSSION
At the September 19th City Council Meeting, staff was directed to return with information
regarding the County of San Luis Obispo’s Inclusionary Housing Program update so that
Council could consider sending a letter of support to the County Board of Supervisors.
What is Inclusionary Housing?
The purpose of inclusionary housing is the promote the public welfare by increasing the
production and availability of affordable housing units. An inclusionary housing program
establishes an affordable housing requirement for new residential and commercial projects
within a community. Most commonly, these requirements are based on a certain percentage of
units built, or the size of a commercial project, and are satisfied by providing units or paying fees
in-lieu of affordable units.
City of San Luis Obispo Inclusionary Housing
The City of San Luis Obispo has had a successful inclusionary housing policy since 1999. The
policy and ordinance requirement are contained in Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.91, and based
on Housing Element Table 2 and Table 2a.
Developers whose projects are subject to the inclusionary housing requirement have the option to
either construct the units within their projects, dedicate land for the units to be built offsite, or to
pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee. All in-lieu fees collected go into the City’s Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF) and are issued at the Council’s discretion as low interest loans or grants to
developers building affordable housing in the community. Since 1999, approximately 280
affordable dwelling units have been built and over $10 million in affordable housing in-lieu fees
have been collected. The City has awarded over $9 million in grants and loans to 16 affordable
housing developments. The reality is that inclusionary housing fees are leveraged and used to
match and obtain grants and provide strategic partnerships with housing providers. In addition,
over 200 new affordable inclusionary units will be developed in specific plan areas over the next
five to ten years. The following tables are the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
Packet Pg 355
14
Table 2A
Inclusionary Housing Adjustment Factors
Project
Density
(Density
Units/Net
Acre)1
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Adjustment Factor2
Average Unit Size (sq. ft.)
Up to
1,100
1,101-1,500 1,501-2000 2,001-2,500 2,501-
3,000
>3,000
36 or more 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5
24-35.99 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5
12-23.99 0 .25 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
7-11.99 0 .5 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
<7 0 .5 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
1Including allowed density bonus, where applicable.
2Multiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement (either housing or in-lieu percentage) by the adjustment factor to
determine requirement. At least one enforceably-restricted affordable unit is required per development of five or more units.
Packet Pg 356
14
Due to continued uncertainty at the state and federal level in terms of funding, the City’s
Affordable Housing Fund and Inclusionary Housing Program continue to be key factors in the
development of affordable housing in the City, and a crucial financing mechanism for Low
Income Tax Credit projects developed by our non-profit housing partners (such as the Housing
Authority of San Luis Obispo and People’s Self Help Housing).
County of San Luis Obispo’s Inclusionary Program
The County adopted Title 29, the Affordable Housing Fund and the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance (“IHO”) in response to the affordable housing shortage in 2008. Developers choose
between either providing affordable housing units within their projects or paying a fee to
construct such units. The fees are deposited into the Title 29 Affordable Housing Fund. The
County’s program is based on a price per square footage.
When adopted in 2008, the IHO had a phased implementation schedule to ease into the fees and
number of affordable units required; however, due to the recession, the County Board of
Supervisors had kept the IHO at the very initial “Year 1” requirements (see below) up until
December 2016. At this time, the IHO has been set at “Year 2” rates. Year 5 would equate to
full implementation and full fee amount required.
Source: County of San Luis Obispo
Since 2009, the County has used $450,000 in in-lieu fees to support affordable housing projects,
however, the number of affordable units developed from the IHO have been minimal.
Next Steps
Pursuant to County Title 29, the Board considers making adjustments each year to the Title 29
fee schedules. The fees may be adjusted for any reason (such as construction costs, nexus study,
etc.) or upon Board discretion. The County is currently preparing a Nexus Study on their
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and will present those findings to the Board in December 2017.
There has been discussion by individual County Supervisors and some local organizations to
completely eliminate the County’s Inclusionary Housing Program; however, at this time such an
Packet Pg 357
14
action is not before the Board.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not send a letter to the Board of Supervisors or take any other action to communicate the
City’s position on any changes to the IHO
Packet Pg 358
14
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Sustainability Coordinator
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF RESOLUTION OPPOSING NEW OR EXPANDED OFFSHORE
DRILLING, GAS LEASES, AND FRACKING OFF THE COAST OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
RECOMMENDATION
Consider a draft Resolution (Attachment A) opposing new, or expansion of existing, offshore oil
and gas leases off the coast of San Luis Obispo County and supporting measures to prohibit
discharge of pollutants into the ocean, consistent with the City’s Legislative Action Platform.
