Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-17-2017 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:30 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Page 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8 Property: San Luis Obispo County APNs 070-241-013; 070-271-013; 073-321-008; 073-341-003; 073-341-029; 073-341-034; 073-341-036; 073-341-037 Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, City Manager; J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager Negotiating Parties: Gabriel Miossi Kathy Henderson Sam Garkovich Dell Hemingway for Miossi Brothers La Cuesta Ranch, Inc. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 4:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER Packet Pg 1 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 17, 2017 Page 2 4:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM ONLY STUDY SESSIONS 1. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEE PROGRAM STUDY: STUDY SESSION (CODRON/FOWLER/MATTINGLY/METZ – 90 MINUTES) Recommendation: 1. Participate in a study session and receive a presentation on the preliminary results of the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study and the Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program Study; and 2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding fee options (questions for discussion are provided at the conclusion of the staff report); and 3. Direct staff to return on November 7, 2017, with applicable ordinances and resolutions to implement the updated Capital Facilities Fee Program as directed by City Council. ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 PM Packet Pg 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 17, 2017 Page 3 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Andy Pease CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items CONSENT AGENDA 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. 2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (GALLAGHER) Recommendation: Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. Packet Pg 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 17, 2017 Page 4 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2017, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017, AND OCTOBER 3, 2107 (GALLAGHER) Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the City Council meetings of August 15, 2017, September 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017. 4. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT (HERMANN/HILL) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project.” 5. ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2707 (953 ORCUTT, TR 151-03) (CODRON/DOSTALEK) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the public improvements, certifying completion of the private improvements, and authorizing release of the securities for Tract 2707 (953 Orcutt Road, TR 151-03).” 6. CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (CALOES) HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT APPLICATION (MATTINGLY/HIX) Recommendation: 1. Authorize City staff to prepare and submit a grant application to State of California Office of Emergency Services for Flood Hazard Mitigation; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program;” and 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve an amount not to exceed $75,000 for the preparation of the application; and 4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any other required grant application documentation. Packet Pg 4 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 17, 2017 Page 5 7. MARGARITA LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT AWARD, SPECIFICATION NO. 91214A (MATTINGLY/METZ) Recommendation: Award a contract to Specialty Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,290,215 for the Margarita Lift Station Replacement Project, Specification No. 91214A. 8. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING, IN PART, AND UPHOLDING, IN PART, AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO MODIFY APPROVED COLORS AND BUILDING DESIGN FOR A REMODELED BUILDING AT 1135 SANTA ROSA STREET (CODRON/OETZELL) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying in part, and upholding in part, an Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s decision to deny a request to modify approved colors and building design for a remodeled building, and directing that an alternative modificatio n to colors or design be considered by the Architectural Review Commission for final decision. (1135 Santa Rosa Street, APPL-1070-2017)” PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 9. 2016-17 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TBID) (HERMANN/CANO – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation: As recommended by the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board: 1. Receive and approve the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board’s 2016- 17 annual report; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring its intention to continue the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District, to continue the basis for and to levy the assessment for the District, and to set a date for the public hearing on the District and the assessment for 2017-18” at the same rate as in the fiscal year 2016-17. Packet Pg 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 17, 2017 Page 6 10. PUBLIC HEARING - PILOT PROGRAM FOR WINTER OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE (HERMANN/HILL – 90 MINUTES) Recommendation: 1. Pursuant to prior Council direction, receive a staff presentation on a proposed two-year pilot program to extend the hours of use of the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve when daylight savings time is not in effect; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a pilot program for winter open space hours of use.” 11. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEES (MATTINGLY/HIX/FLOYD/METZ – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation: 1. Consider options for water and wastewater capacity and connection fees; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Amending Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees,” selecting option 2 for water and option 4 for wastewater effective January 1, 2018. 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 Adjourn to a Special City Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Packet Pg 6 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 17, 2017 Page 7 LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100. Packet Pg 7 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 8 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director - Long Range Planning SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEE PROGRAM STUDY: STUDY SESSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Participate in a study session and receive a presentation on the preliminary results of the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study and the Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program Study; and 2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding fee options (questions for discussion are provided at the conclusion of this report); and 3. Direct staff to return on November 7, 2017, with applicable ordinances and resolutions to implement the updated Capital Facilities Fee Program as directed by City Council. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The City’s Community Development, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire, and Utilities departments are in the process of updating the fees charged to new development for a range of transportation, parks, general government, public safety, and water and sewer capital facilities that are important to the City’s future and quality of life. The economic vitality of the City is linked to critical investment in its urban infrastructure system. While the current configuration of the existing development impact fee programs has served an important role in funding infrastructure improvements throughout the City over the last twenty years, changing economic circumstances, new Specific Plans, and the City’s recently adopted public financing policies warrant an update of these programs. This project is a key implementation of the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element General Plan Update. The infrastructure identified in this study has been identified because it is necessary to support build-out of the current General Plan. The project also builds off the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan and four prior study sessions held with the City Council to discuss policies and practices for infrastructure financing. As the City Council and community review the information contained in this report, it will be important to remember that these development impact fees are one of a few possible sources of funding for the projects included in the fee program. For any given project, multiple sources of funding may be necessary to ensure project feasibility (e.g. a relatively small portion of a new police headquarters facility can and should be assigned to new development through an impact fee). The question of how these fees burden future development, such as new housing projects, and impact project feasibility is a central issue for this study session. The study illustrates that the fee burden associated with all potential impact fees may be too great when applied to a project, and that policy decisions by the City are necessary to reduce the fee burden so that development Packet Pg 9 1 remains feasible. This issue is most clearly reflected in the retail fees associated with development in the southern City fee area. Various options are available to the City to “fine tune” the fees for a given development type and in each area to ensure that the fee program delivers important capital facilities needed for the City to complete these projects while making sure that the development subject to these fees is still feasible and can still move forward. Previous study sessions with the City Council have resulted in specific recommendations and direction to staff to keep all options on the table and pursue multiple funding sources for City infrastructure projects. Where the City Council lands with respect to the development impact fee program will help determine the size and scope of other funding mechanisms needed to provide funding and deliver important City infrastructure in the future. The studies provide the City with an opportunity to ensure that the identified set of development impact fees generates revenue sources that will help the City to meet the demands of future growth. The fee programs will supplement rates and other local, State, and Federal funding programs by having new development pay a proportional share of the costs of these needed facilities. If appropriately updated and implemented, the Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program and the Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program will serve as important stimulus for economic development, providing certainty to developers about the rules and financial obligations they will face while ensuring that adequate infrastructure will be available to support growth and enhance competitiveness. DISCUSSION Mitigation Fee Act With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which resulted in the decline of local government revenues, local governments increasingly relied on impact fees to mitigate the impacts created by new development. In response, developers lobbied the State Legislature to curtail the growing use of impact fees. Because of the widespread imposition of public facilities fees at the local level and in response various exactions cases from the California courts and U.S. Supreme Court, the State Legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act (Assembly Bill 1600) in 1987. The Act, contained in California Government Code Section 66000 et.seq., established constitutional limits and “ground rules” for the imposition and administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1988 and requires local governments to document the following when adopting an impact fee: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee revenues; 3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development paying the fee; 4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee; and 5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. Packet Pg 10 1 In summary, a fee cannot be more than the cost of the public facility needed to accommodate the new development paying the fee, and the fee r evenues can only be used for their intended purpose. Development Impact Fee Program Considerations Creating an impact fee program can be a costly and labor -intensive process that should not be undertaken more often than necessary. A well-planned fee program can generate sufficient funds to allow the city to adequately mitigate capital need impacts created by new development. Conversely, a poorly planned fee can result in the city either collecting to little money and being forced to close the funding gap through alternative funding sources, or collecting too much money based on an unsupported fee program, thus exposing the city to a fee challenge. The following principles guided staff and the consultant team through the creation of the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study work effort: • Plan for future development. Utilize a recently updated General Plan as a guide to anticipating where and how growth will occur the city. If most of the new development is projected to occur in concentrated areas geographically, which are not necessarily separated from existing development, a mix of new, stand-alone facilities, such as a fire station, and expansion of existing facilities, such as a city hall, may be needed to support the anticipated growth. This will have an impact on the cost of new infrastructure and, of course on the uses to which the resulting fee revenues may be devoted. To address this, a fee program that is based on a geographic area within the city, should be considered to address that area’s specific needs. • Don’t try to fix every problem with one fee. It is important to tailor each fee to address an impact. Broad-brush fees are subject to legal challenge under AB 1600. Each fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the impact it is intended to mitigate. There must be clear accounting for each fee collected. However, creating too many fee categories can create administrative difficulties in implementing and accounting for fees once they are collected. • Decide what level of service the city wants to provide. Fees should be designed to collect sufficient funds to provide public facilities and infrastructure at a certain level of service. The General Plan specifies the size and level of service at which certain types of public infrastructure must be maintained. While a City cannot require new development to pay for existing deficiencies, it can require new development to provide an acceptable level of service. When considering new fees, the City should decide whether it wants to raise the current level of service for public facilities. If so, the city could raise the level of service for existing development through expenditures from the general fund, while requiring new development to pay for a level of service above what is currently in place. • Don’t try to make new development pay more than its fair share. New development cannot be required to pay for existing deficiencies, and the amount of any impact fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual cost of providing the public services demanded by the new development on which the fee is imposed. Packet Pg 11 1 • Keep Council informed. At the beginning of the process to enact fees, it is important to ensure that the City council understands the nexus requirement. When a jurisdiction is a slow-growth community, it is important to explain that new development cannot be required to mitigate current deficiencies. When a jurisdiction is pro-growth, it is important to explain that undercharging new development may mandate that general fund monies be used to maintain required service levels. • Too many exactions might hurt, rather than help, the city’s economy. Although California has seen a robust economy during the last five years, the reality is that development can only absorb so many fees before development doesn’t “pencil out”. Before a city starts creating multiple layers of fees, it should consider what types of developments are most affected by high impact fees and whether the kinds of development the city wants to encourage will be helped or hindered by new fees. For example, housing advocates often argue that impact fees on residential projects can price many low- and moderate-income wage earners out of the local housing market and encourage developers to construct larger, more expensive homes because high -end occupants can more easily absorb higher impact fees. o Similarly, business groups argue that imposing fees on commercial development may prevent that city from attracting businesses into the city. If the city is interested in revitalizing its downtown area, high impact fees for commercial development may drive commercial tenants to a neighboring city or into an unincorporated area that has lower fees. o One way to address such issues is to provide fee waivers/discounts for certain types of development. For example, the City’s current fee program applies a 50% reduction of the Transportation Impact Fee to retail projects. Such waivers should be included in whatever fee legislation the city adopts. However, it is important to note that waivers/discounts cannot be funded with fee revenues, as this cross- subsidy would prove that fee payers are over charged. Other local government revenues must be relied upon to backfill revenues that are lost due to fee waivers/discounts. • Consider use of development agreements as appropriate. Agreements to pay fees or to construct infrastructure, which are contained in development agreements evidence contractual agreements between government and the developer, and are not constrained by AB 1600 requirements. To be safe, include a provision in your development agreement whereby the developer waives any right to contest fees under AB 1600 protest provisions. Organization of the Report The first step in determining an impact fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and the identification of projects needed to support the projected population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of various facility categories. • General Government Facilities Impact Fee – city hall and the public works/community development administrative facilities Packet Pg 12 1 • Public Safety Facilities Impact Fee – police and fire facilities • Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee – parkland and recreational facilities • Transportation Facilities Impact Fee – interchanges, roadways (widening & extensions), intersections, pedestrian/bicycle, and transit • Water and Wastewater Facility Impact Fees – capacity and connection facilities Each category is organized under the following sections to clearly document the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act discussed above: • The sections begin with a statement identifying the purpose of the fee by stating the types of facilities that would be funded. • The Service Population section identifies whether only residents or both residents and businesses benefit from the facilities in the associated category. It identifies the appropriate population figures to use in the analysis, and accounts for anticipated populations from those developments that have vested rights. For transportation facilities, the Trip Generation section defines the benefit relationship based on daily vehicle trips rather than on service population. • The Facility Standards and Fee Schedule section establishes a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and type of development pa ying the fee. This section also establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common factor for facility costs per capita or level of service, the schedule ensures that each development project pays its fair share of total facility costs. For Transportation facilities, the Proportionate Share and Fee Schedule sections defines the relationship based on land use types. • The Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth section establishes a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee revenues and the type of development paying the fee. This section also estimates the total facility costs associated with new development over the planning horizon. These costs equal the revenues that would be collected through the impact fee. Programming of revenues to specific projects would be done through the City’s annual capital improvement planning and budget process. Geographic Fee Area The geographic areas of the City to which the transportation impact fees could be applied are shown in Figure 1. These areas include the current City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Boundary, which is further divided into a North Area and a South Area based on the proportional growth that is anticipated to occur in the expansion or special focus areas identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan through the year 2035 and beyond. Those fee areas would include the following approved and pending projects: • San Luis Ranch Specific Plan • Avila Ranch Specific Plan • Froom Ranch Specific Plan Packet Pg 13 1 • Downtown Concept Plan Area • Airport Area Specific Plan • Margarita Area Specific Plan • Orcutt Area Specific Plan • Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) It should be noted that the Orcutt Area and LOVR Area specific plans have vesting agreements with the City for payment of fees. Their contributions must therefore be subtracted from the total cost of establishing a nexus, leaving the remainder of the cost to be divided between the remaining General Plan buildout projects. Figure 1: City of San Luis Obispo, North and South Transportation Fees Packet Pg 14 1 Population Projections The population estimates for the approved and pending developments were estimated by applying density factors for the number of people per dwelling unit (DU) to each of the residential land uses. The number of workers was estimated using density factors based on the number of building square feet for each worker. The land use, population, and employment estimates are summarized in Table 1, Attachment A. It assumes that the growth in the impact fee area will increase the City population by 9,900 people and will generate about 11,100 new jobs. Table S-1, Attachments A-E, present a summary of the updated maximum development impact fees for the City of San Luis Obispo in 2017 U.S. Dollars. Each facility category section provides a detailed discussion of how these fees were calculated. Background The City has several approved development impact fees and in-lieu fee programs that are currently collecting revenue. The City’s existing development impact fee programs include a transportation impact fee, a park improvement impact fee (for single family and condominium developments only), and water and wastewater capacity and connection charges. The City’s existing in-lieu fee programs include an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee, a public art in-lieu fee, and a parkland in-lieu fee (Quimby Act only). Unlike the development impact fee programs that are allowed under the Mitigation Fee Act, with in-lieu fee programs a developer has the option to provide the asset instead of paying the in-lieu fee. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to establish more development impact fee programs than are currently in place within the City today. Therefore, t his is why the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study includes both updates to the existing impact programs (for transportation and park improvements) and identifies new impact fee programs for general government and public safety facilities. It makes sense to evaluate and/or develop new fee programs and update the existing fees concurrently, because, if appropriately designed and implemented, a comprehensive impact fee program can contribute to a more holistic and systematic approach to planning for, and funding, future infrastructure needs. The studies completed will build upon and reference the body of analysis prepared as part of the City’s fee programs and infrastructure financing needs Citywide and in the City’s Specific Plan areas. The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan includes key policies relative to infrastructure financing. Policy 1.3 calls on the City to analyze infrastructure plans to ensure that they are “right sized” for the community. Policy 1.4 says that the fair -share fees applied to development should be appropriate and established a program to work with the City Council to study this issue. Thus, study sessions were held with the City Council and a set of recommendations was approved in a summary document reviewed by the Council on August 16, 2016, which can be reviewed in Attachment-I. One of the recommendations that came out of the study sessions was to establish fiscal and budget policies to guide decision-making around the various type of financing mechanisms available for infrastructure. The City Council approved the following new policies with the 2017-19 Financial Plan: Packet Pg 15 1 1. Public Purpose. There will be a clearly articulated public purpose in forming an assessment or special tax district in financing public infrastructur e improvements. This should include a finding by the Council as to why this form of financing is preferred over other funding options such as impact fees, reimbursement agreements or direct developer responsibility for the improvements. New development should generally be expected to “pay its own way,” (i.e., provide funding through one mechanism or another that funds its “proportional share” of public improvement and infrastructure costs and ongoing operations and maintenance costs). (1) The City will consider the use of city-based funding sources to fund public facility and infrastructure improvements that provide for the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents and/or provide measurable economic development and fiscal benefits. In evaluating whether the City will use city- based funding sources, the following evaluation criteria should be considered: (a) Significant public benefit, demonstrated by compliance with and furtherance of General Plan goals, policies, and programs (b) Alignment with the Major City Goals and other important objectives in place at the time of the application (c) Head of Household Job Creation (d) Housing Creation (e) Circulation/Connectivity Improvements (f) Net General Fund fiscal impact (2) The City generally will not fund or offer public financing for infrastructure improvements that confer only private benefit to individual property owners or development projects. (3) The City shall seek continuity (or improvements to) existing levels of municipal service by assuring adequate funding for the City’s operation, maintenance and infrastructure replacement costs.” The remainder of this report focuses on the results of the project to update the City’s impact fee structure. The fees identified are the maximum amounts that can be charged to develop ment based on the improvements identified or the service level desired, consistent with legal nexus requirements and fair-share analysis applied on a project by project basis. However, the City Council must consider the effect of the fee program in total, and in doing so, may provide staff with direction on the desire to incorporate other funding sources into the City’s infrastructure financing plans so that development impact fees stay reasonable and appropriate, and don’t impact the feasibility of new development. Packet Pg 16 1 Capital Facilities Fee Program Update 1. General Government Facilities Impact Fee This section presents an analysis of the need for public building facilities to accommodate new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. These public buildings include city hall and the public works/community development administrative office facilities. A fee is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to expand these facilities to meet its needs. Service Population City Hall and Public Works/Community Development administration facilities serve both homes and businesses citywide. Consequently, a service population that includes both residents and workers reasonably represents the need for these facilities. As population grows with new development, so does demand for the administrative services provided by these facilities. Table 1, Attachment A, shows the estimated future service population for general government building facilities for 2035 and beyond. In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect lower per capita service demand. Non- residential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per worker demand for services is less than average per- resident demand. The 0.50-weighting factor for workers is based on resident equivalency weighting of half an employee to one resident. Packet Pg 17 1 Facility Standards and Fee Per capita facility standards are used in calculating the impact fee to ensure a reasonable relationship exists between new development and the need for expansion of city hall and public works/community development facilities. The costs associated with the future expansion of City Hall and Public Works/Community Development facilities were divided by the service population that included both residents and workers (equivalent residents) to obtain a per capita cost. The resulting cost per resident of $274.64. The cost per worker is $137.32 (0.50 x 274.64). The cost per capita was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a fee for each land use, as shown in Table 3, Attachment-A. 2. Public Safety Fee Program This section presents an analysis of the need for public safety facilities to accommodate new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. A maximum fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs. Service Population Public safety facilities serve both homes and businesses citywide. Consequently, a service population that includes both residents and workers reasonably represents the need for these facilities. Table 3, Attachment-B, shows the estimated service population for public safety facilities for 2035 and beyond. In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect lower per capita service demand. The 0.50-weighting factor for workers is based on the estimated number of service calls per employee compared to a resident. Facility Standards and Fee Per capita facility standards are used in calculating the impact fee to ensure a reasonable relationship exists between new development and the need for new public safety facilities. a. Fire Facilities Table 1, Attachment-B, list a variety of fire safety related capital improvement projects that range from existing fire station repairs to construction of Fire Station 5. Table 2, Attachment-B, list a variety of fire vehicles and apparatus that will require replacement. The total funded cost for these fire facilities is presented in Table 4, Attachment-B. The cost associated with the future Fire public safety facilities were divided by the service population that included both residents and workers (equivalent resident) to obtain a per resident cost of $223.40. A weight factor of 0.50 was applied to residential per capita costs to obtain the non-residential per capita costs. The cost per worker is $111.70 (0.50 x 223.40). The cost per capita was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a fee for each residential land use, as shown in Table 4, Attachment-B. Packet Pg 18 1 b. Police Facilities Table 1, Attachment-C, list one project, the construction of a new police headquarters. Table 3, Attachment-C, list the police vehicle cost to serve new development. The total funded cost for these police facilities is presented in Table 4, Attachment-C. The cost associated with the future police headquarters was divided by the service population that included both residents and workers (equivalent resident) to obtain a per capita cost of $265.84. A weight factor of 0.50 was applied to residential per capita costs to obtain the non- residential per capita costs. The cost per worker is $132.92 (0.50 x 265.84). The co st per capita was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a fee for each residential land use, as shown in Table 4, Attachment-C. Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth As shown below in Table S-1, Attachment-B and -C, provides an estimate of the maximum impact fee that could be applied for public safety facilities at build-out in 2035 and beyond. The City would maintain a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues by funding a variety of projects to expand public safety facilities during this period. Packet Pg 19 1 3. Parkland Fee Program This section presents an analysis of the need for parks and park facilities to accommodate new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. A maximum fee schedule is presented based on the cost to require that new development provides funding to meet its needs. Policies and Existing Conditions The City’s 2001 Parks and Recreation Element identifies the policies listed below related to the development of parks and recreational facilities. Unfortunately, this is a document that was drafted in the 1990s and was based upon then identified needs. It is outdated and does not reflect many of the more recent planning initiatives that were adopted as part of the City’s General Plan when the Land Use and Circulation Elements were updated in 2014. With the adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan, the City Council allocated funding for an update of the Parks and Recreation Element and creation of a Master Plan for future parks and facilities in support of recreation activities in the City. Staff will be bringing a project plan and request for proposals to Council in November 2017. Upon completion of that work effort, the approved Master Plan will provide Council with a prioritized list of future parks and recreational facility needs. As such, it is anticipated that the fees for parks and park facilities will in the future need adjustment with the update of the list of projects. The policies in the updated element of course will continue to be consistent with the Quimby Act and are anticipated to aligned with existing policy as well. • Policy 3.13.1 The Park System: The City shall develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres per 1,000 residents. Five acres shall be dedicated as Packet Pg 20 1 neighborhood park. The remaining five acres required under the 10 acres per 1,000 residents in the residential annexation policy may be located anywhere within the City’s park system as deemed appropriate. • Policy 3.15.1 Neighborhood Parks: San Luis Obispo residents shall have access to a neighborhood park within 0.5 to 1.0-mile walking distance of their residence. • Policy 3.15.1 Neighborhood Parks: All residential annexations areas shall provide developed neighborhood parks at the rate of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. • Policy 5.0.1 Facilities: The City shall continue to acquire parkland through the development review and annexation process. • Policy 5.0.2 Facilities: For Annexation areas, at least 10 acres of developed parkland for each 1,000 new residents shall be provided by the developer. • Policy 5.0.4. Facilities: The City Council shall review the park in-lieu fees periodically to ensure that they stay consistent with land acquisition and development costs. • Policy 5.0.5. Facilities: Park on-lieu fees shall be committed to a project within two years from collection and shall have direct benefit to area for which they were intended. Existing Inventory of Improved Parkland The city has a total improved park acreage of 195.4 acres. This total includes 183.2 acres of community parks, neighborhood parks, and mini-parks; and 12.2 acres of recreational facilities (i.e., the Ludwick Center, SLO Swim Center, and so on). Based on the 2017 City population of 46,724, this represents 4.18 acres per 1,000 residents. Quimby Act In addition to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees for park land acquisition can be applied under the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), which requires developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees and/or cash- in-lieu of land for park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The Quimby Act provides specific acreage/population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and requires that the exactions must be closely tied (nexus) to a project’s impacts as identified through environmental review required by CEQA. The Quimby Act is only applicable as a condition of subdivision map approval. Service Population The City’s parks, recreational facilities, and recreational programs are widely used by a diverse population and serve both residents, non-residents, and employees of local businesses. Many employees of local businesses use the City’s parks (such as eating lunch in a park, walking on the paths at Meadow Park, taking an aqua aerobics class at the SLO Swim Center, playing Adult Soccer and Softball and more) daily. Consequently, a service population that includes both residents and workers reasonably represents the true need for these facilities. As population grows with new development, so does demand for recreation services provided by these facilities. Table 6, Attachment D, shows the service population assumptions that were used to calculate the maximum fee. Packet Pg 21 1 Facility Standards and Fee Per capita facility standards are used in calculating the impact fee to ensure a reasonable relationship exists between new development and the need for new parks and park facilities. A per capita cost was calculated based on the estimated cost of new park facility, as shown in Tables 4 & 5, Attachment-D. This cost was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a maximum fee, as shown in Table 7, Attachment-D. This method of calculating assures that fairness exists between new and existing development and that new development only funds expanded facilities to maintain the current level of service standards. Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth As shown below in Table S-1, Attachment-D, provides an estimate of the maximum impact fee that could be applied for parks and recreation facilities at build-out in 2035 and beyond. The City would maintain a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues by funding a variety of projects to expand parks and recreation facilities during this period. Table S-2, of Attachment D, provides a comparison between the current fees and the maximum fees that can be levied. The current fee program does not include fees for multi - family apartments, or any non-residential uses (office, retail, hotel, etc.). 