DISCUSSION
Background
On April 28, 2017, President Trump issued the “America First Offshore Energy Executive
Order” (Attachment B) which could open the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans to oil and gas
drilling, fracking, and other well stimulation by providing for energy exploration, leasing, and
development on the Outer Continental shelf. This has the potential to put California’s coastal
resources at risk of more oil spills, increased greenhouse gas emissions, continued dependence
on fossil fuels, and a delay in the movement toward greater reliance on renewable energy.
On May 11, 2017, Mayor Harmon authored a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
(Attachment C) to voice opposition toward revisions to the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Leasing program and to support any and all efforts to oppose new or expanded fossil
fuel extraction on the California coast and ocean.
Draft Resolution
In response to significant input from the community in coordination with a statewide campaign
led by the Center for Biological Diversity (see Attachment D), the attached resolution opposing
new or expanded offshore drilling, gas leases, and fracking has been prepared for City Council
consideration.
The attached resolution affirms the City’s commitment to Climate Action with establishment of
the Climate Action Major City Goal work program which has an overall goal of reducing the
community’s greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning away from reliance on fossil fuels. In
addition, voicing opposition to efforts to establish new, or expand existing, oil and gas drilling
operations is consistent with the City’s Legislative Action Platform for 2017 which includes
natural resource priorities as follows: #66 “opposing any development under existing or new
offshore oil and gas leases off the Coast of San Luis Obispo County” and #67 “supporting
measures to prohibit discharge of pollutants into the ocean.”
Packet Pg 359
15
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Passing a Resolution that opposes oil and gas drilling consistent with the City’s Legislative
Platform is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Definitions – Project).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could decide to alter the draft Resolution or decide not to adopt a Resolution.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - President Trump Executive Order
c - Mayor Harmon Letter
d - Center for Biological Diversity "Fact Sheet"
Packet Pg 360
15
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING NEW OR EXPANSION OF
EXISTING OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES OFF THE COAST OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND SUPPORTING MEASURES TO
PROHIBIT DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE OCEAN
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo values our state’s ocean waters and coasts, which
provide habitat to a vast array of wildlife that depend on a healthy and clean environment; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo’s residents and visitors enjoy our ocean, beaches,
mountains and abundance of diverse resources for recreation, exploration, and relaxation; and
tourism and recreation comprise a large part of the City’s economy; and
WHEREAS, oil drilling presents a clear and ever-present danger to the health and safety
of residents, businesses and economies, with the threat of an oil spill potentially wreak ing havoc
on ecosystems, on human health, and economic activities; and
WHEREAS, fracking and related techniques, where water and chemicals are injected
under high pressure to crack rock formations and free up petroleum products, are linked to water
and air pollution, health concerns, and harm to marine wildlife; and
WHEREAS, in 1969, a well failure off the coast of Santa Barbara fouled coastal waters
and caused catastrophic environmental damage, helping launch the modern environmental
movement, and in 2015 a pipeline servicing offshore oil platforms burst and fouled the coast,
damaging wildlife and coastal recreation; and
WHEREAS, there have been no offshore oil and gas leases in California since the 1969
disaster; and
WHEREAS, in December of 2016, President Obama signed an executive order that
banned any new oil and gas drilling of the coast of California under Section 12(a) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2017, President Trump issued the “America First Offshore
Energy Executive Order” which could open the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans to oil and gas
drilling, fracking, and other well stimulation, putting California’s coastal resources at risk of more
oil spills, increased greenhouse gas emissions, dependence on fossil fuels, and a delay in the
movement toward greater reliance on renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of California, the State Senate, the State Lands Commission
and Cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, have called for no new federal offshore
leases in the Pacific Ocean, and several municipalities have called for limits to fracking including
Marin County, Alameda County, Santa Cruz County, San Benito County, and Butte County.
Packet Pg 361
15
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo recently made Climate Action a top city priority
with an overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by limiting our dependence on fossil
fuels; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo’s Legislative Action Platform for 2017 includes
natural resource priorities including #66 “opposing any development under existing or new
offshore oil and gas leases off the Coast of San Luis Obispo County” and #67 “supporting measures
to prohibit discharge of pollutants into the ocean (e.g. selenium contaminated waters from the San
Joaquin Valley).”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo hereby supports in state and federal waters
in the Pacific Ocean along the United States, 1) a ban on new drilling, fracking, and related
techniques, 2) no new or expansion of existing oil and gas leases and a phase-out of all oil and gas
extraction, and 3) a framework for responsible renewable energy development.
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 362
15
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 363
15
8/30/2017 Presidential Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy | whitehouse.gov
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/28/presidential-executive-order-implementing-america-first-offshore-energy 1/5
For Immediate Release April 28, 2017
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Presidential Executive Order Implementing an
America-First Offshore Energy Strategy
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
IMPLEMENTING AN AMERICA-FIRST OFFSHORE ENERGY STRATEGY
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., and in order to
maintain global leadership in energy innovation, exploration, and production, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Findings. America must put the energy needs of American families and businesses first and
continue implementing a plan that ensures energy security and economic vitality for decades to come.
The energy and minerals produced from lands and waters under Federal management are important
to a vibrant economy and to our national security. Increased domestic energy production on Federal
lands and waters strengthens the Nation's security and reduces reliance on imported energy.
Moreover, low energy prices, driven by an increased American energy supply, will benefit American
families and help reinvigorate American manufacturing and job growth. Finally, because the
Department of Defense is one of the largest consumers of energy in the United States, domestic energy
production also improves our Nation's military readiness.
Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage energy exploration and
production, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to maintain the Nation's position as a
global energy leader and foster energy security and resilience for the benefit of the American people,
while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible.
Sec. 3. Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy. To carry out the policy set forth in
section 2 of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall:
(a) as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including the procedures set forth in section
1344 of title 43, United States Code, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, give full
consideration to revising the schedule of proposed oil and gas lease sales, as described in that section,
Packet Pg 364
15
8/30/2017 Presidential Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy | whitehouse.gov
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/28/presidential-executive-order-implementing-america-first-offshore-energy 2/5
so that it includes, but is not limited to, annual lease sales, to the maximum extent permitted by law, in
each of the following Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas, as designated by the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) (Planning Areas): Western Gulf of Mexico, Central Gulf of Mexico, Chukchi
Sea, Beaufort Sea, Cook Inlet, Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic;
(b) ensure that any revisions made pursuant to subsection (a) of this section do not hinder or affect
ongoing lease sales currently scheduled as part of the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Proposed Final Program, as published on November 18, 2016; and
(c) develop and implement, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce and to the maximum
extent permitted by law, a streamlined permitting approach for privately funded seismic data research
and collection aimed at expeditiously determining the offshore energy resource potential of the United
States within the Planning Areas.
Sec. 4. Responsible Planning for Future Offshore Energy Potential. (a) The Secretary of Commerce
shall, unless expressly required otherwise, refrain from designating or expanding any National Marine
Sanctuary under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., unless the sanctuary
designation or expansion proposal includes a timely, full accounting from the Department of the
Interior of any energy or mineral resource potential within the designated area including offshore
energy from wind, oil, natural gas, methane hydrates, and any other sources that the Secretary of
Commerce deems appropriate and the potential impact the proposed designation or expansion will
have on the development of those resources. The Secretary of the Interior shall provide any such
accounting within 60 days of receiving a notification of intent to propose any such National Marine
Sanctuary designation or expansion from the Secretary of Commerce.
(b) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a review of all designations and
expansions of National Marine Sanctuaries, and of all designations and expansions of Marine National
Monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906, recently recodified at sections 320301 to 320303 of title
54, United States Code, designated or expanded within the 10-year period prior to the date of this
order.
(i) The review under this subsection shall include:
(A) an analysis of the acreage affected and an analysis of the budgetary impacts of the
costs of managing each National Marine Sanctuary or Marine National Monument
designation or expansion;
(B) an analysis of the adequacy of any required Federal, State, and tribal consultations
conducted before the designations or expansions; and
Packet Pg 365
15
8/30/2017 Presidential Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy | whitehouse.gov
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/28/presidential-executive-order-implementing-america-first-offshore-energy 3/5
(C) the opportunity costs associated with potential energy and mineral exploration and
production from the Outer Continental Shelf, in addition to any impacts on production in
the adjacent region.