4. Transportation Fee Program This section presents an analysis of the need for transportation facilities to accommodate new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. These include multimodal projects such as intersection & corridor improvements, protected bikeways, buses and transit facilities. A Packet Pg 22 1 maximum fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs. Trip Generation Transportation facilities serve both homes and businesses citywide. Consequently, trip generation rates based on both residential and non -residential land uses reasonably represents the need for these facilities. Different development projects impact the transportation network at different rates based on the number of trips they generate. The amount of daily and peak hour trips generated by the approved and pending projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program were obtained from the City’s Transportation Model, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LUCE Update. Table 3, Attachment-E, presents the average daily trips generated by the projects in the Transportation Impact Fee program. The projects are estimated to generate approximately 257,865 average daily trips. These daily trip estimates are used in calculating fees for interchanges, roadways, intersections, pedestrian/bicycle and transit facilities improvements. Transportation Project Inventory Table A-3, Attachment-E, contains the list of interchanges, roadways, intersections, pedestrian/bicycle and transit facilities improvements projects in the CIP program. The list also indicates which projects will or are expected to receive funding from other sources including Regional government, grants, and developers. Table 2, Attachment-E, summarizes the total transportation facilities improvement costs that will be funded by the Transportation Impact Fee program, after accounting for financing costs, regional funding sources, support existing development and/or address existing deficiencies, but does not include adjustments for existing fee balances. Transportation Development Impact Fee Calculations To calculate the fee for transportation projects, the balance of the costs (approximately $79 million for interchanges, $47 million for intersections, $38 million, $82.5 million for roadways, $58 million for pedestrian/bicycle improvements, $6.5 million for transit, and $3 million for median and corridor improvements) were adjusted by subtracting the estimated costs to be recovered by regional funding sources and the portion of improvement cost that support existing development and/or address existing deficiencies. regional funding. Those costs were then divided by the total number of trips allocated to the North and South Areas to get an average cost per trip (ADT). These costs were then multiplied by the trip rates to determine the fee for each land use category, as shown in Table 4, Attachment-E. This method of calculation assures that fairness exists between new and existing development and that new development only funds expanded facilities to maintain the current level of service standards. Transportation Fee Summary Table S-1, Attachment-E, provides a summary of the maximum impact fees for Packet Pg 23 1 interchange, roadways, intersections, pedestrian/bicycle and transit projects that could be generated at build-out in 2035 and beyond. Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program The Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program ensures that existing ratepayers and new development equitably apportion costs related to existing and future capital expenditures. On February 7, 2017, the City Council provided staff input on the update to what was formerly identified as the City’s water and wastewater development impact fees. At that session, Council supported the name change to “capacity and connection” fees to more clearly communicate what the fees were paying for. The complete 2017 Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study (2017 Study), prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., is provided in Attachment F. Recommended fees are provided in Table 2. The methodology used in the 2017 Study the divides the value of existing and future water and wastewater capital improvement costs by the estimated number of future growth units. In the 2017 Study, a “growth unit” is represented by a quantity of water demand and wastewater generation by one residential unit. The City updated the projections for future residential and non-residential development in “equivalent dwelling units,” or EDUs, based on a reduction in average water use and wastewater generation, finding that 5,821 future EDUs can be accommodated in the City. In the 2017 Study, the residential fee category was modified to add new categories to correspond to residential units between 451 and 800 square feet and 801 square feet or more as water demand correlates more closely to unit size than a single- or multi-family residential land use designation. Fees for non-residential EDUs in the 2017 Study are based on water meter safe operating capacity ratios from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) specifications. Packet Pg 24 1 Table 2: Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Water Capacity and Connection Fee Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Residential (by Unit Size) Residential Unit (801 square feet or more) 1.0 $15,780 $12,602 Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.7 $11,046 $8,821 Mobile Home 0.6 $9,468 $7,561 Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.3 $4,734 $3,781 Non-Residential (by Meter Size) ¾” 1.0 $15,780 $12,602 1” 1.7 $26,826 $21,423 1.5” 3.4 $53,652 $42,847 2” 5.4 $85,212 $68,051 3” 10.7 $168,846 $134,841 4” 16.7 $263,526 $210,453 6” 33.4 $527,052 $420,907 Alternative Fee Considerations As part of item PH2 of this agenda, the City Council is presented with a recommendation to adopt a fee program for water and wastewater capacity and connection fees. The current staff recommendation for this fee is to use Water Option 2 and Wastewater Option 4, with represents the maximum charge for “cost-based capacity and connection fees” based on development’s fair share of existing infrastructure and future capital improvements needed to serve future development. Using the maximum charge for these options puts the lowest upward pressure on rates. If the Council is interested in reducing these development impact fees, it should provide direction to staff to evaluate the potential impact on rates if the maximum fees are not charged. Implementation Considerations The facility and infrastructure impact fees for general government, public safety, parks and recreation, transportation, and water and wastewater capacity and connection would be collected at the time of building permit issuance. To implement any of those fees the City will need to: • Annually update a capital improvement plan to indicate the specific uses of fee revenues for facilities to accommodate growth; • Comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code 66000 et seq.; and Packet Pg 25 1 • Identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and allow an inflation adjustment to the fee annually. For the inflation indexes, the City should use separate indexes for land and construction costs. Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser every several years. The construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR). Timeframe: The identification of infrastructure and capital facilities improvements must be consistent with the timeframe under consideration in the nexus studies. The choice of timeframe is also based in part on an assessment of the accuracy and availability of land use and cost data. In this case, the projects evaluated in the fee program are those needed to implement the 2014 General Plan update, or through 2035. Infill Development: Capturing the demand from infill development will be important to the success of the fee programs, at least from an equity perspective. Consolidation of related fees: The City already has a Citywide transportation fee in addition to four Specific Plan areas fees. In some circumstances, a single combined fee may improve the City’s flexibility in terms of how fee revenue can be spent and may ease the administration/accounting requirements. In other circumstances, where the nexus logic does not support fee consolidation, a system of fee zones and/or layering that vary be geography ma y be appropriate. The issue of whether to have one Citywide fee or multiple fees that vary by location (or a combination of the two) will have both technical and policy implications Total Fee Burden: As the City considers updates to its impact fee structure, it is important to keep the total fee burden experienced by a given development project in context. As part of the infrastructure financing strategies identified in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, a series of study sessions have been presented to the City Council that outline the various options available for financing important infrastructure. For example, for a single-family residential development, under current market conditions, the general rule of thumbs that the fee burden should not exceed 15 percent of the cost of the unit. This is illustrated in the following graphic. The analysis of City’s Capital Facilities Fee Program and Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program considers the overall fee burden on various types of development projects (prototypes) to maintain overall financial feasibility. These efforts are being coordinated to ensure consistency and compatibility across the fee program from the standpoint of fee administration and financial feasibility. Please see Attachment-G for examples of the anticipated total fee burden for the Single Family, Multi-family Apartments, Office/Business Park (standalone building), Office/Service (standalone building), and Retail prototypes. The industry feasibility threshold s for fee burden is shown in green (10% of market value), yellow (15% of market value), and red (20% of market value. Packet Pg 26 1 Potential Economic Impacts of New Impact Fees The results of the impact fee nexus analysis identify the maximum legal impact fees that could be charged on new development in San Luis Obispo. Legally, the City Council can adopt impact fees at or below the maximum legal amounts identified. The findings of the economic feasibility analysis show that the levels of impact fees that could be absorbed by new development in the near future, are substantially below the maximum legal impact fees identified. Similar results occur in most communities. Typically, impact fee programs seek to balance the need for impact fee revenues with the ability of development to pay the impact fees without affecting the pace and amount of development. The finding that new impact fees are at their maximum levels from an economic feasibility perspective indicates that there could be some projects where new impact fees could delay development until other changes in revenue or costs occur. These could include multi -family, retail and office buildings types that can be difficult to finance and require high rents and process to achieve feasibility before the additional costs of new impact fees. Imposing new impact fees also could affect development in locations with lower rents and prices and limited or no market- rate development, where feasibility is particularly sensitive to costs including the cost of new impact fees. There are benefits associated with impact fee programs for development. Two types of benefits can be important. • Greater certainty up front as to the impact fee amount and any other requirements can be of a substantial benefit to a developer in saving time and costs as opposed to the situation with little clarity and ad hoc negotiations. • A mechanism for paying a development’s fair share of costs can be of benefit to a developer compared to the situation where the largest project or the first project in an area must pay the full cost of improvements serving the larger surrounding area while subsequent projects pay less. An example is transportation impact fees to fund improvements required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Impact Fee Comparisons Among Benchmark Cities The analysis includes a comparative review of impacts in the cities that San Luis Obispo currently uses as benchmarks. The focus was on impact fees assessed on the development prototypes that were evaluated for the feasibility analysis. While impact fees in other cities are not necessarily indicative of the level of impact fees feasible and appropriate in San Luis Obispo, the evaluation offers insight into relevant market and feasibility considerations. The complete analysis of the development impact fee comparisons for the Single Family, Multifamily Apartment, Office and Retail prototypes is provided in Attachment-H. CONCURRENCES The proposed update to the City’s development impact fee programs combined sound technical analysis with a collaborative, iterative, and informed decision-making process. The technical analysis was grounded in legally defensible nexus arguments, with ongoing policy direction from various stakeholders, including City staff, advisory bodies, the local public, and the development Packet Pg 27 1 community. To help achieve politically and economically acceptable fees, the ultimate objective was the establishment of a revised set of development impact fees that strike a mutually enforcing balance between infrastructure and parks and new residential and economic development in the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is a study session, so staff is not recommending Council take any action on the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study or the Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study now. Modification of rates and charges by public agencies is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the Public Resources Code because changes in fees is not intended to fund expansion of capital projects not otherwise evaluated under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT This is a study session, therefore there is no direct fiscal impact associated with it. However, there will be fiscal impacts associated with any action the City Council takes when it considers the Final Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study on October 17 th and the Final Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study on November 7 th. The following is a summary of the alternative funding sources that could be used to fund the infrastructure and facilities that will be impacted because of new development: • Existing or new General Fund revenues • Existing or new general purpose taxes • New special purpose taxes (any new special purpose tax would require two -thirds voter approval) • Existing or new assessments (any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner approval) • Grants where the use of the funds are restricted for eligible capital facilities improvement projects However, the City has specific policies in place that discourage earmarking general-purpose revenues, whether in the General Fund or Enterprise Funds. It is also the City’s policy that new development should pay its fair share of the cost of constructing the community facilities needed to serve it. For this reason, the City has established development impact fees for water, wastewater, and transportation improvements. The City has also adopted in-lieu fees for parking, parkland dedication (consistent with the Quimby Act), and “inclusionary moderate and low-income housing” requirements. This allows developers to pay in-lieu fees instead of providing the required asset. NEXT STEPS The following objectives are the most important factors in establishing new development impact fees for transportation, water and wastewater capacity and connection, park land acquisition and improvement, general government administration, and public safety: Packet Pg 28 1 1. The fees must be legally defensible. The fee should be developed and implemented in a fashion that unambiguously complies with applicable State law. The fees should be based on explicit growth and cost assumptions and sound nexus arguments that ensure the types of improvements and facilities and the costs of the improvements and facilities are directly attributable to benefiting land uses. 2. The fees must be financially effective. The fees developed should provide sufficient means for successfully funding the new improvements and required capital facilities targeted by the program. Given that fee revenues are likely to represent only one, albeit important, funding source for transportation, capital facilities and parks improvements, the development impact fee program must be effectively integrated with other programs and resources to ensure stakeholders (and developers who pay the fees) that the facilities will ultimately be built. 3. The fees must be politically and economically viable. The fees developed in this process should reflect input from key stakeholders in the community to ensure that they receive broad support. Although the technical steps provide the basis for completing the impact fee study, it is recognized that ultimate approval will require compromise and policy choices. To this end, it will be important to work closely with stakeholders. In addition, it will be important to understand and monitor the economic implications of the fee program to ensure that financial burdens on development are reasonable and do not hinder growth. The consideration of the Final Capacity and Connection Fee Study is on the Council Agenda for October 17,2017, and the Final Capital Facilities Fee Program Study is on the Council Agenda for November 7, 2017. Implementation of the new fee programs is planned for January 1, 2018. FOCUSED QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council Direction to help guide the City Council in their deliberations: General Government Impact Fee Program 1. Is there support to implement a new General Government fee program? 2. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider making some policy-based reductions? Public Safety – Fire Impact Fee Program 3. Is there support to implement a new public safety fee program to support costs for Fire Department facilities and equipment? 4. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider making some policy-based reductions? Public Safety – Police Impact Fee Program 5. Is there support to implement a new public safety fee program to supports costs for Police Packet Pg 29 1 Department facilities and equipment? 6. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider making some policy-based reductions? Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Program 7. Should changes to the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee program be implemented now, or should they be delayed until the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan Update? 8. Does Council agree that multifamily and apartment residential developments have impacts on existing parks and recreational facilities and create the need for more parks and recreational facilities? 9. Is there support to use the Mitigation Fee Act to charge multifamily and apartment residential development impact fees for parks and recreational facilities? 10. Does Council agree that non-residential developments, with employees and/or hotel guest, have impacts on existing parks and recreational facilities and create the need for more parks and recreational facilities? 11. Is there support to use the Mitigation Fee Act to charge for non-residential development impact fees for parks and recreational facilities? 12. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider making some policy-based reductions? Transportation Impact Fee Program 13. Is there support for the proposed consolidation of existing subarea fees, based on Specific Plan boundaries, into a Citywide fee area that is then allocated based on geography (North and South area)? 14. Is there support to leave the existing LOVR and OASP out of the proposed update to the fee program? 15. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider making some policy-based reductions? Currently, a 50% reduction is applied to the Transportation Impact Fee for retail land uses. Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program 16. Is the Council comfortable with charging the maximum fee applicable to new development, or should increasing rates be considered as an available alternative to address the costs identified in the fee program? Packet Pg 30 1 Attachments: a - General Government Review Tables b - Public Safety: Fire Review Tables c - Public Safety: Police Review Tables d - Parks Review Tables e - Transportation Review Tables f - Council Reading File: Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee -Final Study g - Fee Comparisons with Benchmark Communities h - Total Fee Burden Feasibility Analysis i - Council Reading File: Public Financing Framework and Draft Policies Packet Pg 31 1 General Government Packet Pg 32 1 Table S-1Maximum Development Impact Fees: General GovernmentSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemResidential Single Family$689.77 per UnitMultifamily$496.70 per Unit Non-Residential Office $0.46 per Sq.Ft. Retail $0.25 per Sq.Ft.Industrial $0.18 per Sq.Ft.Institutional $0.25 per Sq.Ft.Service $0.25 per Sq.Ft.Lodging $137.32 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Maximum General GovernmentDevelopment Impact FeeEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General GovernmentPacket Pg 331 Table 1Service Population ProjectionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 (1)2035 New GrowthAvg. Annual Growth Rate (2)Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1% Jobs52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1% Total Estimated Service Population (3)72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%Percentage82.4% 100.0% 17.6%1.1%(1) 2017 population is based on estimates from the Department of Finance. Job projections are based on SLOCOG estimates.(2) Average annual growth rate for population is slightly higher than the 1% growth policy as the projection is based on the LUCE base year of 2013. (3) Employee weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percentthe weight of residents because of reduced service demands.Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 341 Table 2Capital Cost Summary: General GovernmentSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187City Hall22,971Public Works/ Community Development Office17,000Total Existing Administrative Facilities39,971Existing Service Population (1)Implied Citywide Existing Service Standard549 Sq.Ft./1,000 Serv. Pop. New Service Population (1) Square Footage Allocated to New Growth 8,522Average Administrative Facilities Construction Cost $500Development Cost Allocated to New GrowthAverage Cost per New Service Population(1) See Table 1Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.$274.64$4,261,246Sq.Ft.per Sq.Ft.Sq.Ft.ItemAssumptions72,770 15,516 Sq.Ft.Sq.Ft.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General GovernmentPacket Pg 351 Table 3Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: General GovernmentSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (2)$274.64Residential Single Family2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit1.02.5$689.77 per UnitMultifamily1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit1.01.8$496.70 per Unit Non-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.51.7$0.46 per Sq.Ft. Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.9$0.25 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.7$0.18 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.25 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.25 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room1.0 Emp./Room0.50.5$137.32 per Room(1) Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.(2) See Table 2Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Assumptions (1)Service Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomMaximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General GovernmentPacket Pg 361 Fire Packet Pg 37 1 Table S-1Maximum Development Impact Fees: FireSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemResidential Single Family$561.08 per UnitMultifamily$404.03 per Unit Non-Residential Office $0.37 per Sq.Ft.Retail $0.20 per Sq.Ft.Industrial $0.15 per Sq.Ft.Institutional $0.20 per Sq.Ft.Service $0.20 per Sq.Ft.Lodging $111.70 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Maximum Fire Development Impact FeeEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 381 Table 1Cost Summary: Fire Capital ImprovementsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Fire Station 1 Fire Apparatus Repair Facility (Remodel) Fire Station 2 and 3Fire Station 4 Remodel of Dorm and Construction of Multi- Purpose Building (Remodel)Fire Station 5 (New Construction)Fire PumperTotalSources: City of San Luis Obispo; Fire Service Master Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department 2009 and 2016; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Item$14,372,037Capital Cost$550,000$7,500,000$400,000$5,322,037$600,000Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 391 Table 2Cost Summary: Fire VehiclesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Fire DepartmentVehicle Assigned Acquisition Replacement Number of ReplacementCost Average Total ThroughIdentificationDescriptionProgramYearYearUnitsLifeper Unit Annual Cost BuildoutVehiclesFord F150Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonTraining Services200220171.015.0$58,000$3,867$69,600Pierce LanceFire Truck, PumperEmergency Response 200320181.015.0$624,000 $41,600$748,800Ford RangerPickup Truck, CompactFire Administration200520201.015.0$40,000$2,667$48,000Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility Bed Emergency Response 200820211.013.0$110,000$8,462$152,308Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility BedEmergency Response 200820211.013.0$110,000$8,462$152,308Ford F150Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200820211.013.0$65,000$5,000$90,000International Navistar Fire Truck, Heavy DutyEmergency Response 200720221.015.0$550,000 $36,667$660,000Chevrolet Silverado Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200720231.016.0$50,000$3,125$56,250Chevrolet Silverado Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200720231.016.0$50,000$3,125$56,250Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, Crew Cab 4x4 w/Hooklift Bed Emergency Response 200120251.024.0$58,255$2,427$43,691Toyota 4RunnerSUVEmergency Response 201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Toyota 4RunnerSUVEmergency Response 201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Chevrolet Suburban SUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4n/a201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Onan DQHAB-750033 Generator, Stationaryn/a200920291.020.0$140,000$7,000$140,000Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationaryn/a200620261.020.0$50,000$2,500$50,000Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationaryn/a200620261.020.0$50,000$2,500$50,000Toyota Rav4SUVFire Prevention201520281.013.0$50,000$3,846$69,231Toyota Rav4SUVFire Prevention201520281.013.0$40,000$3,077$55,385Chrevrolet Suburban SUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4Emergency Response 201620291.013.0$40,000$3,077$55,385Pierce ArrowFire Truck, Tiller QuintEmergency Response 201020291.019.0$120,000$6,316$113,684Pierce Fire Truck, PumperEmergency Response 201520301.015.0$1,250,000 $83,333 $1,500,000Mitsubishi FG50CN1 Forklfit, 10KEmergency Response201520341.019.0$1,000,000$52,632$947,368Total Vehicles 22.0 $4,650,255 $295,931 $5,350,759Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Fire Service Master Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department 2009 and 2016; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 401 Table 3Service Population ProjectionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 (1)2035 New GrowthAvg. Annual Growth Rate (2)Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1% Jobs52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1% Total Estimated Service Population (3)72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%Percentage82.4% 100.0% 17.6%1.1%(1) 2017 population is based on estimates from the Department of Finance. Job projections are based on SLOCOG estimates.(2) Average annual growth rate for population is slightly higher than the 1% growth policy as the projection is based on the LUCE base year of 2013. (3) Employee weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percentthe weight of residents because of reduced service demands.Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 411 Table 4Capital Cost Allocations to Existing and New GrowthSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemTotal Existing New Growth Allocation (1)100.0%82.4%17.6%Improvement/ Vehicle CostsFire Capital Improvements (2) $14,372,037 $11,846,222 $2,525,815Fire Vehicles (3)$5,350,759$4,410,390$940,370Total$19,722,796 $16,256,612 $3,466,184New Growth Improvement Costs $3,466,184New Service Population (1)15,516Average Cost per New Service Population$223.40(1) See Table 3(2) See Table 1(3) See Table 2Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 421 Table 5Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: FireSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (2)$223.40Residential Single Family2.51 Persons/Unit2.51Persons/Unit1.02.5$561.08 per UnitMultifamily1.81 Persons/Unit1.81 Persons/Unit1.01.8$404.03 per Unit Non-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.51.7$0.37per Sq.Ft Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.9$0.20 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.7$0.15 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.20 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.20 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room1.0 Emp./Room0.50.5$111.70 per Room(1) Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.(2) See Table 4Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Assumptions (1)Maximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomService Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 431 Police Packet Pg 44 1 Table S-1Maximum Development Impact Fees: PoliceSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemResidential Single Family$667.67 per UnitMultifamily$480.79 per UnitNon-ResidentialOffice $0.44 per Sq.Ft.Retail $0.24 per Sq.Ft.Industrial $0.18 per Sq.Ft.Institutional $0.24 per Sq.Ft.Service $0.24 per Sq.Ft.Lodging $132.92 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Maximum PoliceDevelopment Impact FeeEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 451 Table 1Service Population ProjectionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 (1)2035 New GrowthAvg. Annual Growth Rate (2)Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1% Jobs (3)52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1% Total Estimated Service Population (3)72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%Percentage82.4% 100.0% 17.6%1.1%(1) 2017 population is based on estimates from the Department of Finance. Job projections are based on SLOCOG estimates.(2) Average annual growth rate for population is slightly higher than the 1% growth policy as the projection is based on the LUCE base year of 2013. (3) Employee weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percentthe weight of residents because of reduced service demands.Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 461 Table 2Cost Summary: Police Capital ImprovementsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Sq.Ft.Est. Cost/Sq.Ft.New Police Headquarters (New Construction) (1)40,000 $500 $20,000,000Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.ItemTotal Capital Cost(1) Existing police headquarters is approximately 15,000 square feet and serves 59 sworn officers (254 sq.ft./sworn officer). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 471 Table 3Cost Summary: Police VehiclesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Formula AssumptionsExisting Police Vehiclesa44 Existing Sworn Officersb59 Police Vehicles/Sworn Officersc=a/b0.75 Existing Service Populationd72,770 Sworn Officers/1,000 Serv. Pop.e=b/(d/1,000)0.81 Net New Service PopulationfImplied New Sworn Officersg=(e(f/1,000))12.58 Implied New Vehicles (1)h=gc9.38 Estimated Cost per Vehiclei$65,000Police Vehicle Cost to Serve New Developmentj=i*h$609,800.26(1) Average cost includes range of vehicles such as tactical vehicles.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Item15,516 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 481 Table 4Capital Cost Allocations to Existing and New GrowthSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemTotal Existing New GrowthAllocation for Capital Improvements (1) 100.0% 82.4% 17.6%Allocation for Vehicles100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Improvement/ Vehicle CostsPolice Capital Improvements (2) $20,000,000 $16,485,099 $3,514,901Police Vehicles (3) $609,800$0$609,800Total$20,609,800 $16,485,099 $4,124,701New Growth Improvement Costs$4,124,701Service Population Growth15,516Average Cost per New Service Population$265.84(1) See Table 3(2) See Table 1(3) See Table 2Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 491 Table 5Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: PoliceSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (2)$265.84Residential Single Family2.51 Persons/Unit2.51Persons/Unit1.02.5$667.67 per UnitMultifamily1.81 Persons/Unit1.81 Persons/Unit1.01.8$480.79 per Unit Non-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.51.7$0.44 per Sq.Ft. Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.9$0.24 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.7$0.18 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.24 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.24 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room1.0 Emp./Room0.50.5$132.92 per Room(1) Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.(2) See Table 4Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Assumptions (1)Service Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomMaximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 501 Parks Packet Pg 51 1 Table S-1Maximum Citywide Parkland and Improvement Development Fees (Outside of Expansion Areas)San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Quimby Act Mitigation Fee Act Mitigation Fee ActParklandParkland Park ImprovementLand UseIn-Lieu FeeImpact FeeImpact FeeResidentialSingle Family$3,150.85$0$2,879.53$6,030.38 per UnitMultifamily (Condominiums)$2,268.91$0$2,073.54$4,342.44 per UnitMultifamily (Apartments)$0$1,456.82$2,073.54$3,530.35 per UnitNon-ResidentialOffice$0$1.34$1.91$3.25 per Sq.Ft.Retail/ Service/ Institutional$0$0.73$1.04$1.77 per Sq.Ft.Industrial$0$0.54$0.76$1.30 per Sq.Ft.Hotel (per Room)$0$403$573$976 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. MaximumNew FeePacket Pg 521 Table S-2Comparison of Estimated Maximum with Current FeesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Existing Land UseFeeResidentialSingle Family$5,668.00$6,030.38 per UnitMultifamily (Condominiums) $4,494.00$4,342.44 per UnitMultifamily (Apartments)$0$3,530.35 per UnitNon-ResidentialOffice$0$3.25 per Sq.Ft.Retail/ Service/ Institutional$0$1.77 per Sq.Ft.Industrial$0$1.30 per Sq.Ft.Hotel (per Room)$0$976.01 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.MaximumNew FeePacket Pg 531 Table 1 Existing Parks and Recreation Land San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187 Existing Park and Recreation Land * Acreage Existing Parklands Damon Garcia Sports Field, Broad @Tank Farm 22.0 Chinese Garden, Santa Rosa @ Marsh 0.3 DeVaul Park , west end of Madonna 0.9 Emerson Park, Nipomo @ Pacific 3.3 French Park, Poinsettia @ Fuller 10.0 Laguna Hills Park, San Andriano Ct.3.2 Demonstration Garden, South @ Broad 0.1 Vista lago Park, Vista del lago 0.2 Stoneridge Park, 535 Bluerock Dr 1.0 Buena Vista Park, Buena Vista Ave.0.5 Sinsheimer Park/ Sports Complex, 900 Southwood 21.7 Mitchell Park, Osos @ Bucheon 3.0 Anholm Park, Mission St 0.1 Throop Park, Cuesta @ Cerro Romauldo 3.0 Santa Rosa Park, Santa Rosa @Oak 11.0 Johnson Park, Augusta 5.0 Meadow Park, South @ Meadow 16.0 Ellsford Park, San Luis Drive near California 1.0 Osos Triangle Park, Osos @ Church 0.2 Las Praderas Park, Las Praderas and Mariposa 0.4 Priolo-Martin Park, Vista del Collados & Vista del Arroyo 0.5 Laguna Lake Park, 500 Madonna Rd 40.0 Jack House Gardens, Marsh @ Beach 0.8 Laguna Lake Golf Course, 11175 LOVR 27.0 Railroad Bike Path, Orcutt to Jennifer 10.0 Poinsettia Creek Walk, Poinsettia @ Rosemary 2.0 Total Existing Parklands 183.2 Existing Recreational Facilities Rodriguez Adobe, Purple Sage Lane 1.4 Islay Hills Park, Tank Farm @ Orcutt 6.0 Canet Adobe, 464 Dana St.0.5 Mission Plaza, Broad @ Monterey 3.0 Ludwick Center, Santa Rosa @ Mill 1.0 Jack House, 536 Marsh St 0.1 Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa St 0.1 Meadow Park Center, 2333 Meadow St 0.1 Total Existing Recreational Facilities 12.2 Total Existing Parklands and Recreational Facilities 195.4 * This does not include the substantial inventory of City open space. Packet Pg 54 1 Table 2Current Parks Provision/ Implied Service StandardSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 City Residents2017 Jobs2017 City Service Population (1)2017 Park and Recreation Land195.39 acresPark Acres per 1,000 Residents4.18 acresPark Acres per 1,000 Service Population2.69 acres(1) Service population is a measure of relative demand between residents and employees. Jobs/ employees are given half the weight of a resident.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; California Department of Finance (population); SLOCOG (jobs); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.46,72452,09272,770AmountEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 551 Table 3Statutory Authority and Parkland and Park Improvements Service Standards AppliedSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemLandImprovementsResidentialSingle Family/ Condominiums Quimby ActMitigation Fee Act4.18 acres/ 1,000 residents2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.Multifamily ApartmentsMitigation Fee ActMitigation Fee Act2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop. 2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.Non-ResidentialAll TypesMitigation Fee ActMitigation Fee Act2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop. 2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 561 Table 4Single Family/ Condominium Development: Parkland In-Lieu and Park Improvements Cost per PersonSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemExisting Standard 4.18 acres/ 1,000 persons 2.69 acres/ 1,000 serv. pop.Cost/ Acre (1) $300,000 per acre $427,000 per acre $727,000 per acreCost/ 1,000 persons$2,401.05 per Service Populationper Serv. Pop. (1) Per acre land and improvement costs provided by City staff based on recent values from the Orcutt Area.