(ii) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, shall report the results of the review under
this subsection to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.
(c) To further streamline existing regulatory authorities, Executive Order 13754 of December 9, 2016
(Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience), is hereby revoked.
Sec. 5. Modification of the Withdrawal of Areas of the Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing
Disposition. The body text in each of the memoranda of withdrawal from disposition by leasing of the
United States Outer Continental Shelf issued on December 20, 2016, January 27, 2015, and July 14,
2008, is modified to read, in its entirety, as follows:
"Under the authority vested in me as President of the United States, including section 12(a) of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1341(a), I hereby withdraw from disposition by leasing, for
a time period without specific expiration, those areas of the Outer Continental Shelf designated as of
July 14, 2008, as Marine Sanctuaries under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq."
Nothing in the withdrawal under this section affects any rights under existing leases in the affected
areas.
Sec. 6. Reconsideration of Notice to Lessees and Financial Assurance Regulatory Review. The Secretary
of the Interior shall direct the Director of BOEM to take all necessary steps consistent with law to
review BOEM's Notice to Lessees No. 2016 N01 of September 12, 2016 (Notice to Lessees and Operators
of Federal Oil and Gas, and Sulfur Leases, and Holders of Pipeline Right-of-Way and Right-of-Use and
Easement Grants in the Outer Continental Shelf), and determine whether modifications are necessary,
and if so, to what extent, to ensure operator compliance with lease terms while minimizing
unnecessary regulatory burdens. The Secretary of the Interior shall also review BOEM's financial
assurance regulatory policy to determine the extent to which additional regulation is necessary.
Sec. 7. Reconsideration of Well Control Rule. The Secretary of the Interior shall review the Final Rule
of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) entitled "Oil and Gas and Sulfur
Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control," 81 Fed. Reg.
25888 (April 29, 2016), for consistency with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, and shall
publish for notice and comment a proposed rule revising that rule, if appropriate and as consistent
with law. The Secretary of the Interior shall also take all appropriate action to lawfully revise any
related rules and guidance for consistency with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.
Packet Pg 366
15
8/30/2017 Presidential Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy | whitehouse.gov
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/28/presidential-executive-order-implementing-america-first-offshore-energy 4/5
Additionally, the Secretary of the Interior shall review BSEE's regulatory regime for offshore operators
to determine the extent to which additional regulation is necessary.
Sec. 8. Reconsideration of Proposed Offshore Air Rule. The Secretary of the Interior shall take all steps
necessary to review BOEM's Proposed Rule entitled "Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance,"
81 Fed. Reg. 19718 (April 5, 2016), along with any related rules and guidance, and, if appropriate, shall,
as soon as practicable and consistent with law, consider whether the proposed rule, and any related
rules and guidance, should be revised or withdrawn.
Sec. 9. Expedited Consideration of Incidental Harassment Authorizations, Incidental-Take, and Seismic
Survey Permits. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce shall, to the maximum
extent permitted by law, expedite all stages of consideration of Incidental Take Authorization requests,
including Incidental Harassment Authorizations and Letters of Authorization, and Seismic Survey
permit applications under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
Sec. 10. Review of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum
NMFS-OPR-55. The Secretary of Commerce shall review NOAA's Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55
of July 2016 (Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal
Hearing) for consistency with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order and, a er consultation with
the appropriate Federal agencies, take all steps permitted by law to rescind or revise that guidance, if
appropriate.
Sec. 11. Review of Offshore Arctic Drilling Rule. The Secretary of the Interior shall immediately take all
steps necessary to review the Final Rule entitled "Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer
Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf," 81 Fed.
Reg. 46478 (July 15, 2016), and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable and consistent with law,
publish for notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding this rule.
Sec. 12. Definition. As used in this order, "Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas, as designated by
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management" means those areas delineated in the diagrams on pages S-5
and S-8 of the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Dra Proposed Program, as
published by the BOEM in January 2015, with the exception of any buffer zones included in such
planning documents.
Sec. 13. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
Packet Pg 367
15
8/30/2017 Presidential Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy | whitehouse.gov
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/28/presidential-executive-order-implementing-america-first-offshore-energy 5/5
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, April 28, 2017.
Packet Pg 368
15
Packet Pg 369
15
Packet Pg 370
15
If Trump and his Big Oil buddies get their way,
offshore drilling could destroy the very fabric of
coastal communities, state and local economies, and
critical marine habitats for decades to come. Expanding
offshore drilling in the Pacific would result in a coast
littered with oil and gas rigs and pipelines, causing
heavy industrialization in coastal communities, as we’ve
seen in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.
The California coastline is once again in the oil
industry’s crosshairs
• The federal government recently took steps to
vastly expand offshore oil and gas leasing in the
Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans and the eastern
Gulf of Mexico, areas that have been largely off
limits to new federal leasing.
• Oil companies have their sights set on oil and gas
deposits up and down the California coast, from La
Jolla to Orange County, from Palos Verdes to the
Lost Coast.
• The California coastal marine environment is one
of the most biologically rich areas in the world,
providing key habitat for whales, sea otters, sea
turtles and more than 500 fish species.
• Conventional drilling isn’t the only threat; just
last year the federal government also lifted a
moratorium on offshore fracking off California’s
coast, allowing the use of toxic fracking fluid in our
coastal waters and other well stimulation, such as
acid fracking and gravel packing.1
by the Center for Biological Diversity
Photo by Drwilsonjjj. CC-BY-SA
Where we drill, we spill
• From the infamous Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969
to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 to
the Refugio oil spill in 2016, we’ve seen again and
again that oil spills are inevitable. There is simply
no safe way to drill our oceans.
• In fact, oil spills are routine; the U.S. Coast Guard
documented over 40,000 oil spills in the Gulf of
Mexico between 1973 and 2011. That’s more than
1,000 per year.2
• In just four years following the Gulf spill (2011-
2014), the federal government reported that
offshore drilling accounted for a total of 1,063
injuries, 477 fires and explosions, 22 well control
losses, 11 spills of over 2,100 gallons of oil, and 11
fatalities.3
• The Gulf experienced the longest mortality event
recorded for marine mammals and sea turtles
following Deepwater Horizon.4 The Refugio
oil spill killed hundreds of animals, including
dolphins, sea lions and pelicans.5
The planet is speeding toward a climate
catastrophe
• Drilling anywhere is a threat to climate and coastal
communities everywhere. Scientists warn that the
overwhelming majority of fossil fuels must remain
in the ground, unburned, if we are to avoid the
worst effects of climate change.
Oil and Oceans Don’t Mix
Packet Pg 371
15
• Ending fossil fuel leases in federal waters would
prevent the release of up to 61.5 billion tons of
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and oceans,
or the equivalent of driving 13 billion passenger cars
for one year.6
• New federal offshore leases would allow for oil and
gas production over the next 40 to 70 years, long
past the point that scientists say fossil fuels must be
phased out.7
• Coastal California is already experiencing the
early impacts of a rising sea level, including more
extensive coastal flooding during storms, periodic
tidal flooding and increased coastal erosion.
• By the end of this century, coastal flooding could
threaten upwards of 1 million California residents
and $100 billion worth of property. Among those
especially vulnerable are large numbers of low-
income people and communities of color.8
• A wide range of critical infrastructure, such as
roads, hospitals, schools, emergency facilities,
wastewater treatment plants, and power plants will
also be at risk.
Frack no!
• Oil companies have fracked hundreds of offshore
wells in California’s ocean.
• Scientific studies indicate that at least 10 of the
fracking chemicals routinely used during these
fracking events could kill or harm a broad variety
of marine species, including sea otters, fish and
benthic invertebrates.9
• Fracking and other well stimulation techniques
increase pollution and the risk of oil spills and
earthquakes.
• Shockingly, the oil industry has federal permission
to dump more than 9 billion gallons of wastewater,
including fracking fluid laced with toxic chemicals,
into the Pacific Ocean every year.10
Don’t believe the oil industry’s lies
• Along the California coast alone, nearly 410,000
jobs and $20 billion in gross domestic product
rely on healthy ocean ecosystems, through fishing,
tourism and recreation.11 This far outweighs any
potential jobs or economic gains that could ever be
provided from offshore drilling.
• Clean energy jobs vastly outnumber all fossil fuel
jobs in California, by a margin greater than 6:1.12
• Even if all of the economically recoverable resources
off California were exploited, the oil would last for
significantly less than 2 years at current national
consumption rates.13,14
California cities must lead the way
• The state of California prohibits new leasing in state
waters because of the unacceptably high risk of
damage and disruption to the marine environment
of the state.
• It’s up to California, its cities and its residents to
guard our coastline against dangerous offshore
drilling and the worst impact of climate change,
including sea-level rise and ocean acidification.
• Our voices matter. When the Obama administration
proposed offshore lease sales in the Atlantic
Ocean, more than 100 East Coast municipalities
passed resolutions opposing offshore drilling and
seismic blasting. In the face of such opposition
from residents, their representatives, and more
than 41,000 businesses, the Obama administration
removed the Atlantic from the leasing plan.(Endnotes)
1 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the Use of Well Stimulation
Treatments on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (May 2016). Available at: http://pocswellstim.evs.anl.gov/
2 US Coast Guard, Polluting Incidents In and Around U.S. Waters, A Spill/Release Compendium: 1969-2011 (Dec. 2012)
3 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, “Incident Statistics and Summaries”. Available at: http://www.bsee.gov/Inspection-and-Enforcement/Accidents-
andIncidents/Listing-and-Status-of-Accident-Investigations/
4 National Ocean Service, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Longterm Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles (20 April 2017). Available at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/
apr17/dwh-protected-species.html
5 Center for Biological Diversity, Refugio Oil Spill. Available at: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/Refugio_oil_spill/
6 Mulvaney, et al. The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels, August 2015. Available at http://www.ecoshiftconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/
Potential-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-U-S-Federal-Fossil-Fuels.pdf
7 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2017-2022, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Nov. 2016)
Vol. I: Chpts. 1-6. Available at: https://www.boem.gov/fpeis-volume1/
8 Hauer, M., Evans, J. and Mishra, D. (2016). Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States. Nature Climate Change, [online] 6(7), pp.691-
695. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2961.html?foxtrotcallback=true
9 Center for Biological Diversity, Troubled Waters: Offshore Fracking’s Threat to California’s Ocean, Air and Seismic Stability (September 2014). Available at: https://www.
biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_fracking/pdfs/Troubled_Waters.pdf
10 Id
11 United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, California 2014, Employment: Tourism and
Recreation. Available at: https://www.coast.noaa.gov/enowexplorer/#/employment/tourism/2014/06000
12 Beitman, Andy. Sierra Club. Report: Clean Energy Jobs Overwhelm Coal, Oil, & Gas in 41 States and D.C. Available at: https://www.docdroid.net/G6njmYC/sierra-club-
clean-energy-jobs-report-final-1.pdf#page=2
13 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, 2016. Available at: https://www.boem.
gov/2016-National-Assessment-Fact-Sheet/
14 United States Energy Information Administration. How much oil is consumed in the United States? Available at: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6Packet Pg 372
15
Meeting Date: 10/3/2017
FROM: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CREATING A COUNCIL COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE FOR 2018
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and consider creating a Council Compensation Committee for 2018, which would:
1. Review the full Council compensation package and make recommendations to the City
Council no later than May 1, 2018, and
2. Review compensation for Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission
members in conjunction with its review of Council compensation.
DISCUSSION
Charter Section 410, Resolution No. 10515 (2014 Series) (Attachment A) adopted May 20, 2014,
provides that compensation for the Mayor and Council shall be reviewed biennially in even
numbered years. The Council Policies and Procedures specifies that a five-member citizen
committee be appointed by January 31st of even numbered years and, further, that committee
recommendations be forwarded to the Council no later than May 1st.
Background
The last review of the Council compensation was in 2014. In 2010, 2012 and 2015, the Council
elected to defer appointing a Council Compensation Committee. Resolution No. 10516 (2014
Series) (Attachment B), adopted May 20, 2014, mandates that compensation for Planning
Commission and Architectural Review Commission members will be reviewed in conjunction
with its periodic review of the Council compensation.
When the committee has been convened, past practice has been that Council Members
nominated individuals to serve on the committee by submitting names to the City Clerk. The
City Clerk recruited individuals using the following criteria: 1) by calling first those qualified to
serve who received more than one nomination and 2) by contacting one nominee from each
Council Member who had submitted recommendations. In the past, if a member was unavailable
for a committee meeting, Council has appointed alternates. If the Council opts to proceed with
the full committee review, staff would recommend that the Clerk receive names of individuals
from Council members, that the City Clerk confirm interest with individuals suggested and that
the names of all interested individuals be presented to Council and the public for discussion via a
subsequent agenda item.
If the Council’s decision is to proceed with the process, Council Policies and Procedures Section
2.6.1 establishes guidelines for the make-up of the committee, as follows:
Packet Pg 373
16
The committee membership shall have as broad a representation as possible, including
but not limited to, one previously elected official, one Personnel Board member, and one
citizen-at-large.
Section 2.6.2 outlines the responsibilities of the Council Compensation Committee, as follows:
The committee shall review the full Council compensation package including salary,
benefits, expense reimbursement, professional development allowances and any other
compensation provided the City Council. Review should include, but shall not be limited
to: 1) compensation of Council and Mayors of cities of similar population/budget size; 2)
compensation practices of both Charter and General Law cities; 3) Government Code
provisions for General Law cities; and 4) Council and Mayor responsibilities in San Luis
Obispo at the time of the committee's review; and, 5) any structural changes that may
have occurred in municipal government either as a result of State legislation or by
actions of the local electorate that may have added to or deducted from the duties and
responsibilities of the Council Members and/or Mayor.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff from the City Clerk’s Office, Human Resources and City Attorney’s Office will provide
support for the Committee. In the event, there is a finding that an increase in compensation is
warranted, a recommendation for budget adjustment will be submitted for Council approval. An
increase in compensation would be adjusted by resolution and become effective the first full pay
period in January, 2019.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may decide to forego the creation of the Council Compensation Committee and limit
review to a Council determination to maintain the status quo or to defer discussion and creation
of a committee to January 2020.
COUNCIL READING FILE
List of citizens who have served on the Council Compensation Committee since 2000.
Attachments:
a - Reso No. 10515 (2014) Set New Salaries Mayor and Council Members
b - Reso No. 10516 (2014) ARC & PC Increase
Packet Pg 374
16
RESOLUTION NO 10515 (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, SETTING
NEW SALARIES FOR TIIE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
WHEREAS, Charter Section 410 provides for compensation and reimbursement of
expenses for the Mayor and Council Members and establishes a procedure for a biennial review
by a five- member Council Compensation Committee and
WHEREAS, a five- member Council Compensation Committee was appointed and has
met and reviewed Mayor and Council Member compensation in accordance with the procedure
provided by the Charter and
WHEREAS, the Council Compensation Committee has determined that the present
criteria for compensation remain valid However an adjustment is now appropriate particularly
in light of the significant demands associated with the official duties of the Mayor and Council
Members
NONY, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows
SECTION 1 Chapter 2 1 of the Council Policies and Procedures shall be amended to
iead as follows
Effective the first full payroll period ill January 2015 compensation for seiiices
tendered in an official capacity shall be provided as follows dlaiyor and
tllenben s of the City Council shall recen e a monthly salary of Sl 500 pet month
Jot the b/ayot and S 200 per path for the Council klembens
SECTION 2 Chapter 2 2 of the Council Policies and Procedures shall be amended to
read as follows
The Mayor and Council Members shall be entitled to City fended pallicipanon in
P E R S iein enient The City shall cnutibuie an amount equrnalent to that
teceived by City department heads monthly towards the rllaiyat and Council
11enibei s par ncipanan to PEtbICHA, dental vision and life insho once Any
unevpended amount shall not be ahvitibuted to the Mayor and Council Alembet s
in cash If the 14avo, and Council Members elect to opt out o medical denial
and sision that individual nenibet will receive the opt out amount equal to Cal
depat intent heads
R 10515Packet Pg 375
16
Resolution No 10515 (2014 Series)
Page 2
Upon motion of Council Member Ashbaugh seconded by Vice Mayor
Christianson and on the following roll call vote
AYES Council Member Ashbaugh Vice Mayor Christianson and Mayor
Mart
NOES Council Members Carpenter and Smith
ABSENT None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 20th day of May 2014
Lzg±x
Mao Mart
A 1 = 1 -EST
t ithon,',,J NI is
Ciiy.Glerk
APPROVED AS TO
Attorney
Packet Pg 376
16
Packet Pg 377
16
Packet Pg 378
16