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Cost per Person/TotalLand (1)Improvements (1)(Quimby Act In-Lieu)(Mitigation Fee Act)$1,254,537$2,401,049$1,254.54 $1,146,512$1,146.51 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 571 Table 5Multi-Family Apartments and Non-Residential Development: Parkland and Improvement Costs per Service PopulationSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemStandard 2.69 acres/ 1,000 serv. pop. 2.69 acres/ 1,000 serv. pop.Cost/ Acre $300,000 per acre $427,000 per acre$727,000 per acreCost/ 1,000 Service Population$1,952.02 per Service Population(1) Per acre land and improvement costs provided by City staff based on recent values from the Orcutt Area.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Land (1)Improvements (1)Average Cost per New (Mitigation Fee Act)(Mitigation Fee Act)Total$805,512$805.51$1,146,512$1,146.51$1,952,024Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 581 Table 6Population, Employment, and Service Population AssumptionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Persons per Unit/Service PopulationPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq. Ft./ Service Population per Unit/ 1,000 Sq. Ft./ItemSq. Ft. per Job (1)per RoomMultiplier (2)per Room Residential (per Unit)Single Family 2.51 2.51 1.00 2.51Multifamily (Condominiums)1.81 1.81 1.00 1.81Multifamily (Apartments)1.81 1.81 1.00 1.81Non-ResidentialOffice300 3.33 0.50 1.67Retail/ Service/ Institutional550 1.82 0.50 0.91Industrial 750 1.33 0.50 0.67Hotel (per Room)1.01.000.500.50(1) Persons per unit derived from San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE growth assumptions. Square Feet per job derived from LUCE and associated documents. (2) Service population is a measure of relative demand between residents and employees. Jobs/ employees are given half the weight of a resident.Sources: San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 591 Table 7Estimates of Maximum Potential Citywide Parks Fees *San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemLand Improvements Land Improvements Residential (per Unit)Single Family 2.51 per unit $1,254.54 $1,146.51 $3,150.85 $2,879.53$6,030.38 per unit Multifamily (Condominiums)1.81 per unit $1,254.54 $1,146.51 $2,268.91 $2,073.54$4,342.44 per unit Multifamily (Apartments)1.81 per unit $805.51 $1,146.51 $1,456.82 $2,073.54$3,530.35 per unit Non-ResidentialOffice1.67 per 1,000 sq. ft. $805.51 $1,146.51 $1.34 $1.91$3.25 per sq.ft.Retail/ Service/ Institutional0.91 per 1,000 sq. ft. $805.51 $1,146.51 $0.73 $1.04$1.77 per sq.ft.Industrial0.67 per 1,000 sq. ft.$805.51$1,146.51$0.54$0.76$1.30 per sq.ft.Hotel 0.50 per room $805.51 $1,146.51 $403 $573$976.01 per room*Applies to all areas except those where park requirements/ fees are defined by Specific Plan/ Development Agreement.(1) See Table 6.(2) See Tables 4 and 5.(3) Includes both Park In-Lieu fees under the Quimby Act and Park Development Impact Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act.Sources: San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE; City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Totalper Room (1)per Unit/ 1,000 Sq. Ft./Service PopulationCost per Service Population (2)Maximum Citywide Parks Fees (3)Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 601 Transportation Packet Pg 61 1 Maximum Transportation Development Impact FeesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseResidential Single Family $6,858.67 per Unit $12,383.75 per UnitMultifamily$5,389.06 per Unit $9,730.28 per Unit Non-Residential Office/Service $8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Retail $29.45 per Sq.Ft.$53.18 per Sq.Ft.Industrial$10.89 per Sq.Ft.$19.66 per Sq.Ft.Institutional $8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Hotel $3,056.15 per Room $5,518.07 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.North AreaTable S-1South AreaEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 621 North Sa nta R o s a N orth Sa nta R o s a C alif o rnia C a lif o r n i aS a n t a R o s a Tank Farm Foothill Tank Farm T a n k Far mSouthHiguera TankFarm Fo o t h i l lSouth Hi gueraSouthHigueraL os O so s V alle y L o s Os o s Va lle y S a n t a Ro s a We s t F o o t h il lWestFoothillLos O sosValley B r o a d Hi gu eraL o s Os os Va ll e y HigueraHigueraMa d onn a Ma donn a Ma rsh M arsh Orc u t tChorroOrc u t t M o n ter eyHighlandJ o h n s o n J o h ns o n JohnsonCaliforniaGrand Gr a n d Indus tri al Pism o C h o rr o C h o r r o Prado Pismo C a p it o li oOs o s High Pal m South Orcutt Pal m Os o s LaurelOrcuttSantaBarbaraO'Conn o r TaftBroad VachellMo rr o Mo rr o Murray MeadowMill Mi llCollegeC a m p u s SanLuisGranada F i e r oSuburbanBishopPrefumoCanyon Ae roHooverBuckley Buckley Bu c kley F ro om R a n c h A u t o P a rkParkerLongSac ra me n t o Uph am Wal n u tT o r o SantaFeHo ov er To ro El Merca d o ElksCalleJoaquinP ac ificHighland LaurelMontal b a n Syd n ey Southwood ShortSantaFeSouthwood Pacif icRoyal LaEntradaHind L iz zi e McmillanSouthTassajaraBeebeeBuc ho n Buc ho n Bridge Meinecke Ni p om oNip om o LagunaCasaPatriciaClarion H o ll y ho c kNorthTassajaraB r o a d DescansoRamona SacramentoO live D a l idi o E lla RoyalM on te rey A u g u st aGa r d e n Augusta Aer ov istaVenture Cross ViaCarta Bor onda Ramona WavertreeDexterAndrew sMountBishop P e p p e r L in co ln Os o s IslayPeachPeach Oak H e dley BuenaVistaWoodbridge K erry IslayStennerG alle o n Poi ns et t i a P oinsettia Ken dallKingSi er ra West Zaca Ma ple Garci a A t a s c a d e r o Ocea n air e OceanaireVia Es te b a nJeffrey Sp itfire Bonetti Tanglewood Mornin gG lo r y Tangl ew ood F u ll e r H igueraFredericks OldWindmillD el Rio Walk e r EmpleoRoundhouse Slack EmpresaRica rdoAirportLosCerrosFontana Luneta L e mo n M o n t e Vi sta RailroadSandercock SueldoFarmhouseFerrini Mission Je n n if e r BrookpineUni versityCreeksideVista MitchellNo rt hC ho r r oMccollum Branch SpanishOa k sCh urc h A r c h e r P alm Blu ebe llDuncanF e r n w o o d Le ffStafford Le ffChumash P e re ir a Phillips Las Praderas C a r mel Stoneridge SanLuisCar p enter Hath w ayB e a c h Center D e v a ul R a n c h DavenportCreekWestmont HighChorroCuesta La Virad a EtoK e n t uckyVi ew mont Coriander Ro bert o P oly Vue Mig u elit o BasilBrook AlicitaPine Fi xli ni WardLa CitaLosVerdes Breck Three Sisters ElPaseoPolyCan yo n Los Palos Sm ith Bianchi Mutsu hit o H e n ry R u t h BottomwoodSenderoAlyssumMount ainC ay u co sCa md e n MelloL a k e view RichardTolosa RositaH um bert Rougeot Sween e yBenton ThreadLawnwoodSte ph a n i e Fontana Mag n o l i a Birch Montecito EllenSycamoreF ai rway Cuyama CalleJazminSan M a t e oCastilloL aPos adaVerdeAbbott Fra ncis EdgewoodHuttonStoryHarrisCypressPriceSydneyBi n n s Elm J e a n ConejoSawleaf OldSanteFe Per k ins E l C a p ita n Warren Cordo va Purpl eSageFunstonAlmon d P h illip sLarkspur Craig Del C a min o sSisquocSantaLuciaWestNewport M a nz anitaCenter HorizonH illcre stPalomarWilson Cazadero Q u ailMalibu ViaSanBlas B ou g a invill eaGarnette Mor a b itoMuirf i el dGarfield Bond T o nini CalleLupita Vic t ori a Pi n e c o v e ProspectAndrews Cl ov er DelNorte C a lle C ro ta lo M o u n ta in V i e w FeltonSkyline Hays Dana Hope Cor a l Caudill CerroRomauldo Hel e n a B o y s e nSanCarlos EsperanzaJespersonV ia E ns enada Blu e rock VistadelColla d os Vi a Ca rt aLa V ine d a H u a s n a Vic e n t e Corrida Woodsid e Loomis LoomisSerranoHeights GatheB alb oa TiburonLawrence R o c k vie wGoldenrod Evans V i llage Fl o r a Fl o r a MountBishop Buena VistaCrandall EstelitaP a r k LompocE l Tig r e Ro sePrinc e t onBushnellVi s t adel ArroyoKentwoodRafaelBayLeafWilding AlleneRachelThelma LomaBonita S t a nf o r d DelSur Alde r S u nflo w er S a n Adri an o Florence S p o o n erMirad a LongviewAlbert GaribaldiSantaYnezCuesta M ariposa BlvddelCampoCreekside Gr o v ePat r ic i aCorralitosP as ati empoVista d elLago IronbarkHill F or e manKare n P icoOleaSola Chaplin PortolaR ich Georg e P a r kl a n d Jan iceSequoiaHiddenSpringsChuparrosa Kl ama t hBuckeyeGer da L ilyLynnWelsh Marlene Daly Deseret RebaFletcher ElCentro Popul us Chu rch Yarrow D eA nzaLaLun aJaliscoIris M a r i goldDa rt mout hF a r r i e r Sin gle tre e GravesHendersonCapistrano Madro ne Lo belia S an M a rco s NojoquiClearvie w Claire LaCanadaRosem aryChristina Boxwood S e q u oia Bl uebellBrizzolaraDeerCambriaColumbineRanc ho Canyon Ma rshaBritt a ny V e gaFrambuesa Harmony FelMar El C errito Tulip AraliaCastaicCavalierN ew p ort P a r tridge LeonaBeechTruckee BriarwoodSantaMari a Li ma Map l e PinnaclesHansen C haparral Ashmore Tarragon C y c la m e n Il eneCec e lia Felicia G r et a JaneCa mpusOakridge S u n s e t Mason S u n r o s e Venable CrestviewT a h oe Montrose AlritaHaz elOr a ngeBa rrancaCarolynMiraSol DrakeMu sta n g Cucaracha Hathway MuguS antaCla ra Woodland S w ee t b a yAlHilLexingtonAnacapaGul f T win Rid ge Ambrosia Huckle berryPa c hec oSea ward LawtonBedfordAv a lo n W isteriaDel Mar Snapdragon C o u p er Cachuma Ojai PaseoBellaMontana SantaFeHe rm osa Isabella KingWoodbridgeIris F ix lin iLosVerdes LosPalosOceanaireHighland CerroRomauldo Murray PoinsettiadelBrisa EarthoodDaisyCherryVioletAsterBlackberry Plum Sage Junipero CantoMargarita Di abloViaLagu naVista Kila rn e y Donegal Arroyo Valle VistaNasellaPoa SlenderRock FennelLavenderWi llow Figure 1: City of San Luis Obispo, North and South Area aliiff oo fff rrnnniiiaaaa ttt aaa HHH yyhhh ooooo rr o nLLLuiisLL iinn ccc ooo lllnn HHHH iigggguueeerrraaalll North N trNorotNNootrthoNorhhhtrorthNooortrtoohthrNhhoNtooNthooNototNothrotrohorNtotNthoortNohothhoohhorthtorotoohNNotrthNrhaaRRRRRooo ssssss aaaa CCCCCC hhhhhhhhhhh o OOOOOOss oo ss MMoooooo rrrrrrrrrrrr oooo ArearAAAraaeAaAAreaArAAaAAaAeArearaAAAAAareAaAeaAaAAeAaAArereAaeAreeeeaArearaeAaArArAerAAAeareAHHHHHHiiiiiggguuuuuueeeeeerrrrrraaaaaarrrrrrrrMMMMMMMMMMoooooooooonnnntttteeeeerreeyyHHHH G dZ EEEmmmrrreeSSuueelllddSouthSSShuoouthtShthuthououSouth AreaAreaeArAAAAeAAAaeAaAraAAaAAAAAAAreAAAaarAeaAaAaAaAAreBBBoooonnnneeeettttttttttiiimmmmmmpppplllleeeeoooEEEEEEmmppprrrddddoooo Packet Pg 63 1 Table 1Summary of Transportation Capital Improvement Projects in Fee Program San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Improvement CategoryCostPercentageInterchange (1)$78,822,72028.6%Intersection $46,920,00017.0%Street Widening ( 2)$38,231,27813.9%Street Extension$44,283,50016.1%Pedestrian/ Bicycle$58,000,00021.0%Transit$6,500,0002.4%Other (3)$2,900,0001.1%Total (4)$275,657,498100.0%(1) Includes financing costs for Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange and Highway 101/LOVR Interchange.(2) Includes financing costs for the Prado Road Bridge West of Higuera.(3) Other includes South Broad Street medians corridor improvements and the traffic volume count program and traffic model.(4) List reflects new projects needed to serve anticipated new development and does not include all future projects the City may undertake. Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Wallace Group; Cambridge Systematics; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 641 Table 2 Summary of Capital Improvement Cost AllocationsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemCost % Total Transportation Costs (including financing)1$275,657,498 100%Regional Funding2$33,115,700 12%Existing Development3$66,878,472 24%New Growth Cost Allocation4$175,663,326 64%1 Includes financing costs for Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange and Highway 101/LOVR Interchange and the Prado Road Bridge West of Higuera that sum to $43.3 million.2 Represents estimate of costs to be covered by regional funding sources.3 Represents portion of improvement costs that support existing development and/oraddress existing deficiencies.4 Does not include adjustments for existing fee balances.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Wallace Group; Cambridge Systematics; and Economic &Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 651 Table 3Costs per Trip by GeographySan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Average CostGeographyTotal Costs Percentage Net Costs1Trips (ADT) Percentageper Trip (ADT)North Area$25,029,451 14.2% $24,143,02059,509 23.1%$405.70South Area$150,633,87585.8%$145,299,097198,35576.9%$732.52 Total/ Average $175,663,326 100.0% $169,442,117 257,865 100.0% $657.102 New trips represents new Average Daily Trips (ADT) associated with the City's new growth capacity.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.New Trips2Cost Allocations to New Development1 Removes existing transportation impact fee fund balances from the total costs allocated to new growth. Latest fee balances available from City (June 30, 2016) indicate a total fee balance of about $6.22 million, including $5.14 million in Citywide Transportation Impact Fee fund and $1.08 million in Airport Area Impact Fee Fund. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 661 Table 4 Maximum Fee Calculation by Trips Generation by Land Use and by AreaSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseAverage Cost per TripResidential Single Family16.91 per unit$6,858.67 per Unit$12,383.75 per UnitMultifamily13.28 per unit$5,389.06 per Unit$9,730.28 per Unit Non-Residential Office/Service (1)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.$8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Retail (2)72.60 per 1,000 sq.ft. $29.45 per Sq.Ft.$53.18 per Sq.Ft.Industrial26.84 per 1,000 sq.ft. $10.89 per Sq.Ft.$19.66 per Sq.Ft.Institutional (3)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.$8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Hotel (4)7.53 per room$3,056.15 per Room$5,518.07 per Room(1) Trip generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(2) Trip generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(3) Trip generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(4) Trip generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Cambridge Systematics; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.$405.70$732.52Trip (ADT)Generation RatesSouth AreaNorth AreaEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 671 Table A-1 Transportation Model Growth Forecasts by Land Use and by Area (1)San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseCitywide North South Citywide North South Citywide North SouthResidential (Dwelling Units)Single Family 8,289 6,981 1,308 3,102 985 2,117 11,391 7,966 3,425Multifamily 12,0849,2082,8763,0348872,14715,11810,0955,023Total Residential Units20,373 16,189 4,184 6,136 1,872 4,264 26,509 18,061 8,448 Non-Residential (Sq.Ft.)Office/Service2,487,6031,607,157 880,447 3,911,560 635,783 3,275,777 6,399,163 2,242,940 4,156,223Retail5,290,842 1,787,679 3,503,163 1,043,493 212,494 830,999 6,334,335 2,000,173 4,334,162Industrial2,987,985 152,910 2,835,075 115,185 2,418 112,767 3,103,170 155,328 2,947,842Institutional340,771311,60729,16544,43961643,822385,210312,22372,987Total Non-Residential Sq.Ft. 11,107,201 3,859,352 7,247,849 5,114,677 851,312 4,263,365 16,221,878 4,710,664 11,511,214Hotel (Rooms)2,183 1,601 582651 331 320 2,834 1,932 902(1) Transportation model growth forecasts based on growth capacity. As a result, growth forecasts are greater than the General Plan growth forecasts that focus on potential growth through 2035. Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.ExistingGrowthBuildoutEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 681 Table A-2 Trip Generation Associated with Growth Forecasts by Land Use and by AreaSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseCitywide North South Citywide North South Citywide North SouthResidential Single Family16.91 per unit140,131 118,019 22,11352,441 16,652 35,789192,573 134,671 57,902Multifamily13.28 per unit160,515122,31338,20340,30211,78228,519200,817134,09566,722Subtotal300,647 240,331 60,31592,743 28,434 64,309393,390 268,766 124,624 Non-Residential Office/Service (1) 20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft. 51,169 33,059 18,11080,45913,078 67,381131,628 46,136 85,492Retail (2)72.60 per 1,000 sq.ft. 384,089 129,777 254,31375,753 15,426 60,326459,842 145,203 314,639Industrial26.84 per 1,000 sq.ft. 80,202 4,104 76,0973,09265 3,02783,293 4,169 79,124Institutional (3)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft. 7,010 6,410600914139017,924 6,422 1,501Hotel (4)7.53 per room16,44512,0604,3844,9042,4932,41121,34914,5546,795Subtotal538,914 185,410 353,504165,122 31,075 134,047704,036 216,485487,551Total Trips839,561 425,741 413,820257,865 59,509 198,355 1,097,425 485,250 612,175% of Citywide100.00% 50.71% 49.29%100.00% 23.08% 76.92%100.00% 44.22% 55.78%% of Total Buildout Trips76.50% 38.79% 37.71%23.50% 5.42% 18.07%100.00% 44.22% 55.78%(1) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(2) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(3) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(4) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Cambridge Systematic; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Trip Generation ExistingGrowthBuildoutRatesEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 691 Table A-3Transportation Improvement List, Cost Estimates, and Preliminary Approach to Cost AllocationSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Regional ExistingNewRegionalExistingNewNorthSouthInterchange ImprovementsProject #1Hwy 101/LOVR Interchange ImprovementsInterchange Improvements$4,926,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 8.8% 91.2% $0 $0 $4,926,000 $435,025 $4,490,975Project #1FHwy 101/LOVR Interchange ImprovementsFinancing$7,112,300 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 8.8% 91.2% $0 $0 $7,112,300 $628,102 $6,484,198Project #2Hwy 101/Prado Rd InterchangeInterchange Improvements$35,000,00030.0%0.0%70.0%9.7%90.3% $10,500,000$0 $24,500,000$2,380,592 $22,119,408Project #2FHwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange Financing$31,784,4200.0%0.0%100.0%9.7%90.3%$0$0$31,784,420$3,088,397$28,696,023Subtotal$78,822,720$10,500,000 $0 $68,322,720 $6,532,115 $61,790,605Intersection ImprovementsProject #3Broad & South-Santa Barbara Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$300,000 20.0% 15.0% 65.0% 17.7% 82.3% $60,000 $45,000 $195,000 $34,539 $160,461Project #4Orcutt & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$1,120,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 32.6% 67.4% $0 $0 $1,120,000 $365,441 $754,559Project #5Broad & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$1,500,000 15.0% 0.0% 85.0% 9.7% 90.3% $225,000 $0 $1,275,000 $123,888 $1,151,112Project #6Johnson & Orcutt Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$2,000,000 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 1.7% 98.3% $500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $25,064 $1,474,936Project #7Higuera & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$2,000,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000Project #8S. Broad Street IntersectionIntersection Improvements$5,000,00020.0%0.0%80.0%9.7%90.3%$1,000,000$0 $4,000,000$388,668$3,611,332Project #9General Plan Cumulative Intersection Control UpgradesIntersection Improvements$15,000,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 24.4% 75.6% $0 $0 $15,000,000 $3,661,049 $11,338,951Project #10Orcutt Rd/UPRR Grade Separation Intersection Improvements$20,000,00010.0%68.9%21.1%17.7%82.3%$2,000,000$13,770,499$4,229,501$749,144$3,480,357Subtotal$46,920,000$3,785,000 $13,815,499 $29,319,501 $5,347,793 $23,971,709Street Widening ImprovementsProject #11Higuera Widening: High St to Marsh St Street Widening$2,150,000 0.0% 76.5% 23.5% 32.6% 67.4% $0 $1,644,810 $505,190 $164,837 $340,354Project #12Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City LimitsStreet Widening$5,400,000 55.0% 0.0% 45.0% 5.4% 94.6% $2,970,000 $0 $2,430,000 $130,992$2,299,008Project #13Tank Farm Road WideningStreet Widening, $22,000,00030.0%0.0%70.0%9.7%90.3%$6,600,000$0 $15,400,000$1,496,372 $13,903,628Project #14Prado Rd Bridge Widening: West of Higuera St and Higuera & Prado Intersection ImprovementsStreet Widening and Intersection Improvements$4,260,00020.0%0.0%80.0%17.7%82.3%$852,000$0 $3,408,000$603,637 $2,804,363Project #14FPrado Rd. Bridge W of HigueraFinancing$4,421,2780.0%0.0%100.0%17.7%82.3%$0$0$4,421,278$783,112$3,638,166Subtotal$38,231,278$10,422,000 $1,644,810 $26,164,468 $3,178,950 $22,985,519Street Extension ImprovementsProject #15aSanta Fe Road Extension North of Tank FarmStreet Extension$1,080,000 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 9.7% 90.3% $648,000 $0 $432,000 $41,976 $390,024Project #15bSanta Fe Road Extension South of Tank FarmStreet Extension$2,500,000 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 9.7% 90.3% $1,500,000 $0 $1,000,000 $97,167 $902,833Project #16Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank FarmStreet Extension$3,000,000 10.0% 0.0% 90.0% 14.3% 85.7% $300,000 $0 $2,700,000 $385,044 $2,314,956Project #17Bishop St Extension to Roundhouse Street Extension$13,200,000 5.0% 72.7% 22.3% 43.0% 57.0% $660,000 $9,593,447 $2,946,553$1,266,046 $1,680,506Project #18Prado Rd Extension South Higuera to Broad Street, including Broad Street & Prado Extension Intersection ImprovementsStreet Extension and Intersection Improvements$24,503,50020.0%0.0%80.0%14.8%85.2%$4,900,700$0$19,602,800$2,903,294$16,699,506Subtotal$44,283,500$8,008,700 $9,593,447 $26,681,353 $4,693,527 $21,987,826Project NumberNameNew Cost EstimateFirst Allocation - CitywideType (e.g., Geographic Area of Benefit)Second Allocation - New by AreaSecond Allocation - New by AreaNorthSouthFirst Allocation - CitywideEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 701 Regional ExistingNewRegionalExistingNewNorthSouthProject NumberNameNew Cost EstimateFirst Allocation - CitywideType (e.g., Geographic Area of Benefit)Second Allocation - New by AreaSecond Allocation - New by AreaNorthSouthFirst Allocation - CitywidePedestrian/ Bicycle ImprovementsProject #19Bob Jones TrailPedestrian/Bike Projects$11,000,0000.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0 $8,415,305 $2,584,695$596,489 $1,988,206Project #20Railroad Safety Trail Pedestrian/Bike Projects$12,000,0000.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0 $9,180,332 $2,819,668$650,715 $2,168,952Project #21aBicycle Transportation Plan Implementation North AreaPedestrian/Bike Projects$14,400,000 0.0% 76.5% 23.5% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $11,016,399 $3,383,601 $3,383,601$0Project #21bBicycle Transportation Plan Implementation South AreaPedestrian/Bike Projects$20,600,0000.0%40.0%60.0%0.0%100.0%$0$8,240,000$12,360,000$0$12,360,000Subtotal$58,000,000$0 $36,852,036 $21,147,964 $4,630,805 $16,517,159Transit ImprovementsProject #22Fleet Expansion: 4 BusesTransit Projects$1,500,0000.0%76.5%23.5%0.0%100.0%$0 $1,147,542$352,458$0$352,458Project #23Transit CenterTransit Projects$5,000,0000.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0$3,825,139$1,174,861$271,131$903,730Subtotal$6,500,000$0 $4,972,680 $1,527,320 $271,131 $1,256,189OtherProject #24Traffic Volume Count Program and Traffic ModelMisc.$900,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 24.4% 75.6% $0 $0 $900,000 $219,663 $680,337Project #25S. Broad Street MediansCorridor Improvements$2,000,00020.0%0.0%80.0%9.7%90.3%$400,000$0$1,600,000$155,467$1,444,533Subtotal$2,900,000$400,000 $0 $2,500,000 $375,130 $2,124,870Total$275,657,498$33,115,700 $66,878,472 $175,663,326 $25,029,451 $150,633,875Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 711 Fee Comparisons Packet Pg 72 1 Table 1Single Family Detached (per Unit) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Quimby Act Park Dedication Requirements Yes YesAdd'l Parks/Open Space/ Recreation Fees $2,880 $2,880Traffic/Transportation$6,859 $12,384 $6,398 - $8,093 $4,723 - $14,175Public Safety$1,229 $1,229 $176 - $992Fire$561 $561 Police$668 $668 General Facilities/Government$690 $690 $228 - $2,389 *The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (1) Davis fees reflect ranges throughout different geographic regions of the City, including base fees and fees after Mello-Roos Credits for certain areas.(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzYes YesFee Category NorthSouth $5,877 $615YesYesPaso RoblesMaximum SLO FeeDavis (1)Napa (2)$3,111No$5,588$12,700$1,180$1,099$81$3,182Santa Cruz $3,889$7,311$1,305$688$616 $157Santa Maria (3)Palm Springs (4)$1,837YesEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 731 Table 2Multifamily Rental (per Unit) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks/Open Space and Recreation$3,530 $3,530Traffic/Transportation$5,389 $9,730 $3,906 - $4,942 $3,198 - $8,840Public Safety$885 $885 $282 - $757Fire$404 $404Police$481 $481General Government$497 $497 $1,662 - $1,823*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (1) Davis fees reflect base fees payable outside of City Wide Mello-Roos Districts. (2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz$1,277$5,002Santa Maria (3)Fee Category Davis (1) Napa (2)NorthSouth$759 Maximum SLO FeePaso Robles$1,194 $4,486Palm Springs (4)$2,790$382$342$87$95$3,182$4,195$8,752$3,111$724$2,387 $1,099Santa Cruz Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 741 Table 3Retail (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$1.77 $1.77Traffic/Transportation$29.45 $53.18 $6.68 - $8.45 $3.77 - $21.67Public Safety$0.44 $0.44 $0.11 - $1.08Fire$0.20 $0.20Police$0.24 $0.24General Government$0.25 $0.25 $0.81 - $0.93*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (1) Davis fee reflects "core/ AC retail" category as opposed to "other retail."(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzPalm Springs (4)$5.68$0.02$10.82Fee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)NorthSouthMaximum SLO Fee$11.48$0.86 $0.09$0.48$0.48 $1.16$0.12$0.40$0.52Santa Maria (3)Santa CruzPaso Robles $0.37$8.86 $0.06 $0.43 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 751 Table 4Office (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$3.25 $3.25Traffic/Transportation$8.35 $15.07 $4.10 - $5.19 $4.38 - $7.91Public Safety$0.82 $0.82 $0.11 - $1.08Fire$0.37 $0.37Police$0.44 $0.44General Government$0.46 $0.46 $0.81 - $0.93*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (1) Davis fees reflect base fees payable outside of City Wide Mello-Roos Districts. (2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF).Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzPalm Springs (4)$5.19Fee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)Maximum SLO Fee$0.40$0.12$1.16$11.48$0.02$9.01$0.09NorthSouth $0.86Paso Robles Santa Cruz$0.06$0.37 Santa Maria (3)$0.52$0.17$0.17 $5.78$0.43 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 761 Table 5Industrial (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$1.30 $1.30Traffic/Transportation$10.89$19.66 $0.38 - $0.48 $1.92 - $7.01$2.70 - $3.73Public Safety$0.33 $0.33 $0.22 - $0.28Fire$0.15 $0.15Police$0.18 $0.18General Government$0.18 $0.18 $0.23 - $0.24*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (1) Davis fees reflect base fees payable outside of City Wide Mello-Roos Districts. (2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee. Traffic/Transportation fee reflects light industrial category.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF).(5) Range is based on fees for manufacturing and light industrial uses which reflect a 0.7 p.m. trip generation rage and a 0.97 trip generation rate, respectively. Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzPalm Springs (4)$1.03$0.09$0.02Paso RoblesFee Category Davis (1) Napa (2)NorthSouth $0.03 $0.03$0.86Maximum SLO Fee $3.23$0.36$0.33$0.63$0.03$0.43$0.37 $3.62$0.06Santa Maria (3) Santa Cruz (5)Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 771 Table 6Hotel (per Room) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$976 $976Traffic/Transportation$3,056 $5,518 $1,906 - $2,853Public Safety$0 $0Fire$0 $0Police$0 $0General Government$0 $0*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (1) Davis does have any fees applicable for hotel development.(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzPalm Springs (4)$449Fee Category Napa (2)Paso RoblesNorthSouthMaximum SLO Fee$549$178$453$25$96$154 Santa Maria (3)Santa Cruz $95$39$10 $2,814$2,561$2,233Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 781 Feasibility Packet Pg 79 1 Prototypes and Assumptions Single Family (Detached Unit) Geography South Area, SF Subdivision Lot Size (Sq.Ft.)4,000 Unit Size (Sq.Ft.)1,675 DU/Acre 11 Applicable Zoning Category R-2 Number of Stories 2.0 Average Price (per Unit)$650,000 Example(s)Avila Ranch (Proposed Development) and Serra Meadows Multifamily Apartment Geography South Area Lot Size (Acres)4.95 DU/Acre 24 Building Size (Sq.Ft.)103,944 Number of Stories 2-3 Total Number of Units 120 Average Unit Size (Sq.Ft.)930 Applicable Zoning Category R-4 Capitalized Value $375,000 Example(s)De Tolosa Ranch Retail (Standalone Building of Larger Development) Geography South Area Lot Size (Acres)0.77 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)30% Building Size (Sq.Ft.)10,000 Number of Stories 1.0 Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft.$300 Example(s)No Recent Examples Office/Business Park (Standalone Building of Larger Development) Geography South Area Lot Size (Acres)0.77 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)30% Building Size (Sq.Ft.)10,000 Number of Stories 1.0 Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft.$425 Example(s)Airport Business Center (Proposed Development) Office/Service (Standalone Building of Larger Development) Geography South Area Lot Size (Acres)0.77 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)30% Building Size (Sq.Ft.)10,000 Number of Stories 1.0 Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft.$300 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 Packet Pg 80 1 Key 15% of Market Value 10% of Market Value 20% of Market Value $0$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000$100,000$120,000$140,000$160,000North Area South Area(Non-SpecificPlan)South Area(Specific Plan)Affordable HousingSchool DistrictSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationSingle Family (per Unit) Assumptions Market Value: $650,000 Unit Size: 1,675 Sq.Ft. Packet Pg 811 Key 5% of Market Value 10% of Market Value 15% of Market Value $0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000North Area South AreaSchool DistrictWaterSewerGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationMultifamily (per Unit) Assumptions Market Value: $375,000 Unit Size: 930 Sq.Ft.Packet Pg 821 Key 10% of Market Value 5% of Market Value $0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70$80$90$100North Area South AreaAffordable HousingSchool DistrictPublic ArtSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationRetail (per Sq.Ft) Assumptions Market Value: $300/Sq.Ft. Size: 10,000 Sq.Ft. 7.5% of Market Value Packet Pg 831 10% of Market Value 5% of Market Value $0$10$20$30$40$50$60North Area South AreaAffordable HousingSchool DistrictPublic ArtSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationKey Office/ Business Park (per Sq.Ft) 7.5% of Market Value Assumptions Market Value: $425/Sq.Ft. Size: 10,000 Sq.Ft. Packet Pg 841 10% of Market Value 5% of Market Value $0$5$10$15$20$25$30$35$40$45$50North Area South AreaAffordable HousingSchool DistrictPublic ArtSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationKey Office/ Service (per Sq.Ft) 7.5% of Market Value Assumptions Market Value: $300/Sq.Ft. Size: 10,000 Sq.Ft. Packet Pg 851 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 86 1 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, August 15, 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, August 15, 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; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager, was present intermittingly throughout the Closed Session. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Jan Marx ---End of Public Comment--- Packet Pg 87 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 2 CLOSED SESSION A. Consideration of Public Employee Appointment Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager B. Consideration of Public Employee Appointment Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1) Title: Interim City Manager ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 4:00 PM. Packet Pg 88 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 3 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, August 15, 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. PRESENTATIONS 1. CAL POLY STUDENT ENROLLMENT PRESENTATION Cal Poly Vice President of Student Affairs Keith Humphrey provided a presentation on Cal Poly student enrollment. STUDY SESSION 2. WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE REVIEW Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Project Manager Jennifer Metz, and HDR Inc. representative Shawn Koorn provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Mayor Harmon exited the dais at 4:55 pm, she returned at 5:04 pm. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council directed staff to prioritize rate structure goals and receive and file the second of four Water and Wastewater Rate Structure Reviews with HDR Engineering, Inc. ADJOURNED AT 5:22 PM TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 PM. Packet Pg 89 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 4 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no legally reportable action for Closed Session Items A and B, Council did however provide direction to staff regarding the City Manager appointment process and has authorized staff to issue a subsequent communication regarding the details of that process, she noted its forthcoming in the next 24 hours. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Thomas Athanasion Jeff Brubaker, Transportation Planner for the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments ---End of Public Comment--- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 3 thru 14. 3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. Packet Pg 90 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 5 4. MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2017, JULY 11, 2017 AND JULY 18, 2017 CARRIED 5-0, to approve minutes of the June 6, 2017, July 11, 2017 and July 18, 2017 City Council meetings. 5. AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR AN ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEM CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Approve the issuance of an RFP for an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software system; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected ERP software vendor and/or software implementer based on the software vendor/implementers selected if proposal is within approved total implementation budget; and 3. Authorize the Finance Director or their designee to execute Purchase Orders to software vendor and/or consulting services based on the software selected and contracts negotiated in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized project budget. 6. ORDINANCE ADOPTION AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1636 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code associated with Development Agreements with an exemption from Environmental Review (CODE-0107-2017).” Public Comments: Lydia Mourenza ---End of Public Comment--- 7. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 2428-2, 3000 CALLE MALVA (TR 121-13) CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10825 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the final map for Tract 2428-2 (3000 Calle Malva, TR 121-13)” and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement. 8. ORDINANCE ADOPTION AMENDING CHAPTER 10.52.010 (PARKING METER ZONE RATES) OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1635 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Section 10.52.010 (Parking Meter Zone Rates) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code” to increase parking Packet Pg 91 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 6 rates for metered spaces effective January 1, 2018 and again on July 1, 2020. 9. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT WITH CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION EFFECTIVENESS (COE) FOR EMPLOYEE AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Authorize the issuance of a purchase order to the Centre for Organizational Effectiveness (COE) in the amount of $123,750; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a sole source agreement with the COE not to exceed $123,750 for fiscal year 2017-18 to continue a comprehensive employee and leadership development and core competency program for the City of San Luis Obispo. 10. HUMAN RESOURCES AND FINANCE DEPARTMENTS’ OFFICE RECONFIGURATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91525 CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Approve construction documents for "Human Resources and Finance Departments’ Office Reconfiguration"; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $112,939; and 3. Authorize allocation of $185,848 from the General Fund balance. 11. AMENDMENT TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, INC. (CAPSLO) FOR FUNDING FOR THE HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER (40 PRADO) CARRIED 5-0, to approve the amendment to the grant agreement with CAPSLO for funding for the homeless services center (40 Prado) to extend the term for completion of the project by June 30, 2018. 12. AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH BARNETT COX & ASSOCIATES (BCA) FOR COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES CARRIED 5-0, to approve the amendment to the agreement with BCA for communications support services. 13. CLAIM SETTLEMENT DELEGATION TO CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA) FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS INCURRED PRIOR TO MEMBERSHIP CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10826 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, delegating claim settlement authority to the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority for workers’ compensation claims incurred Packet Pg 92 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 7 prior to membership.” 14. HIGHLAND DRIVE GATEWAY MONUMENT PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 90766 - PG&E EASEMENT CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10827 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the real property easement agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric for utility service” authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement to allow for utility relocation at the Highland Drive Gateway Monument. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 15. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN FOR BISHOP’S PEAK AND PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Public Works Director Daryl Grigsby, Transportation Manager Jake Hudson, and Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima with the use of a Power Point presentation provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Mike Bennett, Executive Director of Bike SLO County and Managing Director of the Central Coast Distracted Driving Awareness Partnership Lea Brooks, Chair of Bicycle Advisory Committee Lydia Mourenza ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: Adopt Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting the Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools, amending the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan to include the Class I Path between Ramona Dr. and Foothill Blvd., and adopting an Addendum to the initial study/Negative Declaration for the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan.” Council majority adopted the staff recommendation with added direction to pursue a protected bikeway facility (cycle track) along Ferrini Road, creating a continuous link between Foothill Boulevard and Pacheco Elementary School. STUDY SESSION 16. BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD OPTIONS For clarification purpose on tonight’s item 16, at the request of Mayor Harmon, City Manager Lichtig stated for the record the Council Policy and Procedure definition of a Study Session. Packet Pg 93 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 8 Public Works Director Daryl Grigsby, Transportation Manager Jake Hudson, and Transportation Planner-Engineer Luke Schwartz with the use of a Power Point presentation provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Glen Priddy Louis Dutra Dale Clifford Mary Rider Mary Mitchell, Oswald Olmos Madelyn Rodner Marilyn Gordon Steve Kadin Shawn Foy Allison Donatello Tom Boyle Jon Haddeland, local business owner Ken Emmer Susan Bailey Kadin Chuck Margaroli Ron Elyus David Houghton Charles Birdsong Melanie Mills Charles Feltman Saundra Carscaden Bernadette Monterosa Frank DuFault Mike Bennett, Bike SLO County Diane Kirby Rebecca Hicks, local business owner RECESS Council recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:26 p.m., with all Council Members present. Diane Hunt Roberts John Teitel Lea Brooks, Chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee Crissa Hewitt Garrett Otto Stephanie Ridley T. Keith Gurnee Kim Bisheff Lydia Mourenza Jaime Lewis, Bishop Peak Safe Route to School Coordinator Packet Pg 94 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 9 David Schlossbeg Cheryl McLean David Glidden Russ Kimmel Corliss Campbell Richard Schmidt Elizabeth Farrington Holly Garcia Diane Raj Camille Small ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file the following: 1. Hold a study session and receive a presentation on three alternatives for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard; and 2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding the Council’s preferred alternative; and 3. Direct staff to complete the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard plan with the Council’s preferred alternative and return to Council for consideration of the completed plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 17. SCHEDULE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2018 City Clerk Gallagher provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to the following: Establish a regular meeting schedule for the 2018 calendar year; and 1. Reschedule the regular City Council meeting of January 2 to January 9, 2018; and 2. Reschedule the regular City Council meeting of July 3, to July 10, 2018; and 3. Reschedule the regular City Council meeting of November 6 to November 13, 2018 4. Cancel the regular City Council meetings of August 7 and December 18, 2018. Packet Pg 95 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of August 15, 2017 Page 10 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS Harmon reported meeting with Assemblyman Cunningham to discuss several local issues that the two are working on together, she added having visited two local area hospitals with the Chamber Visit Council; she stated that she had recently traveled with colleagues to Colorado and mentioned observing strong similarities between the two cities. Council Member Pease reported on having attended the Boulder Denver trip, she expressed a hope to have a chance in the future to share what she had learned, and noted having met with SLOCOG to discuss regional transportation options and how they relate to the City. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 96 3 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, September 26, 2017 Special Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 4:30 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; Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney; Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Others Present: None PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. ---End of Public Comment--- CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Nickole Sutter, Rick Bolanos Represented Employee Organizations: International Association of Firefighters Local 3523 Packet Pg 97 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of September 26, 2017 Page 2 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: No. of potential cases: One. ADJOURNMENT This meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated no reportable action for Closed Session Items A and B. ____________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 98 3 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, October 3, 2017 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Man ager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance. MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR LAS VEGAS TRAGEDY Mayor Harmon led a moment of silence for those injured or lost at this past weekend’s tragic event in Las Vegas. PRESENTATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION - INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY Mayor Harmon provided presentation of a proclamation to Mona Olivas Tucker, Kelsey Shaffer, Claribel Terrill, Lisa Dignan, Lorie Laguna, Wendy Lucas, Art Cabada Jr., and Susie Velarde, representing the Northern Chumash Tribe of San Luis Obispo County and Region, proclaiming October 9, 2017 as “Indigenous Peoples Day” Packet Pg 99 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 2 2. PROCLAMATION - FIRE PREVENTION WEEK Mayor Harmon provided presentation of a proclamation to Fire Chief Garret Olson and Fire Marshall Rodger Maggio, proclaiming October 8-14, 2017 as “Fire Prevention Week” and urged all City residents to support the many public safety activities and efforts of the City of San Luis Obispo’s fire and emergency services during Fire Prevention week 2017. 3. PROCLAMATION - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH Mayor Harmon provided presentation of a proclamation to Christine Johnson, Kristen Rambo, Robin Mitchell Hee, and Keith Dunlop, representing the Women’s Shelter Program of San Luis Obispo County, proclaiming October 2017 as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.” 4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE TO THE NEW CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY MANAGER, DEREK JOHNSON City Clerk Gallagher administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed City of San Luis Obispo City Manager, Derek Johnson. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Marcia Alter, Home ShareSLO Renny Strong Janine Rands, City Farm of SLO Jean’ne Harry Busselen ---End of Public Comment--- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 5 thru 12. 5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 6. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 AND SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of September 6, 2017 and September 19, 2017. Packet Pg 100 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 3 7. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND AVILA RANCH, LLC CARRIED 5-0, to 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 CARRIED 5-0, to 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”).” 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 CARRIED 5-0, to 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 CARRIED 5-0, to 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 CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10834 (2017 Series) 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. Packet Pg 101 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 4 12. WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY CARRIED 5-0, to approve funding for the preparation of a Water and Wastewater Rate Study in an amount not to exceed $50,000. 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 Council Member Gomez recused himself from the discussion due to a business and personal relationship with the appellant Mr. Ben Kulick of 33 Tons, LLC; he exited the dais at 6:48 pm. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION Council Members Christianson, Vice Mayor Rivoire and Mayor Harmon reported having no Ex Parte Communications regarding the project. Council Member Pease reported having spoken to the Chair of the ARC to get a sense of the meeting and confirm the content already on the public record. Community Development Director Codron and Assistant Planner Oetzel provided an in- depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Appellant Representative Ben Kulick, 33 Tons, LLC noted calling for the final inspection on the building and receiving approval at the staff level. He stated he was unaware that the building would not be approved “as is” only until after receiving a notice of violation. 1:07:51 He discussed the ARC’s request to lower the windows and noted that after completion, the bulkhead findings, no longer made sense. He stated his belief that all guidelines were met. Thomas Richards, local business owner Lance Parker, past ARC Member Jim Agee Ping Tsau James Todd Brendan Morris Dan Copp Scott Starkey Jon Polock Todd Newman Larry Todd Manny Silva, local business owner Brian Storrs Packet Pg 102 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 5 Tom Tronstad Bryan Ridley, project Architect working for Stalwork Bev Pratt John Grady, local business owner John Ashbaugh, previous Council and ARC Member Appellant Representative Ben Kulick, 33 Tons, LLC concluded his comments by noting the integrity of the process was maintained and the design guidelines were followed; he noted attempts to work with the ARC but believes that ARC has not provided clear guidelines; he stated that a modification cannot be denied based on this being a modification. ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-0 (GOMEZ RECUSED) to deny appeal in part with direction to return to ARC with final determination to include the following: allow elimination of bulkhead feature and; reduce the apparent massing and scale of building on the approach to the Marsh street elevation through a change in color, texture or other means and; Staff to return at next meeting with amended resolution to reflect City Council direction. RECESS Council recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m., with all Council Members present. 14. DISCUSSION OF CITY SUPPORT FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM Community Development Director Codron and Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman 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--- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Discuss the public policy purpose of an Inclusionary Housing Program; and 2. Authorize City staff to prepare a letter to the County Board of Supervisors in support of the County’s Inclusionary Housing Program to be signed by Mayor Harmon. Packet Pg 103 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 6 15. REVIEW OF RESOLUTION OPPOSING NEW OR EXPANDED OFFSHORE DRILLING, GAS LEASES, AND FRACKING OFF THE COAST OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Acting Assistant City Manager Greg Hermann and Sustainability Coordinator Marcus Carloni provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Mandy Davis Mary Ciesinski, ECOSLO Janine Rands Blake Kopcho, Center for Biological Diversity Ashley Blacow, Non-Profit Oceana Andrew Christie, Sierra Club Chapter Director Molly McCabe ---End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt a Resolution No. 10836 (2017 Series) 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. 16. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CREATING A COUNCIL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE FOR 2018 City Clerk Gallagher 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--- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to begin the formation of a 2018 Compensation Committee; Council to submit names of nominated individuals to the City Clerk, review to include: 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. Packet Pg 104 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 7 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:22 pm to the next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 3:30 p.m., 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 105 3 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 106 3 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATION Approve a Resolution (Attachment A) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project. DISCUSSION Background The City of San Luis Obispo owns the 344 -acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve (the “Reserve”) that includes most of the lake itself, portions of Prefumo Creek and its outlet into the lake, and adjacent upland areas. The City Council adopted the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (“Conservation Plan”) on July 15, 2014 to guide future management of the Reserve by offering a framework for conservation, restoration, recovery, and scenic recreational use. Laguna Lake is primarily a naturally occurring lake, although the lake and its watersheds have been altered and manipulated, to include the re-routing of Prefumo Creek into the lake in the early 1960s. This has resulted in increased sediment deposition rates. Recent bathymetric surveys indicate accelerated changes in lake depth and morphology resulting in decreased water quality and aquatic habitat functions, as well as diminished aesthetic and recreational values associated with the lake. As a result, dredging and sediment management strategies are among the primary recommendations of the Conservation Plan. The City’s Financial Plan for 2015-17 identified implementation of the Conservation Plan as an “Other Important Council Objective” and included a work plan that contains all of the necessary steps to make a dredging and sediment management project “shovel ready”. In January 2016, the City retained the firm MNS Engineers (“MNS”) to assist the City with the work plan that was adopted by the City Council that included the following main tasks: 1.) Prepare Design Plans and Engineering Specifications; 2.) Environmental Studies and Project Permitting; and 3.) Public Outreach and Financing Options. The 2017-19 Financial Plan includes a work plan and budgets funding in order for the City to establish a basic dredging maintenance regime for the lake. To accomplish this, the City will remove modest amounts of sediment with the lake commensurate with annual deposition rates (i.e. 3,000-4,000 cubic yards per year), as well as utilize a small weed harvester to effectively manage aquatic vegetation that has been problematic for water quality. Next Steps At this time, the City anticipates completing final planning and receiving regulatory agency Packet Pg 107 4 permits in 2017-18. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as contemplated herein and further described below under the Environmental Review section of this Council Agenda Report, is a key procedural step leading towards project implementation. Following the CEQA process, regulatory agency permits will be filed with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which will trigger biological consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Division. The project will also require a Clean Water Act section 401 certification from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and a section 1602 permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Staff anticipates having completed plans, specifications, and engineering (PS&E) suitable for contractor bidding purposes by winter of 2017-18, and issuing a Request for Proposals in the spring / early summer of 2018. Once regulatory agency permits are in hand, and a qualified contractor has been selected, the City will be in position to begin implementation of the project following July 1, 2018 at which time construction funds would be available in the 2018 -19 Budget, if approved as anticipated in the 2017-19 Financial Plan. CONCURRENCES The City Biologist and the City Engineer have provided their concurrence for the recommendation set forth in this Council Agenda Report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study and Environmental Review has been prepared for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project that concludes that potentially significant impacts on the environment could occur, but these impacts will be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Potentially significant impacts that will be mitigated were identified in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology / Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology / Water Quality. Other less than significant impacts were also identified in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology / Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, and Transportation / Traffic. It should be noted that most all of the impacts identified through the environmental review process are temporary in nature, as the project is ultimately expected to have beneficial environmental effects. A variety of technical studies were completed to support the environmental review of the project, including: 1.) Preliminary Dredging Report (MNS Engineers, 2016); 2.) Geotechnical Characterization Report (Leighton, 2016); 3.) Biological Resources Assessment (Rincon, 2016); and, Cultural Resources Study (Rincon, 2016). These studies are all available on the City’s website. A “Human Health Risk Assessment of Sediment Dredging and Dewatering Activities for Laguna Lake” was recently completed by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services to help inform the conclusions of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the environmental Packet Pg 108 4 review. The objectives of the Human Health Risk Assessment were to determine whether concentrations of constituents in soil may pose unacceptable risks to human health under site - specific exposure conditions, and to provide information to support decisions concerning the need for further evaluation or action of these media based on the proposed dredging activities. The inhalation of fugitive dust exposure pathway was evaluated for the off-site resident receptor. The risk assessment supports the following conclusions: 1.) No unacceptable cancer risks are posed to the off-site resident. The incremental lifetime cancer risk is estimated to be within the EPA’s risk management range at 2E-05, primarily attributable to background concentrations of [naturally-occurring] asbestos. 2.) No unacceptable non-carcinogenic risks are posed to the off-site resident. As a new study that has not been previously available to the public, t he complete Human Health Risk Assessment is included as Attachment B to this Council Agenda Report. FISCAL IMPACT Funding is identified in the 2017-18 Budget and 2017-19 Financial Plan to support final environmental review, permitting, and to begin project implementation (see pages E2-47 and E2- 48). Adequate staff resources to support the project have also been identified within the Natural Resources Program and Public Works CIP Engineering Division. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council could request additional information or make changes to the proposed project. Depending on the extent of changes that might be requested, it may be necessary to recirculate the required 30-day Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The City Council could elect not to proceed with the proposed project at this time. Attachments: a - Resolution b - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration c - Human Health Risk Assessment - Langan Engineering and Environmental 2017 Packet Pg 109 4 R _____ RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection, management, and public use of open space lands and cultural resources acquired by the City; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo owns and manages fourteen Open Space properties totaling approximately 3,850 acres, as well Open Space or Conservation Easements totaling approximately 3,400 acres; and WHEREAS, one of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space properties is the 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve, the management and stewardship of which is guided by the Council-adopted Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan that calls for dredging and sediment management strategies, among other goals and policies; and WHEREAS, members of the public provided continuous testimony to the City Council requesting implementation of dredging and sediment management strategies, and City staff have identified a project to begin implementation of maintenance dredging regime for Laguna Lake, following a Council-directed process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: The City Council hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project based on the following findings: 1. The Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project considered a “Project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in Public Resources Code §21065 because it represents an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and because it is an activity directly undertaken by a public agency. 2. An Initial Study and Environmental Review has been prepared for the project that concludes that significant impacts on the environment could occur, but these impacts will be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology / Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology / Water Quality. These potentially significant impacts are reduced to less than significant with the following mitigation measures, which are incorporated herein: Air Quality Packet Pg 110 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ AQ-1 During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered/tarped in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent the escape of soil or dust. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre- wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend. AQ 2 Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD Packet Pg 111 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. AQ 3 To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: I. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. II. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. III. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. Biological Resources Packet Pg 112 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______ BIO-1 Special Status Plant Species Avoidance: Avoid impacts to occurrences of special status plants listed under ESA and/or CESA. As part of the design of the projects, biological surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify specimens in the project area. If total avoidance of CRPR species is not feasible, minimize impacts to less than 10 percent of onsite populations. BIO-2 Special Status Plant Species Mitigation. Should it be determined that more than 10% of onsite population of Special Status Plants be impacted, the City shall develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) to develop adequate mitigation to offset impacts to species. The HMMP shall quantify the impacts associated with operations and specify restoration practices and enhancement of species habitat. The HMMP shall be reviewed, as applicable by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for consistency with State requirements. BIO-3 Special Status Wildlife-Birds Avoidance. To avoid take of nesting birds, and raptor nests at any time of year (including inactive nests), activities requiring vegetation disturbance would occur outside the nesting season, which is approximately February 1 through September 15. If activities must begin within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys will be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and will be of sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors onsite and within the designated vicinity. If no nests are observed no further mitigation is required. BIO-4 Special Status Wildlife-Birds Nesting. If nests are found, their locations will be flagged and then mapped onto an aerial photograph of the project site at a scale no less than 1”=200’ and/or recorded with the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. An appropriate avoidance buffer ranging in size from 50 to 500 feet from the nest, depending upon the species and the proposed work activity, will be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing or other high-visibility delineators. No ground disturbance will occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed and all the young have fledged. If buffer zones are determined to be infeasible, a full- time qualified biological monitor can monitor project activity within the buffer zones to ensure active nests and nesting birds are not impacted. BIO-5 Special Status Animals Badger. Prior to activities that disturb native habitats in upland areas, a qualified biologist should complete a survey for badger dens. In order to avoid the potential direct take of adults and nursing young, no grading should occur within 50 feet of an active badger den between March 1 and June 30. Activities during July 1 and March 1 should comply with the following measures to avoid direct take of adult and weaned juvenile badgers. o Conduct a biological survey of the anticipated development areas between 2 weeks and 4 weeks of the start of ground clearing or grading activity. The survey should cover the entire area proposed for disturbance. Surveys should focus on Packet Pg 113 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 R ______ both old and new den sites. If dens are too long to see the end, a fiber optic scope (or other acceptable method) can be used to assess the presence of badgers. o Inactive dens shall be excavated by hand with a shovel to prevent badgers from reusing them during construction. o Badgers should be discouraged from using currently active dens prior to the grading of the site by partially blocking the entrance of the den with sticks, debris and soil for 3 to 5 days or through use of a 1-way door. After badgers have stopped using active dens within the development area, the dens shall be hand excavated with a shovel to prevent re-use. BIO-6 Special Status Animals Pallid Bat. Prior to activities that require tree removal, a qualified biologist should inspect trees proposed for removal to ensure bats are not roosting. If bats are observed, the biologist shall determine if the roost is a hibernaculum or a maternity colony. If so, removal of the tree would be postponed until outside wintering or maternity seasons. If not, the bat(s) would be evicted using appropriate one-way devices and the tree inspected again prior to tree removal. BIO-7 Special Status Animals Coast Horned Lizard. During new grading activities in upland habitats, a qualified biologist should be on-site to recover any coast horned lizards that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they should be immediately relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition t o be released into the designated release area. BIO-8 Special Status Animals Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The project would be designed to avoid impacts to the basins and wetland depressions (adjacent to but not abutting Laguna Lake), and would avoid altering hydrology of these features. Work areas would be flagged, resources to be avoided would be flagged, and no work would occur upslope and within 250 feet of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. BIO-9 Special Status Animals Western Spadefoot Toad . During new grading activities in upland habitats, a qualified biologist should be on-site to recover any spadefoot toads that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they should be immediately relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to be released into the designated release area. BIO-10a Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction would attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this program would include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet Packet Pg 114 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 R ______ conveying this information would also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the project. BIO-10b Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. Ground disturbing activities associated with dry portions of Prefumo Creek should be conducted between May 1 and October 31 during dry weather conditions, which are periods of low activity for these species in dry habitats, to minimize the potential for encountering CRLF. Work should be restricted to daylight hours to the extent feasible. o If activities must occur between November 1 and April 30, the qualified biologist should conduct a pre‐activity clearance sweep each morning prior to start of project activities after any rain events of 0.1 inch or greater. o All trash should be removed from the site daily and disposed of properly to avoid attracting potential predators to the site. o Non-automated operational activities (i.e. truck trips), shall not be conducted during rain events occurring at night to the extent feasible. If project activities requiring movement of equipment are to occur at night during rain events, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the site each night. BIO-10c Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. A qualified biologist should conduct a survey of work areas associated with the lake and creek within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area would include the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100-foot buffer. A biologist authorized to relocate frogs should be present for activities that require movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for frogs. If a frog is observed in the work area, the biologist would relocate it, with prior authorization from USFWS, out of the work area. BIO-10d Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. If drying basins are used to remove water from the sediment, appropriate exclusion fence should be placed around the basins to prevent access by frogs. BIO-11 Special Status Animals Southwestern Pond Turtle. A qualified biologist should conduct a survey of work areas associated with the lake and creek within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area would include the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100-foot buffer. Turtles within work areas should be relocated outside the work area. A biologist authorized to relocate turtles should be present for activities that require movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for turtles. If a turtle is observed in the work area, the biologist would relocate it out of the work area. BIO-12 Habitat Enhancement Fisheries. During project design, including options to stabilize banks along the lake, the following habitat parameters would be considered and incorporated as feasible: Packet Pg 115 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 7 R ______ o The lake should provide abundant cover including woody debris, boulders, and undercut banks. Woody debris is very important to provide needed shelter for juvenile fish especially in low velocity refuges. Having appropriate cover and shelter would be imperative for steelhead to survive in Laguna Lake. o Depths greater than 0.5 meter are generally deep enough to avoid wading birds. Depth alone is not the determining factor in water temperature, but lake which has a depth to create a thermocline cold enough to support the fish during periods of higher water temperatures is desirable. o The lake should contain a regular and pronounced slope along its banks. o DO concentrations affect the migration and swimming performance of steelhead at all temperatures. Low DO levels decrease the rate of metabolism, swimming speed, growth rate, food consumption rate, efficiency of food utilization, behavior, and survival. Steelhead does best where DO concentration is at least 7.0 mg/L. DO concentrations should remain at or near saturation levels with temporary reductions no lower than 5.0 mg/L, which has been documented to result in severe production impairment (Carter, 2005). o Suspended and deposited fine sediment can directly affect steelhead by clogging gills, indirectly causing reduced feeding, destruction of food supplies, and changed rearing habitat. Silt loads of less than 25 mg/L permit good rearing conditions for juvenile steelhead. Controlling sediment loads into the creek and lake will improve conditions for steelhead. BIO-13 Project Monitoring Fisheries. During project implementation, a biologist with fisheries experience should be present during activities movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for fish. If feasible, the active dredge area would be screened to reduce likelihood of aquatic vertebrate species in the active dredging area (e.g. intakes will be screened). If steelhead is observed, activities would cease until NMFS can be consulted. While dredging is underway, a biologist will monitor activities at least weekly. BIO-14 Needlegrass Habitat Avoidance. To the maximum extent feasible, project activities would be designed to avoid needlegrass grassland habitat. If needlegrass grassland habitat areas cannot be avoided in temporary impact areas, purple needlegrass will be incorporated into the revegetation plant palette to functionally replace the impacted habitat. BIO-15 Needlegrass Enhancement. If permanent impacts remove needlegrass grassland habitat areas greater than 0.5 acre in size, an equivalent amount of this habitat type must be created within a City-designated and -approved needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation area onsite. Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of needlegrass grassland habitat would be outlined in a HMMP. The needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas will be monitored annually for at least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this sensitive habitat has been achieved. BIO-16 Wetlands Restoration. Jurisdictional areas that cannot be avoided will acquire all applicable regulatory permits. Temporary impact areas will be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for each acre of impact) to offset temporary losses in wetland, stream, or Packet Pg 116 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8 R ______ riparian function. Permanent impacts will be offset through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of in-kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1 to mitigate unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas. Note the resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will likely be required, and would be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. The plan will include, but not be limited to the following components: o Description of the project/impact site, o Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project, o Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site, o Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site, o Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, o Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site, o Success criteria and performance standards, o Reporting requirements, and o Contingency measures and funding mechanisms. BIO -17 Erosion Control. Erosion control and landscaping specifications shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, (i.e. no plastic-mesh temporary erosion control measures) to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. BIO-18 Habitat Improvement. Where feasible, aquatic habitat improvements such as root wads and downed logs will be incorporated into bank stabilization and sediment control efforts to enhance aquatic habitat in perennial waterways. BIO-19 State/Federal Consultation. Prior to commencement of operations, consultations with applicable federal and state agencies shall be completed per the provisions of the Clean Water Act and Porter Cologne Act. Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department and Natural Resources Manager shall verify compliance. Cultural Resources CULT-1: If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under the National Historic Preservation Act and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties. Packet Pg 117 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 9 R ______ CULT-2: The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities; if human remains are found, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the San Luis Obispo County Sherriff- Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall verify compliance, including preparation and implementation of the Monitoring Plan, and review and approval of cultural resources monitoring reports documenting compliance with required mitigation measures. Geology / Soils GEO-1 Grading and erosion and sediment control plans shall be designed to minimize erosion during operations and shall be implemented for the duration of the grading period and until regraded areas have been stabilized. The City shall prepare Erosion Control Plan using Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are designed to stabilize the site and protect natural watercourses. GEO-2 The City shall revegetate graded areas upon completion of grading activities with deep rooted, native, drought-tolerant species to minimize slope failure and erosion potential. Use of hydro-seed, straw blankets, other geo-textile binding fabrics or other P&D-approved methods as necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation is established. Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading plans for review and approval by the City Community Development and Public Works Departments. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections. Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 Excavated sediment must be covered/tarped when transported outside of the project area. HAZ-2 Excavated sediment shall be tested according to a soil sampling protocol to ensure that the soils are acceptable to the desired disposal site. If it is determined that the sediments contain hazardous constituents and are unacceptable to the desired disposal site, the sediments shall be disposed at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. HAZ-4 Water sprays or other adequate measures will be applied each day that work activities occur to all disturbed areas with the potential to emit fugitive dust. At a minimum, water will be applied to exposed areas three times per day with increasing watering frequency required Packet Pg 118 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 10 R ______ whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. HAZ-5 Sediments/soil stockpiles will be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation at the end of each work day. HAZ-6 On site vehicle speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. Loose dirt and dust shall be removed from all vehicular wheels using brushes, rumble strips, or water prior to leaving the site. HAZ-7 The contractor will designate a person(s) to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. The contractor will stop project activities immediately if visible dust emissions are detected at the property boundary and will implement additional dust mitigation measures. HAZ-8 After work activities are completed, all disturbed areas will be re-vegetating or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. HAZ-9 A worker health, safety and education plan will be developed and required, as well as emergency and remedial procedures. Hydrology / Water Quality HYDRO-1. For dredging operations the use of a turbidity curtain will be employed as applicable. Sediment basins to be used for dewatering should be located at least 200 feet ways from the lake shoreline. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 would mitigate impacts to water quality to less than significant. HYDRO-2. Upon conclusion of operations, creek banks would be regraded as necessary and laid back to 2H:1V to 2.5H: 1V and reinforced to stabilize banks. Slopes will be revegetated with native riparian species and ground cover. Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development, Public Works, and Utilities Departments. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections. 3. Other less than significant impacts were also identified in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology / Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, and Transportation / Traffic. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: Packet Pg 119 4 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 11 R ______ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 120 4 Packet Pg 121 4 Packet Pg 122 4 Packet Pg 123 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager 805-781-7211 Prepared By: Brian A. Tetley, Senior Planner Rural Planning Services 4. Project Location: 504 Madonna Road 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designations: Park 7. Zoning: Public Facility Packet Pg 124 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 2 8. Description of the Project: The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to implement a maintenance dredging regime that will remove sediment impacting the function and operation of Laguna Lake (the “Lake”) as a recreational facility within the Parks and Recreation Department and as a wildlife and natural reserve overseen by the City’s Natural Resources Program. This work will be performed by hydraulic dredging methods without draining the Lake. The project also includes some elements of bank restoration and stabilization on the northern shore adjacent to the Park, emptying and restoring of the sedimentation basin on Prefumo Creek between Los Osos Valley Road and Laguna Lake, and future construction of a new sedimentation basin within the City owned golf course on the south side of Los Osos Valley Road on Prefumo Creek. The project will remove a sediment layer averaging approximately 3-4 feet deep in the area shown on Attachment 2 for a total removal of between 3,000 CY and 4,000 CY of material. The material will be disposed of at a local off-site location in a legal and lawful manner. Sediments will be transported to the disposal site in covered trucks/trailers. Although there may be one or more local ranches or development project sites that may desire and receive some or all of the sediment, the guaranteed or default disposal site will be the Cold Canyon Landfill, located at 2268 Carpenter Canyon Rd, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. The landfill has reviewed the soils reports and determined they can receive the sediment for disposal, and possibly for use as daily cover dirt. The project will only dispose of sediment at other, closer locations if, at project bid time, these locations have appropriate and required environmental documentation and permitting in place. The area to be dredged extends from the outlet of Prefumo Creek downstream approximately 1,200 feet (see Attachment 2). The work will be performed within the Lake while it retains the water in it at the time of construction. The necessity for dredging and the associated public benefits of dredging include: 1. Restoring recreational use of Laguna Lake. Formerly a popular kayaking, canoeing, sailing and windsurfing lake, the Lake is now shallow and limited in its ability to support these activities. 2. Restore lake water quality and health of the lake to support birds and wildlife. The shallow lake creates a warm-water environment that is susceptible to seasonal algae blooms resulting in lower dissolved oxygen levels, decreased recreational use due to presence of microcystins, and more frequent dry cycles on the banks or lake-wide that create vegetation and fish die- offs, with associated decomposition odors and increased nitrate levels. 3. The Lake provides some natural flood protection as a natural water body, but is not maintained or operated as a flood control facility. The ability of the Lake to contin ue to Packet Pg 125 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 3 perform its natural, limited function of flood control and water storage will be restored with dredging. 4. Deeper waters may support and enhance salmonid and other fish populations. The maintenance dredging regime is expected to be ongoing, but comprised of at least four construction seasons, avoiding the winter months between November 1 and April 15 to: 1) Avoid impacts during the wettest seasons on local wildlife and 2) Complete work outside the bird nesting season. To minimize impacts on local structures and citizens: 1. There will be no downstream releases of water. 2. Most access for work shall be from the north (park) side of the lake utilizing the park entrance on Madonna Road. 3. All dewatering of the dredged slurry soil will be performed by the following method: a. Semi-Passive Dewatering. Dredged slurry will be pumped onshore into geotextile bags or “tubes” that serve to decant the water through the fabric leaving the solids inside the geotextile bags. Flocculating polymer agents will also be used in conjunction with this process to more thoroughly remove turbidity. The geotextile bags will be placed into a sediment basin constructed a minimum of 100 feet away from the lake surface to allow for capture of materials and filtrated recharge into the soil profile. During this dewatering process, water quality will be improved from that of the existing lake water ; nitrates and biocides (pesticides) tend to adhere to sediments. To assure that water quality meets established standards, a water quality testing program will be implemented during dredging. Trailer mounted activated carbon filters will be available for initial operations as a confidence measure for compliance, but will only continue to be used if on-going dredging operations and proposed dewatering equipment cannot satisfy permitting agency water quality requirements without them. 4. Water quality impacts by the dredging process will be mitigated by: a. Use of sediment screens to reduce migration of turbidity caused by the hydraulic dredging process, b. Dewatering processes designed and proven to treat the return water to an equivalent, or better water quality as proscribed in final permits. c. Sediment management plan with best management practices implemented at the dewatering and bank restoration and protection sites. Packet Pg 126 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 4 The dewatering and sediment handling area will be as small as practical (approximately 3 to 4 acres), and contained within the area shown on Attachment 3. Material shall be loaded on haulers or dump trucks, and hauled to the disposal site via City and County streets, as well as Highway 227. Equipment may include any or all of the following: • One (1) tracked high-capacity (4-7 CY) excavator used to prepare the sediment basin area. Caterpillar 325 Excavators or equivalent (Diesel). • Two (2) front-end loaders (4-7 CY) (Diesel) used to load dewatered sediment into dump trucks. • Two (2) three–axle dump trucks, Cat CTC660 or equivalent (Diesel). • One (1) Oiler Truck, on a one ton Ford Frame, or equivalent (Diesel). • One (1) Water Truck/Trailer, on a one ton Ford Frame, or equivalent (Diesel). • Pontoon-boat mounted hydraulic 6” or 8” dredge that can be launched from the existing boat ramp, and associated floating 6” or 8” dredge pipe leading from the dredge to the dewatering site. Hours of operations will be between 7:00AM-7:00PM Monday through Friday and, if required, Saturday between 8:00AM-5:00PM. Once dredging activities conclude, the impacted areas of the park will be planted and/or seeded per pre-construction conditions and in accordance with final permits. With the exception of periodic sediment removal from the sedimentation basin on Prefumo Creek north of Los Osos Valley road, a sediment removal project has not been performed in the Lake since the early 1960s. Based on historic sediment flows and accumulation, and the anticipated development and maintenance of the sedimentation basin, it is estimated that a maintenance dredging regime project will need to remove approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment on an annual basis. The dredging priority area will be near the outlet of Prefumo Creek into the Lake where sediment deposition has been the greatest. 9. Project Entitlements Required: None. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows: West: Rural lands (C/OS-40); single-family residential neighborhood (R-1) Packet Pg 127 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 5 North: Rural lands (C/OS-40); city park (PF) East: Rural lands (C/OS-40); city park (PF); single-family residential neighborhood (R-1) South: Single-family residential neighborhood 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? No consultation required as no tribe has requested consultation in writing. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service. Packet Pg 128 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources X Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services X Air Quality X Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Tribal Cultural Resources X Geology / Soils Noise Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). Packet Pg 129 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 7 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 9/15/17 Signature Date Robert A. Hill Natural Resources Manager Printed Name Title Packet Pg 130 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Packet Pg 131 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 9 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 8 --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 8 --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 8 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 8 --X-- Evaluation In the local area, Laguna Lake serves as a substantial public scenic resource as the immediate backdrop for Laguna Lake Park. Views have been somewhat degraded in the recent past due to siltation and drought effects that have resulted in little or no water in areas historically covered in water. Unobstructed public views of Laguna Lake are also found from the Let It Be Nature Reserve. Secondary and partially obscured public views into Laguna Lake can also be seen from Laguna Middle School, Smith Elementary School, Smith Park, Laguna Hills park and as viewed from Madonna and Los Osos Valley Roads. a) The project purpose to remove silt and deepen Laguna Lake in key areas would improve the visual character of the lake in the long-term. Since Laguna Lake serves as a local visual resource, the operational project would therefore improve local scenic vistas. Active dredging activities, however, would temporarily introduce heavy equipment and associated materials that would degrade the scenic vistas in the short-term during the dredging project. b) There are no designated scenic highways near the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources visible from a scenic highway. c) The project purpose to remove silt and deepen Laguna Lake in key areas would improve the visual charac ter of the lake in the long-term. The operational project would therefore improve local scenic vistas. Active dredging activities, however, would temporarily introduce heavy equipment and associated materials that would degrade the scenic vistas in the short- term during the dredging project. d) The dredging project would be performed during daylight hours. No lighting is proposed. No impacts to nighttime views would result. Conclusion: The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? --X-- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? --X-- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? --X-- Evaluation a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. Packet Pg 132 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 10 b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for conservation/open space in the General Plan and is zoned C/OS-40 (Conservation/Open Space-40 acres minimum lot size). The project site is surrounded by open and park space to the north and established single-family neighborhoods to the south. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) The proposed dredging project will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated. Conclusion: No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 8 --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 8 --X-- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 8 --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 8 --X-- e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 8 --X-- Evaluation a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California A ir Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The City of San Luis Obispo is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state standards for PM10. CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012, the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are su bject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Under CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality. Due to the nature of the proposed dredging project, the are no “operational” emissions, per se. All emissions would be during the dredging and hauling phase utilizing internal combustion engine pumps and diesel trucks, respectively. Construction Significance Criteria: Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to dredging and hauling activities, vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. Construction and earth-moving activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors a Packet Pg 133 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 11 mitigation measure (AQ 1) has been recommended to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402). Construction equipment itself can be the source of emissions, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4. Truck trips associated with the soils that will be exported from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. A mitigation measure (AQ 2) has been recommended to ensure proper use of subject equipment. Additionally, because the project is in close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, an additional mitigation measure (AQ 3) is recommended to ensure that public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions. e) The project would not include the development of any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: During ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape pla ns shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute nettin g, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered/tarped in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent the escape of soil or dust. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment Packet Pg 134 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 12 and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Mitigation Measure AQ-3: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: I. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Of-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. II. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. III. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Conclusion: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would mitigate impacts to Air Quality to less than significant 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 9, 12, 13 --X-- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 9, 12, 13 --X-- d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 9, 13, 15 --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 9, 12 --X-- Packet Pg 135 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 13 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 9, 13 --X-- Evaluation The site consists of a section of Laguna Lake, Laguna Lake Park, and Prefumo Creek inlet and upstream reach 300 feet upstream of Los Osos Valley Road and its outlet from Laguna Lake to 150 feet downstream of Madonna Road. It contains diverse habitat types indicative of riparian and wetland interrelations with non-native grasslands and urban interfaces. The existing condition of the Laguna Lake project area consists of degraded capacity of hydrologic function due to sedimentation, which allows for succession of non-native plant material. Biologically, the lack of maintenance and deposition of sediment material has resulted in lowering the ecological function of the project area. Rincon Consultants prepared a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) dated May 2016 that quantifies existing habitat values. a) Eighteen special status plant species may occur onsite based on the presence of suitable habitat; five of which, Cambria morning-glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis), San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima) and saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum), were documented in the Study Area. However, these species are not expected to be impacted whatsoever as project activity will not occur where they are located. Of the numerous wildlife species reported from the vicinity of the Study Area, nineteen species may occur onsite based on the presence of suitable habitat, including golden eagle, white-tailed kite , tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, purple martin, Cooper's hawk, grasshopper sparrow, California horned lark, merlin, prairie falcon, American badger, pallid bat, Blainville’s horned lizard, California red-legged frog, Coast Range newt , spadefoot toad, Southern western pond turtle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and steelhead – South Central California Distinct Population Segment. The upper reach of Prefumo Creek upstream of the project site is designated as critical habitat for south-central California coast steelhead. For eventual design, quantified impacts to species identified on the site that are listed in the Federal and State Endangered Species Act and/or identified as sensitive or species of concern may require consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Subsequent impact assessment will determine the level of review as applicable. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1 Special Status Plant Species Avoidance: Avoid impacts to occurrences of special status plants listed under ESA and/or CESA. As part of the design of the projects, biological surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify specimens in the project area. If total avoidance of CRPR species is not feasible, minimize impacts to less than 10 percent of onsite populations. BIO-2 Special Status Plant Species Mitigation. Should it be determined that more than 10% of onsite population of Special Status Plants be impacted, the City shall develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) to develop adequate mitigation to offset impacts to species. The HMMP shall quantify the impacts associated with operations and specify restoration practices and enhancement of species habitat. The HMMP shall be reviewed, as applicable by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for consistency with State requirements. BIO-3 Special Status Wildlife-Birds Avoidance. To avoid take of nesting birds, and raptor nests at any time of year (including inactive nests), activities requiring vegetation disturbance would occur outside the nesting season, which is approximately February 1 through September 15. If activities must begin within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys Packet Pg 136 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 14 will be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and will be of sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors onsite and within the designated vicinity. If no nests are observed no further mitigation is required. BIO-4 Special Status Wildlife-Birds Nesting. If nests are found, their locations will be flagged and then mapped onto an aerial photograph of the project site at a scale no less than 1”=200’ and/or recorded with the use of a Global Positioning Sy stem (GPS) unit. An appropriate avoidance buffer ranging in size from 50 to 500 feet from the nes t, depending upon the species and the proposed work activity, will be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing or other high-visibility delineators. No ground disturbance will occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed and all the young have fledged. If buffer zones are determined to be infeasible, a full- time qualified biological monitor can monitor project activity within the buffer zones to ensure active nests and nesting birds are not impacted. BIO-5 Special Status Animals Badger. Prior to activities that disturb native habitats in upland areas, a qualified biologist should complete a survey for badger dens. In order to avoid the potential direct take of adults and nursing young, no grading should occur within 50 feet of an active badger den between March 1 and June 30. Activities during July 1 and March 1 should comply with the following measures to avoid direct take of adult and weaned juvenile badgers. o Conduct a biological survey of the anticipated development areas between 2 weeks and 4 weeks of the start of ground clearing or grading activity. The survey should cover the entire area proposed for disturbance. Surveys should focus on both old and new den sites. If dens are too long to see the end, a fiber optic scope (or other acceptable method) can be used to assess the presence of badgers. o Inactive dens shall be excavated by hand with a shovel to prevent badgers from reusing them during const ruction. o Badgers should be discouraged from using currently active dens prior to the grading of the site by partially blocking the entrance of the den with sticks, debris and soil for 3 to 5 days or through use of a 1-way door. After badgers have stopped using active dens within the development area, the dens shall be hand excavated with a shovel to prevent re- use. BIO-6 Special Status Animals Pallid Bat. Prior to activities that require tree removal, a qualified biologist should inspect trees proposed for removal to ensure bats are not roosting. If bats are observed, the biologist shall determine if the roost is a hibernaculum or a maternity colony. If so, removal of the tree would be postponed until outside wintering or maternity seasons. If not, the bat(s) would be evicted using appropriate one-way devices and the tree inspected again prior to tree removal BIO-7 Special Status Animals Coast Horned Lizard. During new grading activities in upland habitats, a qualified biologist should be on-site to recover any coast horned lizards that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they should be immediately relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to be released into the designated release area. BIO-8 Special Status Animals Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The project would be designed to avoid impacts to the basins and wetland depressions (adjacent to but not abutting Laguna Lake), and would avoid altering hydrology of these features. Work areas would be flagged, resources to be avoided would be flagged, and no work would occur upslope and within 250 feet of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. BIO-9 Special Status Animals Western Spadefoot Toad. During new grading activities in upland habitats, a qualified biologist should be on-site to recover any spadefoot toads that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they should be immediately relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to be released into the designated release area. BIO-10a Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction would attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this program would include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this Packet Pg 137 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 15 information would also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the project. BIO-10b Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. Ground disturbing activities associated with dry portions of Prefumo Creek should be conducted between May 1 and October 31 during dry weather conditions, which are periods of low activity for these species in dry habitats, to minimize the potential for encountering CRLF. Work should be restricted to daylight hours to the extent feasible. o If activities must occur between November 1 and April 30, the qualified biologist should conduct a pre‐activity clearance sweep each morning prior to start of project activities after any rain events of 0.1 inch or greater. o All trash should be removed from the site daily and disposed of properly to avoid attracting potential predators to the site. o Non-automated operational activities (i.e. truck trips), shall not be conducted during rain events occurring at night to the extent feasible. If project activities requiring movement of equipment are to occur at night during rain events, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the site each night. BIO-10c Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. A qualified biologist should conduct a survey of work areas associated with the lake and creek within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area would include the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100-foot buffer. A biologist authorized to relocate frogs should be present for activities that require movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for frogs. If a frog is observed in the work area, the biologist would relocate it, with prior authorization from USFWS, out of the work area BIO-10d Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. If drying basins are used to remove water from the sediment, appropriate exclusion fence should be placed around the basins to prevent access by frogs. BIO-11 Special Status Animals Southwestern Pond Turtle. A qualified biologist should conduct a survey of work areas associated with the lake and creek within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area would include the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100-foot buffer. Turtles within work areas should be relocated outside the work area. A biologist authorized to relocate turtles should be present for activities that require movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for turtles. If a turtle is observed in the work area, the biologist would relocate it out of the work area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-11 would mitigate impacts to Special Status Species to less than significant. b) The project area maintains eight different types of vegetative communities including several sensitive habitat types such as 5.95 acres of Needlegrass grasslands, 6.85 acres of Riparian habitat, 2.97 acres of freshwater wetlands, 55.34 acres of open water habitat. Other habitats include non-native grasslands, developed and ornamental landscaping, and planted groves due to the close proximity of the urbanized landscape. The project would result in temporary impacts during dredging operations of habitat types. The following mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented during the design phase and subsequent implementation to minimize impacts to natural communities. Mitigation Measures: BIO-12 Habitat Enhancement Fisheries. During project design, including options to stabilize banks along the lake, the following habitat parameters would be considered and incorporated as feasible: o The lake should provide abundant cover including woody debris, boulders, and undercut banks. Woody debris is very important to provide needed shelter for juvenile fish especially in low velocity refuges. Having appropriate cover and shelter would be imperative for steelhead to survive in Laguna Lake. o Depths greater than 0.5 meter are generally deep enough to avoid wading birds. Depth alone is not the determining factor in water temperature, but lake which has a depth to create a thermocline cold enough to support the fish during periods of higher water temperatures is desirable. o The lake should contain a regular and pronounced slope along its banks. o DO concentrations affect the migration and swimming performance of steelhead at all temperatures. Low DO levels decrease the rate of metabolism, swimming speed, growth rate, food consumption rate, efficiency of food utilization, Packet Pg 138 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 16 behavior, and survival. Steelhead does best where DO concentration is at least 7.0 mg/L. DO concentrations should remain at or near saturation levels with temporary reductions no lower than 5.0 mg/L, which has been documented to result in severe production impairment (Carter, 2005). o Suspended and deposited fine sediment can directly affect steelhead by clogging gills, indirectly causing reduced feeding, destruction of food supplies, and changed rearing habitat. Silt loads of less than 25 mg/L permit good rearing conditions for juvenile steelhead. Controlling sediment loads into the creek and lake will improve conditions for steelhead. BIO-13 Project Monitoring Fisheries. During project implementation, a biologist with fisheries experience should be present during activities movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for fish. If feasible, the active dredge area would be screened to reduce likelihood of aquatic vertebrate species in the active dredging area (e.g. intakes will be screened). If steelhead is observed, activities would cease until NMFS can be consulted. While dredging is underway, a biologist will monitor activities at least weekly. BIO-14 Needlegrass Habitat Avoidance. To the maximum extent feasible, project activities would be designed to avoid needlegrass grassland habitat. If needlegrass grassland habitat areas cannot be avoided in temporary impact areas, purple needlegrass will be incorporated into the revegetation plant palette to functionally replace the impacted habitat. BIO-15 Needlegrass Enhancement. If permanent impacts remove needlegrass grassland habitat areas greater than 0.5 acre in size, an equivalent amount of this habitat type must be created within a City-designated and -approved needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation area onsite. Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of needlegrass grassland habitat would be outlined in a HMMP. The needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas will be monitored annually for at least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this sensitive habitat has been achieved Implementation of mitigations Measures BIO-12 through BIO-15 would mitigate impacts to Habitat Communities to less than significant (Class II). c) The project site maintains 4.72 acres of wetlands and 56.77 acres of other waters that are potentially under USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction. A jurisdictional delineation was completed by Rincon Consultants and the results are identified in the BRA for this project. According to the study, the jurisdictional area applicable to the Clean Water Act (404/401) consisted of 4.72 acres of wetlands and 56.77 acres of other waters below the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) area subject to the Porter Cologne Act and CDFW Section 1602 consisted of 65.89 acres. The project would consist of temporary impacts to areas due to dredging under jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies requiring 404/401/1602 permits. Mitigation Measures: BIO-16 Wetlands Restoration. Jurisdictional areas that cannot be avoided will acquire all applicable regulatory permits. Temporary impact areas will be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for each acre of impact) to offs et temporary losses in wetland, stream, or riparian function. Permanent impacts will be offset through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of in-kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1 to mitigate unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas. Note the resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will likely be required, and would be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. The plan will include, but not be limited to the following components: o Description of the project/impact site, o Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project, o Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site, o Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site, o Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, o Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site, o Success criteria and performance standards, o Reporting requirements, and Packet Pg 139 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 17 o Contingency measures and funding mechanisms. BIO -17 Erosion Control. Erosion control and landscaping specifications shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, (i.e. no plastic-mesh temporary erosion control measures) to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. BIO-18 Habitat Improvement. Where feasible, aquatic habitat improvements such as root wads and downed logs will be incorporated into bank stabilization and sediment control efforts to enhance aquatic habitat in perennial waterways. BIO-19 State/Federal Consultation. Prior to commencement of operations, consultations with applicable federal and state agencies shall be completed per the provisions of the Clean Water Act and Porter Cologne Act. Implementation of Mitigations Measures BIO-16 through BIO-19 would mitigate impacts to wetlands to less than significant. d) Laguna Lake is indicative urban water resource benefiting the community with multiple uses such as flood control, recreation, and cultural enhancement. The lake itself is surrounded on two sides to the south and east by existing urban and agricultural development. Additional development is also envisioned with the future San Luis Ranch project located to the east. North and west of the site lies non-native grasslands and open space that provide ample movement potential for wildlife. The proposed project would potentially result in temporary short-term impacts to wildlife movement due to increased vehicle trips, equipment access and staging, temporary spoils and settling basins, soil disturbance, and dredging equipment. Upon completion of the project, wildlife movement conditions are expected to return to pre-project conditions. Mitigation Measures and Conclusion: No mitigation measures are required, significant impacts to fish or wildlife movement are not anticipated. e) Management of sediment issues in Laguna Lake and Prefumo Creek are identified in local conservation and management plan documents for Laguna Lake, and proposed project alternatives would be consistent with conservation goals in the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, where applicable. The project will also require the removal of some trees which is regulated by the City. Tree removal will be required per the local ordinances to be processed via a tree removal permit. Adherence to the city’s removal policies the project would be consistent with local requirements. Mitigation Measures and Conclusion: No mitigation measures are required, significant impacts to local policies or ordinances are not anticipated. f) The City, assisted by technical experts, prepared the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (Plan) for the LLNR in 2014. As previously noted, a portion of the LLNR is within the Study Area. Th e document provides a summary of the history of the site, including Laguna Lake, and the natural resources present in the LLNR. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is in effect within the Study Area so there is no conflict on other local, regional, or state levels Mitigation Measures and Conclusion: No mitigation measures are required, significant impacts to adopted conservation plans is not anticipated Conclusion: With implementation of the above listed Mitigation Measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on Biological Resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 11 --X-- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 11 --X-- c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 11 --X-- Packet Pg 140 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 18 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 11 --X-- Evaluation a) There are no historic structures associated with the proposed dredging of Laguna Lake. b-d) The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained resource maps. A cultural resources study was prepared to determine the presence or likelihood of archaeological historical resources. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials. However, there is the limited potential that materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials) could be encountered during operation of the project. Two mitigation measures (CULT 1 and CULT 2) are recommended to ensure that any materials discovered during construction activities be appropriately handled. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under the National Historic Preservation Act and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities; if human remains are found, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the San Luis Obispo County Sherriff-Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Conclusion: With implementation of CULT-1 and CULT-2, the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 7,8 --X-- I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X-- IV. Landslides? --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 7,8 --X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 7,8 --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks 7,8 --X-- Packet Pg 141 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 19 to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7,8 --X-- Evaluation The project site is located along the southern end of Los Osos Valley between the San Luis Range and Santa Lucia Range which are part of the southern coast Ranges. The Range is typified by Mesozoic-age to recent materials composed of sedimentary, volcanic, igneous, and metamorphic rocks. The older formations, Jurassic to Cretaceous age bedrock of the Franciscan Formation were intruded by younger volcanic/igneous rocks forming volcanic plugs. These plugs formed the current peaks along the ridges of the hills found in the valley. The Los Osos Valley fault lies on a northwest-southeast axis and Laguna Lake is described as a sag pond within the fault zone. The lake itself is located in the floodplain with alluvium deposited by area streams that overlay Franciscan age metamorphic greenstones. Geological Mapping Units of the site indicate the suite to consist primarily of fine grained alluvial flood-plain deposits and pervasively sheared serpentine greenstone. Soils onsite primarily consist of relatively loose to medium silts (MH) and stiff clay layers (CL/CH). a) The project does not propose any structural development or result in a situation where it would create a situation placing people permanently on site exposed to earthquake activity. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are associated with potential fault and earthquake impacts. b) The project requires some disturbance and equipment being placed within watercourses resulting in impacts to stream banks. The project also proposes potential creek bank restoration and stabilization along Prefumo Creek and a sediment settling basin. In order to protect habitat and creek function it will be necessary to manage sediment and erosion control. Once the dredging plan is finalized an erosion and sediment control plan will be required to stabilize potentially erosive soils. Mitigation Measures: GEO-1 Grading and erosion and sediment control plans shall be designed to minimize erosion during operations and shall be implemented for the duration of the grading period and until regraded areas have been stabilized. The City shall prepare Erosion Control Plan using Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are designed to stabilize the site and protect natural watercourses. GEO-2 The City shall revegetate graded areas upon completion of grading activities with deep rooted, native, dr ought-tolerant species to minimize slope failure and erosion potential. Use of hydro-seed, straw blankets, other geo-textile binding fabrics or other P&D-approved methods as necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation is established. Conclusion: With implementation of GEO-1 and GEO-2, the project will have a less than significant impact in relation to soil erosion. c-e) Activities are focused on the alluvial flood plain and not on the slopes adjacent to the lake. Likewise, no structural development is proposed that could potentially be constructed in unstable areas. No wastewater systems are proposed, sediment is proposed to be transported and used as landfill top cover. No impacts are anticipated to geology and soils from developmen t on unstable soils or inadequate wastewater system disposal. With implementation of GEO-1 and GEO-2, the project will have a less than significant impact on geology and soils. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Packet Pg 142 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 20 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? --X-- Evaluation a,b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California’s Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S -3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. The proposed project, however, does not include structural development subject to the efficiency measure typically applied in those cases. SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to the extent feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions: • Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities; • The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful evaluation. All available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts); and, • The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic, technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant.” The emissions from dredging engines/generators and haul vehicle exhaust comprise the total project CO2eq emissions; see Air Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. Mitigation Measures AQ 2 and AQ 3 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to below a level of significance. Due to the lack of any long-term operational emissions, the threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project. Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 7,8,9 --X-- b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 7,8,9 --X-- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 7,8,9 --X-- Packet Pg 143 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 21 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7,8,9 --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7,8,9, 10 --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8,9 --X-- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8,9 --X-- Evaluation a) Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both h azardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination o f substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria. Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard i s any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material. Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility. A geotechnical study (Leighton, 2016) was performed for the project. Based on review of previous studies, background literature, site geology and the presence of exposed serpentine and greenstone bedrock in the drainages surrounding Laguna Lake, elevated levels of select metals, primarily chromium and nickel, were anticipated. Previous studies indicated lake sediments contained elevated levels of total chromium, nickel and manganese. The studies determined that: 1) metals were below US EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Levels established for residential and industrial/ commercial settings, and 2) the sediment samples do not require management as California or Federal RCRA hazardous waste. Chromium +6 is a known human carcinogen, tetragen, and mutagen and is mainly a concern via inhalation and to a lesser degree via ingestion. Chromium +3 is not a carcinogen and is a common human essential nutrient. Chromium +3 can convert to chromium +6 in oxidizing environments. Sediment conditions at Laguna Lake are generally anoxic or reducing and fa vor chromium +3. However, the studies reviewed by Leighton and subsequent conferring with authors of these studies, indicated that there was a potential for naturally occurring chromium +6 to be present in the soils and sediment within the lake due to Packet Pg 144 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 22 presence of serpentinite rock outcrops near Laguna Lake. There is potential for the chromium +3 in the sediment to revert to chromium +6 when dredged from the lake and deposited in an oxygen-rich setting (e.g., on Laguna Lake Park slopes adjacent to the northeast side of the lake). Leighton performed a sampling and analytical testing program to include surface soil and sediment sampling from Prefumo Creek and selected ephemeral drainages that flowed into the lake from the northeast slopes and originated the nearby serpentinite outcrop. In addition, Leighton collected a soil sample (i.e., soil sample LS-2) from coarse sandy soil located in a serpentinite outcrop. To evaluate concerns with nickel and other metals in the sediment, analytical testing of discrete and composite soil and sediment samples included the 17 metals listed in the California Code of regulations, Title 22, Article 11 (CAM-17 Metals) as well as chromium +6 in selected samples that exhibited elevated total chromium concentrations. Additional testing was performed to evaluate the levels of chromium in the sediment to assess if it may require management as California Hazardous Waste and/or Federal RCRA waste. Based on the presence of serpentinite rock outcrops near the lake and professional articles regarding the presence of natural chromium +6 under similar regimes, Leighton concluded that the presence of chromium +6 in the soil and sediment samples is naturally occurring. In addition, no man-made sources of the chromium +6 (e.g., plating and manufacturing facilities) found in the Laguna Lake area are evident and reinforces the likelihood that the prevalence of chromium +6 in the soil and sediment samples is of a natural origin. Review of the analytical test data for the Lake Laguna sediment samples suggests the sediment does require management as California or Federal RCRA hazardous waste. The sediment, once dredged, would be managed as a nonhazardous waste. It meets the landfill acceptance criteria, and should be acceptable for use as ground cover for a local municipal landfill. The proposed dredging project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, intermittent hauling or other movement of dredged material during active dredging or associated post-dredging operations could present a potential risk of exposure to chromium +6. This is only true for the time that dredged materials would be exposed to the air during the dewatering process and/or during hauling to the disposal site if significant wind events create fugitive dust from deposited sediments or during hauling. To formally assess this risk, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted for Laguna Lake and the surrounding area by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (2017) to determine if constituents in sediment and dried sediment (soil) pose unacceptable risks to human health under site-specific exposure conditions and support decisions concerning the need for further evaluation or mitigation. Previous investigations have indicated the presence of naturally occurring nickel, trivalent chromium (Cr+3) and hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) in exceedance of various risk -based human health screening levels. In addition, asbestos is naturally occurring in the local geologic formations. The technical approach for the HHRA consisted of data analysis, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and an assessment of the uncertainty associated with each stage of the HHRA process. The inhalation of fugitive dust exposure pathway was evaluated for the off -site resident receptor using reasonable maximum exposure point soil concentrations to derive exposures and risks. Incomplete pathways were not considered in the HHRA. Cancer risk results were compared to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s cumulative risk management range for multiple carcinogens of one in one million (1E-06) to one in ten thousand (1E-04). Non- cancer hazards were compared to a non-cancer hazard index of 1. The HHRA supported that no unacceptable cancer risks are posed to the off-site resident. The incremental lifetime cancer risk was estimated to be within the EPA’s risk management range at 2E-05, primarily attributable to naturally occurring asbestos concentrations. In addition, the HHRA also supported that no unacceptable non-carcinogenic risks are posed to the off-site resident. The complete risk assessment is available for public review. Dredging and hauling activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants. The amount of these materials used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. The following mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented during the operation of the project to minimize risks associated with potentially hazardous materials. In addition, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. HAZ-1 Excavated sediment must be covered/tarped when transported outside of the project area. Packet Pg 145 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 23 HAZ-2 Excavated sediment shall be tested according to a soil sampling protocol to ensure that the soils are acceptable to the desired disposal site. If it is determined that the sediments contain hazardous constituents and are unacceptable to the desired disposal site, the sediments shall be disposed at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. HAZ-3 The dewatering and sediment handling area will be as small as practical (3 to 4 acres). Sediments will be removed from Laguna Lake in a wet state (i.e. the water will be retained in the lake during dredging). The dredged slurry will be pumped into geotextile bags that will contain the sediments as water is decanted. HAZ-4 Water sprays or other adequate measures will be applied each day that work activities occur to all disturbed areas with the potential to emit fugitive dust. At a minimum, water will be applied to exposed areas three times per day with increasing watering frequency required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. HAZ-5 Sediments/soil stockpiles will be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation at the end of each work day. HAZ-6 On site vehicle speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. Loose dirt and dust shall be removed from all vehicular wheels using brushes, rumble strips, or water prior to leaving the site. HAZ-7 The contractor will designate a person(s) to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. The contractor will stop project activities immediately if visible dust emissions are detected at the property boundary and will implement additional dust mitigation measures. HAZ-8 After work activities are completed, all disturbed areas will be re-vegetating or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. HAZ-9 A worker health, safety and education plan will be developed and required, as well as emergency and remedial procedures. b) As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. However, intermittent hauling or other movement of dredged material during active dredging or associated post-dredging operations could present a potential risk of exposure to chromium +6. This is only true for the time that dredged materials would be exposed t o the air during the dewatering process and/or during hauling to the disposal site if significant wind events create fugitive dust from deposited sediments or during hauling. The implementation of proposed mitigation measures and implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of regulations. c) The proposed dredging project site project is within a quarter mile of Laguna Middle School and CL Smith Elementary School. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed dredging project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing nearby schools. However, intermittent hauling or other movement of dredged material during active dredging or associated post-dredging operations could present a potential risk of exposure to chromium +6. This is only true for the time that dredged materials would be exposed to the air during the dewatering process and/or during hauling to the dispos al site if significant wind events create fugitive dust from deposited sediments or during hauling. The HHRA, described above, determined that there is no unacceptable off-site risk. The implementation of proposed mitigation measures would further reduce any impacts associated with the potential for exposure to hazardous materials. d) The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located about one mile distant near the intersection of Los Osos Valley Packet Pg 146 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 24 Road and Highway 101. That site is listed on the Cortese list due to the presence of a PCE plume. The distance and type of site would not present a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site. e,f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstr ip. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) The dredging project would not be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan are considered less than significant. h) The dredging project would not result in the inducement of new resident populations subject to wildland hazards. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on the placement of people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Conclusion: With implementation of HAZ-1 through HAZ-9, the project will have a less than significant impact in relation to hazardous materials. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 7,8 --X-- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 8 --X-- c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? 7,8,9 --X-- d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 8 --X-- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 8 --X-- f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 8 --X-- g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8 --X-- h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 8 --X-- i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 7,8 --X-- j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? --X-- Packet Pg 147 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 25 Evaluation Laguna Lake, part of the 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve, is a 100-acre naturally occurring Lake that maintains a normal high water level of between two to six feet in depth with isolated deeper spots. Laguna Lake has an approximate capacity of 428.5 AF but has lost substantial capacity due to sedimentation deposition. The lake is fed by Prefumo Creek, a 2nd order stream which has been diverted in the past from its original route and is consistent with a typical urban watercourse, heavily impacted by adjacent urban uses, and eventually drains into San Luis Obispo Creek, a 1st Order stream, to the Pacific Ocean. Laguna Lake is fed by three sub-basins totaling 13.2 square miles of watersheds; Prefumo Canyon, Sycamore Canyon and Los Valley. Each sub basin maintains acreage of urban and/or agricultural development resulting in advanced acceleration of sedimentation and pollutants into the lake. A preliminary dredging report prepared by MNS Engineers August 2016 fully assessed existing setting and project parameters. a,f) Dredging and dewatering operations could result in increased impacts to water quality due to increased turbidity. Dredged slurry will be pumped onshore into geotextile bags or “tubes” that serve to decant the water through the fabric leaving the solids inside the geotextile bags. Flocculating polymer agents will also be used in conjunction with this process to more thoroughly remove turbidity. The geotextile bags will be placed into a sediment basin constructed a minimum of 100 feet away from the lake surface to allow for capture of materials and filtrated recharge into the soil profile. During this dewatering process, water quality will be improved from that of the existing lake water; nitrates and biocides (pesticides) tend to adhere to sediments. To assure that water quality meets established standards, a water quality testing program will be implemented during dredging. Trailer mounted activated carbon filters will be available for initial operations as a confidence measure for compliance, but will only continue to be used if on-going dredging operations and proposed dewatering equipment cannot satisfy permitting agency water quality requirements without them. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1. For dredging operations the use of a turbidity curtain will be employed as applicable. Dewatering will be via geotextile bags placed in sediment basins located at least 100 feet away from the lake shoreline. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 would mitigate impacts to water quality to less than significant. b) The project would not result in the expanded use of groundwater resources. No impacts are anticipated to groundwater resources. c-d) The project proposes to conduct sedimentation removal operations via hydraulic dredging of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards per year for at least four years. 404/401 Permitting Applicability. A Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report was prepared by Rincon consultants May 2016. Delineation of the project site indicated approximately 4.72 acres of wetlands and approximately 61.49 acres of jurisdictional waters are subject to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and approximately 56.77 acres subject to the Porter Cologne Act to regulate the discharge of fill and dredged material directly into the waters of the United States. Such actions require necessary permitting from applicable agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. Hydraulic dredging would result in the placement of fill within jurisdictional waters so all applicable state and federal permitting would be required. Likewise, alteration of the lake bed would require a streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project would temporarily impact the stream morphology of Prefumo Creek due to moving equipment and upstream sediment removal. Creek bank restoration would be required per Section 1602 of the State Fish and Wildlife Code. Mitigation Measures: Packet Pg 148 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 26 Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2. Upon conclusion of operations, creek banks would be re-graded as necessary and laid back to 2H:1V to 2.5H: 1V and reinforced to stabilize banks. Slopes will be revegetated with native riparian species and ground cover. Consultation with all applicable federal and state agencies and any conditions developed under that permitting process would ensure impacts associated with dredging operations are minimized. Implementation of Mitigations Measure GEO-1 and GEO-2 will minimize erosion and further sedimentation deposition into the lake and accompanying creeks. e) Dewatering operations will be done in vacant fields and all waters are to be percolated into the soil profile. No water will be discharged into city storm drains. No impacts are anticipated with storm drain public infrastructure. g-j) The proposed project is not associated with the construction of housing or other structures or would result in increased probability of flooding impacts. No impacts are associated with structural development. Conclusion: With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-16, BIO-19, HYDRO-1, GEO-1 and GEO-2, and HYDRO-2 impacts to hydrology would be less than significant. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 7,8,9, 10,13 --X-- b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 8, 12 --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 9, 14, 15 --X-- Evaluation a) The proposed dredging project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoidin g or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan Designation and zoning for the project site, regulations and development standards. c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? --X-- Packet Pg 149 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 27 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? --X-- Evaluation a,b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 8 --X-- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 4,8 --X-- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X-- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 8,10 --X-- --X-- Evaluation a) Table 2 in the Noise Guidebook includes distances from the centerline of roads to noise contours on sites along roadways with heavier traffic volumes. A comparison of a map of Laguna Lake and Table 2 indicates that the small portion of Laguna Lake adjacent to Madonna Road are exposed to existing noise levels between 60 and 70 decibels (dB) Ldn. Although parks are considered a noise sensitive use, nothing about the proposed dredging project would lead to the worsening of operational nois e levels or introduce additional populations to areas of increased ambient noise. b) Long-term operational activities would be absent with the proposed dredging project. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be associated with short-term dredging and hauling related activities. Since dredging activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed by City ordinance, impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant. c) There would be no permanent increase in ambient noise and the proposed project will be short-term and seasonal. d) Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term dredging and hauling activities. Noise levels during dredging would be higher than ambient noise levels, but only for the duration of dredging and hauling. Noise impacts would be less than significant because the dredging would be short term and restricted to the hours and noise levels allowed by City ordinance. e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private Packet Pg 150 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 28 airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with aircr aft operations. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 8 --X-- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 8 --X-- 8 --X-- Evaluation a) The proposed dredging project would not directly add to the population of the city. Any new employment generated by the project would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area will remain park space and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be required to serve the project. The proposed pro ject would not involve any other components that would induce further growth. b,c) No existing housing or population would be displaced as a result of the proposed dredging project. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 8 --X-- b) Police protection? 8 --X-- c) Schools? 8 --X-- d) Parks? 8 --X-- e) Other public facilities? 8 Evaluation a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed dredging project would not increase the intensity of use of the site and would, therefore, not increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. The project would not alter the number of housing units or population in the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The proposed dredging of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. c) Implementation of this project would not generate additional student population or result in other impacts to local schools. Packet Pg 151 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 29 d) The proposed dredging project would not result in an increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to the city’s existing population, and no deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on parks. e) As noted above, because of the proposed use, no increase in users relative to the city’s existing population, deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1,2,8 --X-- b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2,8 --X-- Evaluation a,b) The proposed dredging project would not increase the use of, or draw additional populations to the existing park. Moreover, additional recreational facilities would not be constructed which might impact the environment. Therefore, no impact to recreational facilities would result from the proposed project. Conclusion: No impact. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? --X-- c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 8 --X-- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 8 --X-- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 8 --X-- f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 8,10 --X-- Packet Pg 152 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 30 Evaluation a, b) Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located east of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not add to demand on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other agency’s plans for congestion management. No new trips will result from completion of the proposed dredging project. However, the project will generate approximately 18 new short-term daily vehicle truck trips on the street system during the dredging and hauling phase. Several likely haul routes of cover material to Cold Canyon Landfill are available on adequate streets that do not travel through residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular trips and does not conflict with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. c) The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air tra ffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan. d,e) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways. The project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The proposed dredging project would also not introduce any i ncompatible uses or hinder emergency access. e) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways. The project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The proposed dredging project would also not introduce any incompatible uses. f) The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1(k)? --X-- b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. --X-- Evaluation a,b) The cultural resources study prepared for the project determined that no historical or other cultural resources exist on the project site. Therefore, there would be no potential impacts to historical or tribal cultural resources. Conclusion: No impact. Packet Pg 153 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 31 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? --X-- b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? --X-- c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? --X-- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? --X-- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? --X-- f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? --X-- g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? --X-- Evaluation a), b), c), e) The proposed dredging project would not result in an increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm water facilities. The proposed dredging project would improve the stormwater capacity of Laguna Lake. d) The proposed dredging project would not result in an increase in demand on water supplies. f), g) The proposed project does not require municipal solid waste disposal. Dewatered dredg ed material is intended for beneficial reuse as landfill cover. Conclusion: No impacts to utilities and service systems 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? --X-- The project has the potential to significantly impact special status plants and wildlife and habitat communities. Mitigations are proposed to minimize impact to species and to consult with federal and state agencies tasked to protect the species and habitats. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable --X-- Packet Pg 154 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 32 future projects)? There are no other lake dredging projects planned in the San Luis Obispo area, that combined with the proposed project, would result in a situation that is cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --X-- All aspects of the project that could have a substantial adverse effect on human being, particul arly hazardous materials, have been evaluated and are either less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Packet Pg 155 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 33 20. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. n/a b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. n/a c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. n/a 21. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. Final EIR - Laguna Lake Management Program; City of San Luis Obispo (1981) 2. Laguna Lake Management Program; City of San Luis Obispo (1981) 3. Wildlife of Laguna Lake Park Relationship to Proposed Dredging; Michael T. Hanson (1992) 4. Geotechnical Report Laguna Lake Dredging Project; Earth Systems Consultants (1992) 5. Laguna Lake Park Master Plan; City of San Luis Obispo (1993) 6. Rare Plants, Vegetation, and Flora of Laguna Lake Park; Keil (1996) 7. Geotechnical Characterization Report; Leighton (2016) 8. Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project Phase I Report; MNS (2016) 9. Biological Resources Assessment; Rincon (2016) 10. Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County Regional Airport; SLO County (as amended 2005) 11. Cultural Resources Study; Rincon (2016) 12. Conservation and Open Space Element; City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2007) 13. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan; City of San Luis Obispo (2014) 14. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) 15. South-Central/Southern California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan; NOAA Fisheries (2013) 16. Human Health Risk Assessment of Sediment Dredging and Dewatering Activities for Laguna Lake, San Luis Obispo, CA; Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (2017) Attachments: All of the above documents are included by reference and are on file at the City. In particular, the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project Phase I Report (MNS, 2016) provides detailed information regarding the approaches and specifications for dredging activities, dewatering facilities, and reuse plans. The Biological Resources Assessment (Rincon, 2016) provides comprehensive analyses of the ecological receptors in the area on potential impacts and impact avoidance and minimization measures. 1. Location Map 2. Dredging Exhibit 3. Dewatering Area Exhibit Packet Pg 156 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 34 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Air Quality AQ-1 During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered/tarped in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent the escape of soil or dust. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend. AQ 2 Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. AQ 3 To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: I. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. Packet Pg 157 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 35 b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. II. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. III. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off -site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. Biological Resources BIO-1 Special Status Plant Species Avoidance: Avoid impacts to occurrences of special status plants listed under ESA and/or CESA. As part of the design of the projects, biological surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify specimens in the project area. If total avoidance of CRPR species is not feasible, minimize impacts to less than 10 percent of onsite populations. BIO-2 Special Status Plant Species Mitigation. Should it be determined that more than 10% of onsite population of Special Status Plants be impacted, the City shall develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) to develop adequate mitigation to offset impacts to species. The HMMP shall quantify the impacts associated with operations and specify restoration practices and enhancement of species habitat. The HMMP shall be reviewed, as applicable by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for consistency with State requirements. BIO-3 Special Status Wildlife-Birds Avoidance. To avoid take of nesting birds, and raptor nests at any time of year (including inactive nests), activities requiring vegetation disturbance would occur outside the nesting season, which is approximately February 1 through September 15. If activities must begin within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird pre -construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys will be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and will be of sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors onsite and within the designated vicinity. If no nests are observed no further mitigation is required. BIO-4 Special Status Wildlife-Birds Nesting. If nests are found, their locations will be flagged and then mapped onto an aerial photograph of the project site at a scale no less than 1”=200’ and/or recorded with the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. An appropriate avoidance buffer ranging in size from 50 to 500 feet from the nest, depending upon the species and the proposed work activity, will be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing or other high-visibility delineators. No ground disturbance will occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed and all the young have fledged. If buffer zones are determined to be infeasible, a full-time qualified biological monitor can monitor project activity within the buffer zones to ensure active nests and nesting birds are not impacted. BIO-5 Special Status Animals Badger. Prior to activities that disturb native habitats in upland areas, a qualified biologist should complete a survey for badger dens. In order to avoid the potential direct take of adults and nursing young, no gra ding should occur within 50 feet of an active badger den between March 1 and June 30. Activities during July 1 and March 1 should comply with the following measures to avoid direct take of adult and weaned juvenile badgers. Packet Pg 158 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 36 o Conduct a biological survey of the anticipated development areas between 2 weeks and 4 weeks of the start of ground clearing or grading activity. The survey should cover the entire area proposed for disturbance. Surveys should focus on both old and new den sites. If dens are too long to see the end, a fiber optic scope (or other acceptable method) can be used to assess the presence of badgers. o Inactive dens shall be excavated by hand with a shovel to prevent badgers from reusing them during construction. o Badgers should be discouraged from using currently active dens prior to the grading of the site by partially blocking the entrance of the den with sticks, debris and soil for 3 to 5 days or through use of a 1-way door. After badgers have stopped using active dens within the development area, the dens shall be hand excavated with a shovel to prevent re-use. BIO-6 Special Status Animals Pallid Bat. Prior to activities that require tree removal, a qualified biologist should inspect trees proposed for removal to ensure bats are not roosting. If bats are observed, the biologist shall determine if the roost is a hibernaculum or a maternity colony. If so, removal of the tree would be postponed until outside wintering or maternity seasons. If not, the bat(s) would be evicted using appropriate one-way devices and the tree inspected again prior to tree removal BIO-7 Special Status Animals Coast Horned Lizard. During new grading activities in upland habitats, a qualified biologist should be on-site to recover any coast horned lizards that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they should be immediately relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to be released into the designated release area. BIO-8 Special Status Animals Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The project would be designed to avoid impacts to the basins and wetland depressions (adjacent to but not abutting Laguna Lake), and would avoid altering hydrology of these features. Work areas would be flagged, resources to be avoided would be flagged, and no work would occur upslope and within 250 feet of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. BIO-9 Special Status Animals Western Spadefoot Toad. During new grading activities in upland habitats, a qualified biologist should be on-site to recover any spadefoot toads that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they should be immediately relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to be released into the designated release area. BIO-10a Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction would attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this program would include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information would also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the project. BIO-10b Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. Ground disturbing activities associated with dry portions of Prefumo Creek should be conducted between May 1 and October 31 during dry weather conditions, which are periods of low activity for these species in dry habitats, to minimize the potential for encountering CRLF. Work should be restricted to daylight hours to the extent feasible. o If activities must occur between November 1 and April 30, the qualified biologist should conduct a pre‐activity clearance sweep each morning prior to start of project activities after any rain events of 0.1 inch or greater. o All trash should be removed from the site daily and disposed of properly to avoid attracting potential predators to the site. o Non-automated operational activities (i.e. truck trips), shall not be conducted during rain events occurring at night to the extent feasible. If project activities requiring movement of equipment are to occur at night during rain events, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the site each night. BIO-10c Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. A qualified biologist should conduct a survey of work areas associated with the lake and creek within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area would inclu de the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100-foot buffer. A biologist authorized to Packet Pg 159 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 37 relocate frogs should be present for activities that require movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for frogs. If a frog is observed in the work area, the biologist would relocate it, with prior authorization from USFWS, out of the work area BIO-10d Special Status Animals California Red-Legged Frog. If drying basins are used to remove water from the sediment, appropriate exclusion fence should be placed around the basins to prevent access by frogs. BIO-11 Special Status Animals Southwestern Pond Turtle. A qualified biologist should conduct a survey of work areas associated with the lake and creek within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area would incl ude the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100-foot buffer. Turtles within work areas should be relocated outside the work area. A biologist authorized to relocate turtles should be present for activities that require movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for turtles. If a turtle is observed in the work area, the biologist would relocate it out of the work area. BIO-12 Habitat Enhancement Fisheries. During project design, including options to stabilize banks along the lake, the following habitat parameters would be considered and incorporated as feasible: o The lake should provide abundant cover including woody debris, boulders, and undercut banks. Woody debris is very important to provide needed shelter for juvenile fish especially in low velocity refuges. Having appropriate cover and shelter would be imperative for steelhead to survive in Laguna Lake. o Depths greater than 0.5 meter are generally deep enough to avoid wading birds. Depth alone is not the determining factor in water temperature, but lake which has a depth to create a thermocline cold enough to support the fish during periods of higher water temperatures is desirable. o The lake should contain a regular and pronounced slope along its banks. o DO concentrations affect the migration and swimming performance of steelhead at all temperatures. Low DO levels decrease the rate of metabolism, swimming speed, growth rate, food consumption rate, efficiency of food utilization, behavior, and survival. Steelhead does best where DO concentration is at least 7.0 mg/L. DO concentrations should remain at or near saturation levels with temporary reductions no lower than 5.0 mg/L, which has been documented to result in severe production impairment (Carter, 2005). o Suspended and deposited fine sediment can directly affect steelhead by clogging gills, indirectly causing reduced feeding, destruction of food supplies, and changed rearing habitat. Silt loads of less than 25 mg/L permit good rearing conditions for juvenile steelhead. Controlling sediment loads into the creek and lake will improve conditions for steelhead. BIO-13 Project Monitoring Fisheries. During project implementation, a biologist with fisheries experience should be present during activities movement or placement of equipment into the lake, stream, and wetlands along the lake to monitor for fish. If feasible, the active dredge area would be screened to reduce likelihood of aquatic vertebrate species in the active dredging area (e.g. intakes will be screened). If steelhead is observed, activities would cease until NMFS can be consulted. While dredging is underway, a biologist will monitor activities at least weekly. BIO-14 Needlegrass Habitat Avoidance. To the maximum extent feasible, project activities would be designed to avoid needlegrass grassland habitat. If needlegrass grassland habitat areas cannot be avoided in temporary impact areas, purple needlegrass will be incorporated into the revegetation plant palette to functionally replace the impacted habitat. BIO-15 Needlegrass Enhancement. If permanent impacts remove needlegrass grassland habitat areas greater than 0.5 acre in size, an equivalent amount of this habitat type must be created within a City-designated and -approved needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation area onsite. Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of needlegrass grassland habi tat would be outlined in a HMMP. The needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas will be monitored annually for at least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this sensitive habitat has been achieved BIO-16 Wetlands Restoration. Jurisdictional areas that cannot be avoided will acquire all applicable regulatory permits. Temporary impact areas will be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for each acre of impact) to offset temporary losses in wetland, stream, or riparian function. Permanent impacts will be offset through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of in-kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1 to mitigate unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas. Note the resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will likely be required, and would be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. The plan will include, but not be limited to the following components: o Description of the project/impact site, Packet Pg 160 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 38 o Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project, o Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site, o Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site, o Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, o Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site, o Success criteria and performance standards, o Reporting requirements, and o Contingency measures and funding mechanisms. BIO -17 Erosion Control. Erosion control and landscaping specifications shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, (i.e. no plastic-mesh temporary erosion control measures) to prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife. BIO-18 Habitat Improvement. Where feasible, aquatic habitat improvements such as root wads and downed logs will be incorporated into bank stabilization and sediment control efforts to enhance aquatic habitat in perennial waterways. BIO-19 State/Federal Consultation. Prior to commencement of operations, consultations with applicable federal and state agencies shall be completed per the provisions of the Clean Water Act and Porter Cologne Act. Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department and Natural Resources Manager shall verify compliance. Cultural Resources CULT-1: If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under the National Historic Preservation Act and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties. CULT-2: The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities; if human remains are found, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the San Luis Obispo County Sherriff-Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis o f human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall verify compliance, including preparation and implementation of the Monitoring Plan, and review and approval of cultural resources monitoring reports documenting compliance with required mitigation measures. Geology / Soils GEO-1 Grading and erosion and sediment control plans shall be designed to minimize erosion during operations and shall be implemented for the duration of the grading period and until regraded areas have been stabilized. The City shall prepare Erosion Control Plan using Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are designed to stabilize the site and protect natural watercourses. GEO-2 The City shall revegetate graded areas upon completion of grading activities with deep rooted, native, drought-tolerant species to minimize slope failure and erosion potential. Use of hydro-seed, straw blankets, other geo-textile binding fabrics or other P&D-approved methods as necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation is established. Packet Pg 161 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 39 Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading plans for review and approval by the City Community Development and Public Works Departments. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections. Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 Excavated sediment must be covered/tarped when transported outside of the project area. HAZ-2 Excavated sediment shall be tested according to a soil sampling protocol to ensure that the soils are acceptable to the desired disposal site. If it is determined that the sediments contain hazardous constituents and are unacceptable to the desired disposal site, the sediments shall be disposed at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. HAZ-4 Water sprays or other adequate measures will be applied each day that work activities occur to all disturbed areas with the potential to emit fugitive dust. At a minimum, water will be applied to exposed areas three times per day with increasing watering frequency required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. HAZ-5 Sediments/soil stockpiles will be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation at the end of each work day. HAZ-6 On site vehicle speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. Loose dirt and dust shall be removed from all vehicular wheels using brushes, rumble strips, or water prior to leaving the site. HAZ-7 The contractor will designate a person(s) to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. The contractor will stop project activities immediately if visible dust emissions are detected at the property boundary and will implement additional dust mitigation measures. HAZ-8 After work activities are completed, all disturbed areas will be re-vegetating or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. HAZ-9 A worker health, safety and education plan will be developed and required, as well as emergency and remedial procedures. Hydrology / Water Quality HYDRO-1. For dredging operations the use of a turbidity curtain will be employed as applicable. Sediment basins to be used for dewatering should be located at least 200 feet ways from the lake shoreline. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 would mitigate impacts to water quality to less than significant. HYDRO-2. Upon conclusion of operations, creek banks would be regraded as necessary and laid back to 2H:1V to 2.5H: 1V and reinforced to stabilize banks. Slopes will be revegetated with native riparian species and ground cover. Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development, Public Works, and Utilities Departments. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections. Packet Pg 162 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 40 This page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 163 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 41 ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg 164 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 42 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg 165 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 43 ATTACMENT 3 Packet Pg 166 4 Human Health Risk Assessment of Sediment Dredging and Dewatering Activities for Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Prepared For: Robert Hill City Administration Natural Resources 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared By: Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 924 Anacapa Street, Suite 2X Santa Barbara, California 93101 Emily Strake, CEP Senior Project Chemist/Risk Assessor Eric Deaver, PG Project Manager September 11, 2017 270059901 Packet Pg 167 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 1 of 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 2 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 2 General Exposure Parameters ................................................................................................ 3 Route-Specific Exposure Parameters ..................................................................................... 3 Asbestos Time Weighting Factors ......................................................................................... 4 Exposure Point Concentrations .............................................................................................. 4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 5 Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Values ........................................................................................... 5 Carcinogenic Toxicity Values .................................................................................................. 6 Hexavalent Chromium Formation ........................................................................................... 6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................................................... 6 UNCERTAINTY ......................................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 8 TABLES Table 1 – Data Summary Table 2 – Calculation of Particulate Emission Factor Table 3 – Inhalation Toxicity Values Table 4 – Risk Characterization, Offsite Resident Table 5 – Risk Characterization with Chromium Adjustment, Offsite Resident FIGURES Figure 1 – Location Map & Soil Staging Area Packet Pg 168 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 2 of 9 INTRODUCTION The City of San Luis Obispo has proposed a maintenance dredging regime at Laguna Lake (the Site) to mitigate ongoing sedimentation. The Lake is situated on the 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve (Figure 1). Previous investigations have indicated the presence of nickel, trivalent chromium (Cr[III]) and hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) in exceedance of various risk- based human health screening levels. Dredging will be completed intermittently across a four- year construction period with dredging cycles of approximately 2 to 3 weeks in duration each year. Dredged sediment will be staged and dried prior to off-site disposal on a 4-acre staging area located to the north of Lake Laguna (Figure 1). This Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted to determine whether constituents in sediment and dried sediment (soil) pose unacceptable risks to human health under site-specific exposure conditions and to support decisions concerning the need for further evaluation or mitigation. The technical approach for the HHRA consists of the following basic steps: data analysis, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization, which includes an assessment of the uncertainty associated with each stage of the HHRA process. The HHRA uses reasonable maximum exposure point soil concentrations to derive exposures and risks to potentially exposed human populations for the inhalation pathway. Incomplete pathways are not relevant to human health risks and are not considered in the HHRA. Cancer risk results were compared to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) cumulative risk management range for multiple carcinogens of one in one million (1E-06) to one in ten thousand (1E-04). Non-cancer hazards were compared to a non-cancer hazard index of 1. DATA ANALYSIS Various investigations have occurred at Lake Laguna over the past 20 years, including collection of sediment vibracore samples, surface soil samples around the lake, and dredge sediment composite samples. Data from prior sampling events for samples collected within the dredging areas are presented in Table 1. The maximum detected concentrations of Cr[III], nickel, and Cr[VI] are also presented in Table 1. Given the prevalence of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in various areas of California, asbestos fibers are also considered a constituent of potential concern associated with the proposed dredging regime. Asbestos sampling has not been conducted at the Site. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT An exposure pathway is the course a chemical takes from its source to the exposed receptor. In order for an exposure pathway to be complete, it must contain a source, a transport medium (e.g., soil, air), a point of contact (receptor), and an exposure route (e.g., inhalation). If any of these elements is missing, an exposure pathway is deemed incomplete and can be excluded from the quantitative evaluation of risk (EPA 1989). Consistent with EPA’s Summary of Exposure Scenario Characteristics and Pathways of Concern (Exhibit 1-1, EPA 2002), the off- site resident is assumed to be located at the site boundary and exposed only through inhalation Packet Pg 169 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 3 of 9 of fugitive dust. Direct contact with soil through ingestion and dermal contact is not expected in the sediment staging area; however, if direct contact were to occur, the corresponding exposure pathways are considered insignificant. Consequently, this evaluation focused on one unique receptor population and pathway: inhalation of particulates by off-site residents. General Exposure Parameters Constituent concentration, exposure frequency (EF), exposure duration (ED), exposure time (ET), and averaging time (AT), are general parameters that are included in the intake calculations for the inhalation pathway. The EF describes the number of times per year an event is likely to occur. Variables such as weather, vacations, and institutional controls are considered when determining reasonable and realistic exposure frequencies. For the off-site resident, an EF of 28 days was assumed such that a resident would be exposed to fugitive dust at the Site each day for four weeks of the year. This number was selected based on the estimated project schedule of 2-3 weeks each year and best professional judgment. The ED parameter in the intake equation represents the number of years over which an event is likely to occur. Factors affecting this parameter include variables such as age of the receptor and population mobility. The off-site resident was assumed to be exposed for a period of four years, consistent with the four-year construction duration. For respirable soil, it is necessary to apply an ET to account for the number of hours a resident receptor spends at the home and to calculate an hourly inhalation rate. The off-site resident ET was set to 24 hours under the assumption that residents could be exposed to particulates at their home throughout an entire day. The AT parameter is the period over which exposure is averaged. For non-carcinogenic effects, ATn was used in calculating carcinogenic exposure concentration, and is calculated as the product of the receptor-specific exposure frequency and the 24 hours of the day. The ATn value for the resident is 35,040 hours (4 years X 365 days/year X 24 hours/day). Exposures to carcinogens were averaged over a lifetime. The carcinogen averaging time (ATc) is the product of a 365-day year, a 24-hour day, and a 70-year lifetime, or 613,200 hours. Route-Specific Exposure Parameters Based on the available data, a mathematical model was required for the inhalation pathway to convert the chemical concentration in soil to a corresponding concentration in ambient air. This was accomplished by calculating a soil-to-air particulate emission factor (PEF). The PEF converts concentrations of constituents in soil to concentrations on dust particles in the air (PM10) as a result of fugitive dust emissions from bare surfaces of fine-grained soils. In its Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, the EPA (2002) provides the methodology required to calculate the PEF. Chemical-specific concentrations in soil are multiplied by the inverse of the PEF to derive chemical-specific concentrations of soil dust in the ambient air (Ca), as follows: Packet Pg 170 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 4 of 9 ( ⁄ ) where: Cs = Concentration in soil (mg/kg); and PEF = Particulate emission factor (m3/kg). The PEF is based on fugitive dusts that may be generated as a result of soil dumping, dozing, and wind erosion. These operations may occur separately or concurrently, and the duration of each operation may be different. Therefore, the total unit mass emitted from each operation is calculated separately and the sum is normalized over the entire area of work. The equation used to derive the PEF for the off-site resident is as follows: ( ⁄ ) where: Q/Coff = Inverse of the ratio of the 1-hour geometric mean air concentration and the emission flux at the center of the square emission source (g/m2-s per kg/m3); and J’T = Total time-average PM10 unit emission flux for all dredging activities (g/m2-s). Site-specific values, such as total time over which dredging occurs and the areal extent of the dewatering area were incorporated into the off-site resident PEF. Default parameter values provided in the Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (EPA 2002) were utilized where site-specific information was not available. The resulting PEF for the off-site resident is 5.56E+07 m3/kg (Table 2). Asbestos Time Weighting Factors For asbestos exposure evaluations, EPA utilizes time weighting factors (TWF) to determine the proportion of time over which receptor activities may occur. For the off-site resident, the TWF was calculated assuming a 24-hour ET across a 28-day dredging period. The resulting TWFs for the off-site resident is 0.08, calculated as [(24 hours exposure/24-hour day) X (28 days exposure/365-day year)]. Exposure Point Concentrations The exposure point concentration (EPC) is the concentration of a constituent in a medium (e.g., soil) that is expected to be contacted by an individual and is assumed to be universally present throughout an exposure area. For this HHRA, the maximum detected sediment concentration of Cr[III], Cr[VI], and nickel was utilized as the EPC in the inhalation models (Table 1). Packet Pg 171 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 5 of 9 To establish an EPC for asbestos, a regional background concentration was used. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) investigated NOA within two miles of Golden Sierra High School, located approximately 30 miles northeast of Sacramento (DTSC 2002). NOA in this area is associated with serpentine rock, which is a form of ultramafic rock. The local geology is similar at Laguna Lake such that sediment derived from ultramafic rock may be present in the lake and is generally known to be present in the area. In the DTSC study, soil samples were collected in August and September of 2000 and the reported the mean concentration of all the polarized light microscopy (PLM) samples was 1.1%. Chrysotile was the only asbestos type found during the PLM analysis. The concentration of asbestos in soil was expressed in terms of the weight of asbestos per unit weight of soil calculated on a dry weight basis. The 1.1% background concentration is equivalent to 11,000 (mg/kg), the standard units used for soil concentration data. TOXICITY ASSESSMENT Toxicity assessment involves the evaluation of available toxicity information to be used in the risk assessment process. Toxicity values derived from dose-response relationships can be used to estimate the potential for the occurrence of adverse effects in individuals exposed to various constituent levels. In accordance with recent EPA guidance, toxicity values specific to the inhalation pathway were obtained from the sources listed hierarchically below: • Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on-line database • California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) The toxicity values used to evaluate the potential for human health effects from exposure to Site-associated constituents are presented in Table 3. Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Values Adverse effects can be caused by acute exposure, which is a single or short-term exposure to a toxic substance, or by chronic exposure to lower levels on a continuous or repeated basis over an extended period of time. “Acceptable” acute or chronic levels of exposure to non- carcinogens are considered to be levels without any anticipated adverse effects. Such exposure levels are commonly expressed as reference concentrations (RfCs). An acceptable exposure level is calculated to provide an adequate margin of safety. RfCs have been developed by the EPA for chronic (e.g., lifetime) exposure to constituents based on the most sensitive non-carcinogenic effects. Chronic RfCs, which have been derived for a number of chemicals, are used to evaluate exposures lasting 7 to 70 years (EPA 1989). Though a subchronic exposure scenario is expected to occur consistent with the 4-year project dredging schedule, only chronic RfCs were used in this HHRA. Packet Pg 172 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 6 of 9 Trivalent chromium does not have a published RfC; therefore, the IRIS RfD (1.5 mg/kg-day) was converted to a RfC by multiplying by the ratio of the default adult body weight (70 kg) to a default inhalation rate (20 m3/day) (EPA 2009). Carcinogenic Toxicity Values Carcinogenic risk refers to the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to known or suspected carcinogens. A cancer slope factor (CSF) is a plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of a lifetime of exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen. Consistent with the EPA’s inhalation dosimetry methodology, the inhalation unit risk (IUR) (i.e., the cancer slope factor expressed in risk per g/m3) was used to assess incremental lifetime cancer risks associated with site carcinogens. Consistent with EPA guidance (EPA 2008, EPA 2005), exposures that are shorter than a lifetime may be evaluated using concomitant IURs representing continuous, but less-than-lifetime exposures. Less-than-lifetime IURs (IURLTL) for asbestos were developed by the EPA for various exposure durations and receptor ages of first asbestos exposure. To evaluate the off-site resident, the IUR for a 5-year exposure duration and 0-year exposure age was selected to represent a child resident. The resulting IUR is 0.046 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc)-1. The mass conversion to fibers was taken from the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program and is 0.003 g per 100 PCM fibers. Hexavalent Chromium Formation Oxidation of Cr[III] to Cr[VI] in soil is facilitated by the presence of organic substances, oxygen, manganese dioxide, moisture, and heat (Apte, et al., 2005). The rate and extent of chromium oxidation has been studied under various conditions, including suspension in aerobic media, addition of manganese dioxide, application of heat and adjustment of pH in chromium contaminated sludge (Apte, et al., 2005). The results indicate that Cr[III] could be converted to Cr[IV] under aerobic conditions. However, the transformation was found to be transitory, with the Cr[VI] formed being ultimately reduced back to Cr[III] due to the presence of various reducing agents in the sludge. Given that up to 17% conversion of Cr[III] to Cr[VI] occurred in sludge under aerobic conditions by 30 days, modeling was conducted assuming 17% of the maximum concentration of Cr[III] (850 mg/kg) was present as Cr[VI]. RISK CHARACTERIZATION The objective of the risk characterization is to determine potential risk to receptors by combining the results of the exposure and toxicity assessments. The potential for non-cancer health effects was evaluated by comparing the average daily intake with the RfC. This ratio of exposure to toxicity (intake/RfC) is called the hazard quotient (HQ). For evaluating the noncarcinogenic risks for multiple constituents, the HQs are summed to produce a hazard index (HI). If the site-specific exposure level exceeds the effects-based Packet Pg 173 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 7 of 9 threshold (i.e., the HI exceeds a value greater than 1), there may be concern for potential non-carcinogenic effects. The product of the lifetime daily intake and the IUR was used to estimate the upper bound excess cancer risk for carcinogenic (or potentially carcinogenic) constituents. The EPA endorses a de minimis cancer risk threshold of 1E-06 for exposure to multiple carcinogens as the point of departure (POD) for risk management decisions. This value represents an incremental increase of 1 in 1,000,000 in the chance of developing cancer over a lifetime. The EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response directive instructs development of risk- based, site-specific action levels to determine if response actions for asbestos should be undertaken. For site assessments involving short term exposures, it is common practice to use the 1E-04 target risk for asbestos in air (EPA 2008). Using the maximum detected Cr[III], Cr[VI], and nickel concentrations, and the regional average asbestos concentration, the cumulative incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) is estimated to be 2E-05 for the off-site resident. The ILCR is predominantly attributable to asbestos exposure, assuming average concentrations in northern California soils are present at the Site. The ILCR is within the EPA’s risk management range for cumulative cancer risk, and below the target risk for short term exposures. The hazard index is calculated to be below the threshold for non- cancer health effects at 0.02. The calculated non-cancer and cancer risks for all chemicals of concern are provided in Table 4. Increasing the modeled Cr[VI] concentration by 17% of the maximum Cr[III] concentration results in an increase in the Cr[VI] HQ from 0.00004 to 0.002, and an increase in the ILCR attributable to Cr[VI] from 2E-08 to 1E-06. The cumulative ILCR and HI remain the same at 2E- 05 and 0.02, respectively. UNCERTAINTY There are uncertainties associated with the quantitative risk estimates discussed above. These uncertainties are introduced because of: (1) the need to extrapolate below the dose range of experimental tests; (2) the variability of the receptor population (e.g., smoker vs. non-smoker, genetic predisposition); (3) assumed dose-response relationship between animals and humans; (4) differences in exposure routes (e.g., Cr[III]); (5) conservative assumptions; and (6) ignoring background risks. These recognized uncertainties are raised to point out the limitations of this type of study. The assumptions used to estimate exposure in this HHRA were consistently conservative in nature and biased toward protecting human health. The maximum detected concentration of chemicals in sediment were used as the exposure point concentration. It is unlikely that receptors would be simultaneously exposed to the maximum concentration of various constituents. Values assumed for exposure parameters (e.g., inhalation rate and exposure frequency) used in calculations of intakes were based primarily on agency guidance. These assumptions might Packet Pg 174 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 8 of 9 result in underestimating or overestimating the intakes calculated for specific receptors, depending on the accuracy of the assumptions relative to actual site conditions. Uncertainty is inherent in the toxicity values utilized in evaluating the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. Such uncertainty is chemical-specific and is incorporated into the toxicity value during its development to ensure that the risk assessment provides a protective evaluation of potential toxicity. For example, an uncertainty factor may be applied for interspecies and intrahuman variability, for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposures, or for epidemiological data limitations. Application of uncertainty factors is expected to overestimate risks. The hazards and risks derived based on the data analysis, exposure assessment, and toxicity assessment steps of the risk assessment are inherently uncertain given the uncertainties within each step of the HHRA process. The uncertainty in the risk characterization may be compounded from the uncertainties at these prior stages. The reliance on conservative inputs for various exposure parameters are anticipated to result in overestimations of risks from Site- related chemical stressors. Summing hazard quotients values to derive an HI is a conservative approach given that different chemicals often exert their effects on distinct target organs (USEPA 1989). CONCLUSIONS A human health risk assessment was conducted for a portion of Laguna Lake, located in San Luis Obispo, California. The objectives of the HHRA were to determine whether concentrations of constituents in soil may pose unacceptable risks to human health under site- specific exposure conditions, and to provide information to support decisions concerning the need for further evaluation or action of these media based the proposed dredging activities. The inhalation of fugitive dust exposure pathway was evaluated for the off-site resident receptor. The risk assessment supports the following conclusions: • No unacceptable cancer risks are posed to the off-site resident. The incremental lifetime cancer risk is estimated to be within the EPA’s risk management range at 2E -05, primarily attributable to background concentrations of asbestos. • No unacceptable non-carcinogenic risks are posed to the off-site resident. REFERENCES Apte A.D., Tare V., Bose P, 2006. Extent of oxidation of Cr[III] to Cr[VI] Under Various Conditions Pertaining to Natural Environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 128, Issues 2–3, 6 February 2006, Pages 164-174 DTSC 2002. Report on Surface Soil Sampling for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. October 2002. EPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. Packet Pg 175 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Report of Sediment Dredging & Dewatering Activities Laguna Lake San Luis Obispo, CA Langan Project No: 270059901 11 September 2017 Page 9 of 9 EPA 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Washington, DC, National Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001b. NCEA-f-0644b. OEHHA 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA. Air, Community, and Environmental Research Branch. February. EPA 2008. Framework for Investigating Asbestos-Contaminated Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9200.0-68. September 2008. EPA 2009. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment) EPA-540-R-070- 002 OSWER 9285.7-82. January 2009. Packet Pg 176 4 Table 1 Data Summary Laguna Lake, City of San Luis Obispo Sample ID Depth (feet)Cr[III] (mg/kg) Nickel (mg/kg) Cr[VI] (mg/kg) VC-1 0.1 140 210 1.4 VC-1 5 150 220 2.9 VC-1 10 140 190 3.1 VC-7 0.1 160 250 <2.2 VC-7 5 140 200 <2.0 VC-7 10 140 230 <1.6 VC-7 14 170 260 <2.0 LS-16-1 NA 67 63 1.4 VC-11 0.1 140 220 <1.5 VC-11 6 180 250 3 VC-11 12.5 210 280 <2 VC-3 0.1 140 210 <1.6 VC-3 5 170 260 2.3 VC-3 10 160 220 <1.7 VC-14 0.1 160 230 <1.8 VC-14 6 190 290 <2.2 VC-14 12.5 210 350 <1.3 GRAB 8,10,11 NA 150 280 NA GRAB 12,14,15,16 NA 64 120 NA LFR-01-04 NA 850 790 NA LFR-01-04 NA 360 1100 <2 LFR-01-04 NA 380 630 NA LFR-01-04 NA 430 840 <2 850 1100 3.1Maximum Concentration Packet Pg 177 4 Table 2 Calculation of Particulate Emission Factor Laguna Lake, City of San Luis Obispo 1)Mwind = 0.036*(1-V)*(Um/Ut)3*F(x)*Asurf*ED*8,760hr/yr Units Mwind - Unit mass emitted from wind erosion 287983 g Calculated V - Fraction of vegetative cover 0.25 unitless Site-Specific Um - Mean annual windspeed 5.2 m/sec http://www.usa.com/san-luis-obispo-ca-weather.htm Ut - Equivalent threshold value of windspeed at 7m 11.32 m/sec USEPA 1996 F(x) - Um/Ut-dependent function 0.194 unitless USEPA 1996 Asurf - Areal extent of site with surface soil contamination 16187 m2 Site-Specific, 4-Acre Dewatering Area ED - Exposure duration 4 year Site-Specific, 4-Year Construction Period 2)Mpile = PM10*0.0016*(Um/2.2)1.3/(M/2)1.4*rsoil*Apile*dpile*NA*1E+03 Mpile - Units mass emitted from pile soil dumping 12135 g Calculated PM10 - PM10 particle size multiplier 0.35 unitless USEPA 1985 Um - Mean annual windspeed 5.2 m/sec http://www.usa.com/san-luis-obispo-ca-weather.htm M - Gravimetric soil moisture content 12 %USEPA 1985 rsoil - In situ soil density (includes water)1.68 mg/m3 USEPA 1985 Apile - Area extent of pile 16187 m2 Site-Specific, 4-Acre Dewatering Area dpile - Average depth of pile 0.2 m Site-Specific, Calculated to equal 4,000 CY of material NA - Number of times soil is dumped 16 unitless Site-Specific, 7 days for a single load to be dewatered and transported 28 d/yr for 4 years 3)VKT = SQRT(Asite)/BL)*SQRT(Asite)*3/1000 m/km VKT - Vehicle Kilometers Traveled 19.902 km Calculated Asite - Areal extent of site 16,187 m2 Site-Specific BL - Length of dozing blades 2.44 m USEPA 2002 4)Mdoz = SF*(0.45s1.5)/(M)1.4)*(VKT/S)*1E+03 Mdoz - Unit mass emitted from dozing operations 1896 g Calculated SF - PM10 Scaling Factor 0.75 unitless USEPA 2002 s - Soil silt content 15 %Site-Specific M - Gravimetric soil moisture content 7.9 %USEPA 1985 VKT - Sum of dozing kilometers traveled 19.902 km Site-Specific S - Average dozing speed 11.4 kph USEPA 1985 Packet Pg 178 4 Table 2 Calculation of Particulate Emission Factor Laguna Lake, City of San Luis Obispo 5)Mpc wind = 0.036*(1-V)*(Um/Ut)3*F(x)*Asurf*ED*8,760hr/yr Mwind - Unit mass emitted from wind erosion 287983 g Calculated V - Fraction of vegetative cover 0.25 unitless Site-Specific Um - Mean annual windspeed 5.2 m/sec http://www.usa.com/san-luis-obispo-ca-weather.htm Ut - Equivalent threshold value of windspeed at 7m 11.32 m/sec USEPA 1996 F(x) - Um/Ut-dependent function 0.194 unitless USEPA 1996 Asurf - Areal extent of site with surface soil contamination 16,187 m2 Site-Specific, 4-Acre Dewatering Area ED - Exposure duration 4 year Site-Specific, 4-Year Construction Period 6)Q/Coff = A*(exp((lnAsite-B)2/C)) 74.742 g/m2-s per kg/m3 Calculated A - Constant Zone 2, Los Angeles 15.7133 unitless USEPA 2002 B - Constant Zone 2, Los Angeles 21.8997 unitless USEPA 2002 C - Constant Zone 2, Los Angeles 269.8244 unitless USEPA 2002 Asite - Areal extent of site 4 acres Site-Specific, 4-Acre Dewatering Area 7)JT off= Mwind + Mpile + Mdoz + Mpc wind/(Asite *ED * 3.1536E+07s/yr) JT off - Total time-averaged PM10 unit emission flux for the off-site receptor 2.89E-07 g/m2-s Calculated Mwind - Unit mass emitted from wind erosion 287983 g Calculated Mpile - Units mass emitted from excavation soil dumping 12135 g Calculated Mdoz - Unit mass emitted from dozing operations 1896 g Calculated Mpc wind - Post-construction unit mass emitted from wind erosion 287983 g Calculated Asite - Areal extent of site 16,187 m2 Site-Specific, 4-Acre Dewatering Area ED - Exposure Duration 4 years Site-Specific, 4-Year Construction Period 8)PEFoff = Q/Coff *JT off-1 PEFoff -Particulate emission factor for off-site resident 2.59E+08 m3/kg Calculated Notes: EPA 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, and Supplements. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide. Publication 9355.4-23. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. July 1996. EPA 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER 9355.4-24. Washington, DC. USA.com, Mean Annual Wind Speed Data for San Luis Obispo, CA Q/Coff - Inverse ratio of the 1-h geometric mean air concentration and the emission flux at the site boundary Packet Pg 179 4 Table 3 Inhalation Toxicity Values Laguna Lake, City of San Luis Obispo Chemical CAS # Inhalation RfC mg/m3 Source Inhalation IUR (mg/m3)-1 Source Cr[III]16065831 5.25E+00 Calculated from IRIS RfD NA -- Cr[VI]18540299 1.00E-04 IRIS 8.40E-02 IRIS Nickel 7440020 9.00E-05 ATSDR 2.60E-04 CalEPA Chemical CAS # Inhalation RfC mg/m3 Source Inhalation IUR (f/cm3)-1 Source Asbestos NA NA --4.60E-02 EPA Notes: RfD = Reference Dose RfC = Reference Concentration IUR = Inhalation Unit Risk NA = Not Available Cr[III] RfD adjusted by a 70 kg body weight and 20 m3/day inhalation rate Sources: IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System CalEPA - California EPA ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry EPA - EPA IUR of 0.046 (f/cc)-1 for early life exposure and a 5 year exposure duration Packet Pg 180 4 Table 4 Risk Characterization, Offsite Resident Laguna Lake, City of San Luis Obispo Exposure Concentration (mg/m3) =Ca × EF × ED × ET AT Parameter Unit Value Source Ca - Concentration in air =mg/m3 see below Calculated EF - Exposure frequency =days/year 28 Best professional judgment ED - Exposure duration =years 4 Site-Specific ET - Exposure time =hr/day 24 USEPA 2002 ATn - Averaging time - noncarcinogenic =hours 35040 Best professional judgment ATc - Averaging time - carcinogenic =hours 613200 USEPA 2002 TWF = Time Weighting Factor =unitless 0.08 Best professional judgment Ca - Concentration in air (mg/m3) =Cs * (1/PEF)see below Calculated Cs - Concentration in soil =mg/kg see below PEF - Particulate Emission Factor =m3/kg 5.56E+07 Calculated (see Table 2) Constituent Maximum Concentration in Sediment mg/kg Concentration in Air mg/m3 Non-Carcinogenic Exposure Concentration mg/m3 Inhalation RfC mg/m3 Hazard Quotient Carcinogenic Exposure Concentration mg/m3 Inhalation Unit Risk (mg/m3)-1 Cancer Risk Metals Cr[III]8.50E+02 1.53E-05 1.17E-06 5.25E+00 0.0000002 6.70E-08 NA -- Cr[IV]3.10E+00 5.57E-08 4.28E-09 1.00E-04 0.00004 2.44E-10 8.40E+01 2E-08 Nickel 1.10E+03 1.98E-05 1.52E-06 9.00E-05 0.02 8.67E-08 2.60E-01 2E-08 Hazard Index =0.02 Constituent Maximum Concentration in Sediment mg/kg Concentration in Air mg/m3 Concentration in Air f/cm3 Carcinogenic Exposure Concentration f/cm3 Inhalation Unit Risk (f/cm3)-1 Cancer Risk Asbestos fibers 1.10E+04 1.98E-04 6.59E-03 5.06E-04 4.60E-02 2E-05 Total Cancer Risk =2E-05 TWF [(24 hours/24 hours)*(28 days/365 days)] 7.67E-02 Packet Pg 181 4 Table 5 Risk Characterization with Chromium Adjustment, Offsite Resident Laguna Lake, City of San Luis Obispo Exposure Concentration (mg/m3) =Ca × EF × ED × ET AT Parameter Unit Value Source Ca - Concentration in air =mg/m3 see below Calculated EF - Exposure frequency =days/year 28 Best professional judgment ED - Exposure duration =years 4 Best professional judgment ET - Exposure time =hr/day 24 USEPA 2002 ATn - Averaging time - noncarcinogenic =hours 35040 Best professional judgment ATc - Averaging time - carcinogenic =hours 613200 USEPA 2002 TWF = Time Weighting Factor =unitless 0.076712329 Best professional judgment Ca - Concentration in air (mg/m3) =Cs * (1/PEF)see below Calculated Cs - Concentration in soil =mg/kg see below PEF - Particulate Emission Factor =m3/kg 5.56E+07 Calculated (see Table 2) Constituent Maximum Concentration in Sediment mg/kg Concentration in Air mg/m3 Non-Carcinogenic Exposure Concentration mg/m3 Inhalation RfC mg/m3 Hazard Quotient Carcinogenic Exposure Concentration mg/m3 Inhalation Unit Risk (mg/m3)-1 Cancer Risk Metals Cr[III]8.50E+02 1.53E-05 1.17E-06 5.25E+00 0.0000002 6.70E-08 NA -- Cr[IV]1.48E+02 2.65E-06 2.04E-07 1.00E-04 0.002 1.16E-08 8.40E+01 1E-06 Nickel 1.10E+03 1.98E-05 1.52E-06 9.00E-05 0.02 8.67E-08 2.60E-01 2E-08 Hazard Index =0.02 Constituent Maximum Concentration in Sediment mg/kg Concentration in Air mg/m3 Concentration in Air f/cm3 Carcinogenic Exposure Concentration f/cm3 Inhalation Unit Risk (f/cm3)-1 Cancer Risk Asbestos fibers 1.10E+04 1.98E-04 6.59E-03 5.06E-04 4.60E-02 2E-05 Total Cancer Risk =2E-05 TWF [(24 hours/24 hours)*(28 days/365 days)] 7.67E-02 Packet Pg 182 4 © 2017 Langan 924 Anacapa Street, Suite 2XSanta Barbara, CA 93101T: 1.800.9LANGAN x6890 www.langan.comPacket Pg 1834 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 184 4 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIV ISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2707 (953 ORCUTT ROAD, TR 151-03) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution accepting the public improvements, certifying completion of the required private subdivision improvements, and authorizing release of securities for Tract 2707 at 953 Orcutt Road. DISCUSSION Background The tentative subdivision map for Tract 2707 (TR 151-03) was approved by City Council on November 15, 2005, by Resolution No. 9748 (2005 Series), which authorized creation of a 23-lot subdivision for the purpose of creating 178 residential condominium units. (See Attachment A for vicinity map and Attachment B for site plan.) The final map was approved by City Council on September 18, 2007, by Resolution No. 9928 (2007 Series). The project was initially referred to as Tumbling Waters, then Laurel Creek, and most recently Avivo. The subdivider was required to construct frontage improvements on Orcutt Road along the adjacent property to the west. That adjacent property is commonly referred to as the Creekston property. Those frontage improvements were accepted by the Council on June 1, 2010. The subdivider was also required to extend Sacramento Drive to Orcutt Road and construct frontage improvements along Orcutt Road. Those improvements were accepted by Council on January 17, 2012. Remaining Subdivision Improvements The remaining subdivision improvements for Tract 2707 that have not yet been accepted or certified complete by Council are the on-site improvements on the east and west side of Sacramento Drive. These improvements mostly consist of private improvements which will be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association, such as driveways, hardscape, drainage improvements, sewer main, and sewer laterals. The only on-site improvements that are public are the water main and water services. Accepting the Public Improvements and Certifying Completion of Private Improvements The subdivider has requested final acceptance of the Tract 2707 subdivision improvements by the City and release of the underlying securities for such improvements. The Subdivision Agreement authorizes release of the Faithful Performance and Labor & Materials securities upon Council’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements and receipt of a guarantee of ten percent of the cost of the subdivision improvements. The ten-percent guarantee is to insure that the subdivider will remedy any defects in the improvements arising from faulty workmanship or materials or defective construction of said improvements for a period of one year. There are some minor punch-list items that still need to be completed, so the ten percent warranty will also Packet Pg 185 5 function as a faithful performance security to guarantee the completion of these remaining items. A draft resolution Accepting and Certifying Completion of the Subdivision Improvements is attached (Attachment C). This resolution authorizes the Public Works Director to release the faithful performance securities, and, once the one-year warranty period has passed and the remaining punch-list items are complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to release the warranty securities. Ninety days after Council’s acceptance of improvements, the Labor & Materials bonds can be released per Civil Code Section 8412. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department and Utilities Department concur with the recommended action. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The necessary findings and environmental review requirements related to the development of Tract 2707 were made with the tentative map approval. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. FISCAL IMPACT These remaining public improvements for Tract 2707 will result in a minimal increase in maintenance costs for the water main and water services. ALTERNATIVES Do not accept the public improvements or certify completion of the private improvements for Tract 2707. If some of the required subdivision improvements for Tract 2707 have not been completed, then Council can continue this item until such time as the improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the City. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the subdivision improvements for Tract 2707 have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, or sufficient securities are in place to guarantee completion of the remaining minor items. Attachments: a - Vicinity Map b - Site Plan c - Draft Resolution Accepting Subdivision Improvements Packet Pg 186 5 Packet Pg 187 5 Packet Pg 188 5 R _____ RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, CERTIFYING COMPLETION OF THE PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE SECURITIES FOR TRACT 2707 (953 ORCUTT ROAD, TR 151-03) WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning Tract 2707, as prescribed in Resolution No. 9748 (2005 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2707 per Resolution No. 9928 (2007 Series); and WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfactorily completed the public improvements for Tract 2707, in accordance with City standards and specifications and has requested acceptance of the public improvements for maintenance and operation by the City; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfactorily completed the private improvements for Tract 2707, in accordance with City standards, specifications and the approved plans, and has requested that the City certify completion of these private improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby accepts the public improvements for Tract 2707. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby certifies completion of the private improvements for Tract 2707. SECTION 4. The Public Works Director is authorized to release the securities once the requirements for release are met. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to take action necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Packet Pg 189 5 Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2017. ________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 190 5 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities-Wastewater SUBJECT: CalOES HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize City staff to prepare and submit a grant application to State of California Office of Emergency Services for Flood Hazard Mitigation; and 2. Adopt a resolution entitled Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre -Disaster Mitigation Program; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve an amount not to exceed $75,000 for the preparation of the application; and 4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any other required grant application documentation. BACKGROUND The Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) lies in a 100-year floodplain that has experienced significant flooding in the past. During the planning and design phases of the WRRF upgrade project, considerable studies and design efforts have been prepared to address the flood conditions. These activities will protect the City’s investment and ensure the WRRF can remain operational during flooding to protect the health and safety of the community and San Luis Obispo Creek. Hazardous floods threaten the WRRF’s ability to treat wastewater, put critical infrastructure at risk, are dangerous for WRRF staff and threaten the health of the creek and the community. Maintaining the water quality in the creek is important for protecting aquatic habitat and public health of the downstream communities. As the City considers the potential impacts of climate change, which is expected to include intensified frequency and/or intensity of large magnitude storms, more frequent and/or more severe flooding at the WRRF may occur, making flood management at the WRRF even more critical for the City. Design of on-site improvements to protect the WRRF will avoid negative impacts to neighboring properties - a key goal of the project. Critical adjacent properties include the City’s Corporation Yard, the new homeless services center and the proposed RTA bus facility. To mitigate the damage due to flooding, the WRRF Project includes flood management improvements at the WRRF site. The improvements include various forms of flood protection targeted at reducing the following risks and have added significant additional cost to the project. Packet Pg 191 6 DISCUSSION The State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) is accepting applications for its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The program aims to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters, with an emphasis on mitigation before the next disaster to reduce human and financial consequences later. As the result of a Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides funding for plans and projects that reduce the effects of future natural disasters. In California, these funds are administered by the CalOES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Unit. Eligible applicants include state agencies, local governments, special districts, and some private non - profits. This program offers up to $3 million in grant funding for flood hazard mitigation with the grantee (City) being responsible to match a 25% cost share. The 25% is eligible for reimbursement and/or funding from the California Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and qualifies for construction and other grant related activities. Many elements of the project are eligible for grant funding because they specifically address mitigating flood hazards. Staff has estimated that these elements will qualify for the maximum grant funding. The WRRF project’s funding strategy is committed to obtain $15 to $16 million in grants, public/private partnerships and other mechanism to reduce the City’s project cost burden. A successful CalOES grant will help reach this goal while funding these critical improvements. The Application The CalOES application is very comprehensive and requires a detailed list of flood improvements and a construction cost breakdown from the WRRF design. Presently, many of those improvements and costs are not distinctly separate and are imbedded in a variety of design elements and estimates. The application will require these elements and their costs to be separated for the application. To provide the additional information for a successful application, this report includes a funding request of up to $75,000 for the City’s project design engineer, CH2M, program management team, Water System Consulting (WSC) and the project’s environmental consultant, Rincon. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This grant application requires an accompanying specific environmental document. This report includes a funding request for this document to be prepared by the WRRF project’s environmental consultant. FISCAL IMPACT Submittal of the CalOES hazard mitigation grant application will cost up to a combined total of $75,000 for CH2M, WSC and Rincon Environmental. Adequate funding for this request is available in the Sewer Fund completed projects account, which has a current balance of $280,000. This request conforms to the City’s grant management policy (Financial Management Manual 740-1) and the WRRF has identified budget for the long-term staffing and financial resources for maintenance of these grant financed improvements. Packet Pg 192 6 ALTERNATIVES Deny the authorization to prepare and submit a grant application to CalOES. The Council may decide not to authorize staff to submit a grant application. Staff does not recommend this option, as there is a favorable likelihood that the City will secure this grant and it is consistent with the project’s funding strategy. Attachments: a - CalOES Grant Resolution City Format Packet Pg 193 6 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM AND PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo must upgrade its Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) to meet adopted State regulatory requirements, future capacity demands, replace aged equipment, maximize recycled water production and create a community asset; and WHEREAS, the WRRF is a critical City facility that ensures the health and safety of the City, San Luis Obispo Creek, the groundwater basin and downstream residents: and WHEREAS, the WRRF is located in a flood plain and has experienced serious flooding in the past; and WHEREAS; the WRRF upgrade project has incorporated numerous design elements to ensure the construction of the upgraded facility will be protected from future flooding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Director of Utilities, Carrie Mattingly, or Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater, David Hix or Utilities Business Manager, Brigitte Elke, are hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, a grant application under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre- Pre Disaster Program and to file it with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Service for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act. SECTION 2. The City of San Luis Obispo, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such State disaster assistance and agreements required. SECTION 3. This is a Disaster/Grant specific resolution and is effective for only Disaster/Grant #DR-4301. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Packet Pg 194 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 195 6 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 196 6 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager SUBJECT: MARGARITA LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT AWARD, SPECIFICATION NO. 91214A RECOMMENDATIONS Award a contract to Specialty Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,290,215 for the Margarita Lift Station Replacement Project, Specification No. 91214A. DISCUSSION The Margarita Lift Station Replacement project, Specification No. 91214A, includes the replacement of an existing lift station and sewer force main originally installed in 1971 that is operating beyond its life expectancy. On July 18, 2017, the City Council authorized invitations for construction bids for the replacement and authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for construction if the lowest responsible bid was within the Engineer’s Estimate (Attachment A) of $903,000. Six general contractors attended the mandatory pre-bid conference on August 15, 2017. Three bids were received and opened on September 14, 2017. All bids were over the engineer’s estimate of $903,000 which requires Council approval to award the contract. As shown in the Bid Summary (Attachment B) Specialty Construction, Inc. was the low bidder at $1,290,215. Completion of this project is critical because of the condition of the lift station. This is the second time the City has received bids for the construction of the Margarita Lift Station Replacement Project. On September 30, 2016, the City received two bids, both exceeding the engineer’s estimate by more than $600,000. On October 26, 2016, the City Manager rejected both of the bids. Although the City received more bids than when this project was bid in 2016, the City encounters a limited pool of interested and qualified contractors likely due to the current construction climate and the expertise required for sewer lift station projects. Since this is the second time the project has been out for construction bids, staff does not believe that a third time will yield a low bid within the original engineer’s estimate. FISCAL IMPACT The current available budget for this project is $1,755,256. The revised project cost considering the low bid from Specialty Construction, Inc. is $1,601,215. There is adequate budget in the project account to fund the lift station replacement. Packet Pg 197 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction of existing structures and facilities). CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department will provide construction management oversight to contract inspection services by Filippin Engineering for the proposed lift station replacement project and concurs with the recommendations in this report. ALTERNATIVES 1. Reject all bids and direct staff to re-advertise the project. The City Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to re-bid the project. If Council elects to defer the project, Utilities would continue to maintain the station in operable condition. Efforts already made to prolong the life of the station include repairs to the floor of the sump pump due to leaks in 1995; cathodic protection to extend the life of the structure in 1996; additional leaks were repaired on the floor and walls in 2010. If the station is run to failure requiring emergency replacement, emergency construction costs and impacts to the adjacent housing and the environment would be significant. Attachments: a - July 18, 2017 Council Agenda Report to Advertise b - Specification 91214A, Bid Summary c - Contract Agreement, Specialty Construction, Inc Margarita Lift Station Replacement, Specification No. 91214A Prior Estimated Project Cost Revised Project Cost per low bid Construction Services: Construction $903,000 $1,290,215 Materials Testing $5,000 $5,000 Printing and Miscellaneous $1,000 $1,000 Construction Inspection Services 124,316 124,316 Construction Contingencies: $180,000 $180,000 Total Construction Services $1,214,000 $1,601,215 Packet Pg 198 7 Meeting Date: 7/18/2017 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager SUBJECT: MARGARITA LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO. 91214A RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve plans and specifications for the Margarita Lift Station Replacement, Specification No. 91214A and authorize staff to advertise for bids; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's estimate of $903,000. DISCUSSION Background The Margarita Lift Station, and its associated 230 feet of six-inch cast iron force main, serves properties east of South Higuera Street adjacent to Margarita Avenue and was put into service in 1971. At 46 years old, it is operating beyond its useful life. Due to the age and condition of the lift station, budget for the design of a replacement station was identified in the 2013-15 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Plan. The City Council authorized a request for proposals and the City Manager awarded a contract for design services to replace the lift station in November 2013 and March 2014 respectively. Construction funding for the project was identified in the 2015 -17 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Plan. On August 16, 2016, the City Council approved the advertisement of the Margarita Lift Station Replacement project with a total project budget of $1,102,000 including construction, construction management, and construction contingencies. Seven general contractors attended a mandatory pre-bid conference on September 14, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the City received two bids, both exceeding the engineer’s estimate. On October 26, 2017, the City Manager rejected all bids. In the 2017-19 Financial Plan, additional funding was added to support the construction of the project. The existing Margarita Lift Station is located along the Margarita Avenue street frontage adjacent to the Margarita Apartments which are owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority (HASLO). The new Margarita Lift Station will be located on an easement obtained by the City from HASLO. The City and HASLO collaborated on the project’s fencing, lighting, sound attenuation, service access, and the connection of recycled water for irrigation on the property. The old station will be abandoned and the property upon which it was located will become part of the Margarita Apartments landscaping. The City acquired temporary construction easements from HASLO for the original construction schedule of the project with a termination date of December 31, 2017. The City is working with HASLO to extend the temporary easements to respond to the updated construction schedule. Packet Pg 199 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction of existing structures and facilities). CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department reviewed the revised plans and special provisions for the Margarita Lift Station Replacement, Specification No. 91214A and provided comments that have been incorporated; Community Development concurs with the environmental review findings. FISCAL IMPACT Adequate funding is available in the Sewer Fund to support the project’s construction, including a 20 percent contingency. The project budget is provided below. Construction Estimate $903,000 Construction Contingencies $180,000 Construction Management $125,000 Materials Testing $5,000 Printing and Miscellaneous $1,000 Project Budget $1,214,000 ALTERNATIVES Deny or defer approval to advertise. The City Council may choose to deny or defer the approval to advertise this project. If Council elects to defer the project, Utilities would continue to work to maintain the station in operable condition. Efforts already made to prolong the life of the station include repairs to the floor of the sump pump due to leaks in 1995; cathodic protection to extend the life of the structure in 1996; additional leaks were repaired on the floor and walls in 2010. If the station is run to failure requiring emergency replacement, emergency construction costs and impacts to the adjacent housing and the environment would be significant. Attachments: a - Council Reading File - Special Provisions for Specification 91214A b - Council Reading File - Planset for Specification 91214A Packet Pg 200 7 Item # Item DescriptionQuantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total1 MOBILIZATION1 LS$42,000.00 $42,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 2 RESIDENTIAL LATERAL CONNECTION 1 LS$27,000.00 $27,000.00 $25,950.00 $25,950.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 SHORING 1 LS$140,000.00 $140,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 4 DEWATERING 1 LS$88,000.00 $88,000.00 $50,600.00 $50,600.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 5 LIFT STATION 1 LS$455,000.00 $455,000.00 $586,500.00 $586,500.00 $800,000.00 $800,000.00 6 ELECTRICAL, CONTROLS, AND GENERATOR 1 LS$221,000.00 $221,000.00 $223,490.00 $223,490.00 $240,000.00 $240,000.00 7 LIFT STATION STARTUP AND 1 LS$24,000.00 $24,000.00 $17,325.00 $17,325.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 8 DEMOLITION 1 LS$36,000.00 $36,000.00 $46,900.00 $46,900.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 9 3‐INCH AC REPLACEMENT AND STRIPING 3782 SF$11.00 $41,602.00 $11.00 $41,602.00 $11.00 $41,602.00 10 THICKENED AC SECTION 877 SF$18.00 $15,786.00 $18.00 $15,786.00 $12.00 $10,524.00 11 6‐INCH HDPE FORCE MAIN 264 LF$328.00 $86,592.00 $315.00 $83,160.00 $300.00 $79,200.00 12 POTHOLING 8 EA$1,970.00 $15,760.00 $7,500.00 $60,000.00 $1,000.00 $8,000.00 13 TRAFFIC CONTROL1LS$16,000.00 $16,000.00 $72,000.00 $72,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 14 RECYCLED WATER SERVICE 75 LF$245.00 $18,375.00 $375.00 $28,125.00 $150.00 $11,250.00 15 NATURAL GAS SERVICE 80 LF$20.00 $1,600.00 $107.00 $8,560.00 $100.00 $8,000.00 16 LANDSCAPING 1 LS$47,000.00 $47,000.00 $39,000.00 $39,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 17 OSHA COMPLIANCE 1 LS$14,500.00 $14,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $1,290,215.00 $1,359,998.00 $1,588,576.00 Total Bid AmountMargarita Lift Station Replacement, Specification No. 91214ABid Opening: 09/14/17* marks an allowanceSpecialty Construction, Inc. Cushman Contracting Raminha Construction Inc.Packet Pg 2017 1 of 3 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made on this ______ day of ___________, 20__, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California (hereinafter called the Owner) and SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION, INC. (hereinafter called the Contractor). WITNESSETH: That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows: ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of MARGARITA LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO. 91214 A in strict compliance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by the Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated. It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized representatives. ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, the contract prices as follows: Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total No. Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 2 RESIDENTIAL LATERAL CONNECTION LS 1 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 3 SHORING LS 1 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 4 DEWATERING LS 1 $88,000.00 $88,000.00 5 LIFT STATION LS 1 $455,000.00 $455,000.00 6 ELECTRICAL, CONTROLS, AND GENERATOR LS 1 $221,000.00 $221,000.00 7 LIFT STATION STARTUP AND COMMISSIONING LS 1 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 8 DEMOLITION LS 1 $36,000.00 $36,000.00 9 3-INCH AC REPLACEMENT AND STRIPING SF 3782 $11.00 $41,602.00 10 THICKENED AC SECTION SF 877 $18.00 $15,786.00 11 6-INCH HDPE FORCE MAIN LF 264 $328.00 $86,592.00 12 POTHOLING EA 8 $1,970.00 $15,760.00 13 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 14 RECYCLED WATER SERVICE LF 75 $245.00 $18,375.00 15 NATURAL GAS SERVICE LF 80 $20.00 $1,600.00 Packet Pg 202 7 2 of 3 Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total No. Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 16 LANDSCAPING LS 1 $47,000.00 $47,000.00 17 OSHA COMPLIANCE LS 1 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 BID TOTAL: $1,290,215.00 Payments are to be made to the Contractor in compliance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the documents made a part of this Contract. Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which the Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and conclusive. ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following documents, all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, and if not attached, as if hereto attached: 1. Notice to Bidders and information for bidders. 2. Standard Specifications, Engineering Standards, Special Provisions, and any Addenda. 3. Plans. 4. Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans 2010 5. Accepted Bid. 6. List of Subcontractors. 7. Public Contract Code Sections 10285.1 Statement. 8. Public Contract Code Section 10162 Questionnaire. 9. Public Contract Code Section 10232 Statement. 10. Labor Code Section 1725.5 Statements. 11. Bidder Acknowledgements. 12. Qualifications. 13. Attach Bidders Bond to Accompany Bid. 14. Non-collusion Declaration. 15. Agreement and Bonds. 16. Insurance Requirements and Forms. ARTICLE IV INDEMNIFICATION: Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. In the event of conflict with any other indemnification or hold harmless provisions of this Agreement, the provision that provides the most protection to the City shall apply. ARTICLE V. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said bid conflicting herewith. Packet Pg 203 7 3 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO __________________________ By:_________________________ Carrie Gallagher Heidi Harmon City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR: Specialty Construction, Inc. By: __________________________ J. Christine Dietrick Rudolph C. Bachmann City Attorney Its: President/Secretary Rev. 12-28-09 Packet Pg 204 7 Meeting Date: 10/17/17 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING, IN PART, AND UPHOLDING, IN PART, AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO MODIFY APPROVED COLORS AND BUILDING DESIGN FOR A REMODELED BUILDING AT 1135 SANTA ROSA STREET RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution denying, in part, and upholding, in part, an appeal of the decision of the Architectural Review Commission to deny a request to modify approved colors and to allow the elimination of a bulkhead feature for a remodeled building at 1135 Santa Rosa Street. AGENDA REPORT AND RESOLUTION The agenda report and resolution for this item will be distributed under separate cover by the end of the day on Thursday, October 12. Additional time is needed to accurately reflect the direction of the Council in the draft resolution. It is important for the resolution to be accurate so that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) has clear direction on the scope of its review. Staff will also provide information in the agenda report to clarify the development potential of the adjacent property in response to a communication submitted by the appellant. Finally, the Community Development Director met with the applicant on the property to discuss, among other things, opportunities for implementing the City Council’s direction. It was a productive conversation and, upon initial review, it appears that staff will be able to support the applicant’s proposal with its recommendation to the ARC. For these reasons, additional time is needed to complete the agenda report for this item, which will be distributed under separate cover. Packet Pg 205 8 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 206 8 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Molly Cano, Tourism Manager SUBJECT: 2016-17 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board: 1. Receive and approve the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board’s 2016-17 annual report; and 2. Adopt a resolution of intention to levy and collect assessments within the TBID area in fiscal year 2017-18 at the same rate as in fiscal year 2016-17. DISCUSSION Background In June 2008, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1517 establishing a tourism business improvement district as requested by the local lodging industry. The district was formed under the State’s Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989, sections 36500 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code and codified into the City’s Municipal Code under Chapter 12.42. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 12.42.060 and Sections 36530 and 36533 of the State’s Parking and Business Improvement Law, the appointed TBID Advisory Board is to submit an annual report (Attachment A) that outlines the past year’s efforts and how the funding was used and to what effect. Section 36534 further requires that after the approval of the annual report, the Council shall adopt a resolution of intention (Attachment B) to levy an annual assessment for that fiscal year. The resolution also sets a public hearing in order to receive any written or oral protests against the continuation of the district as required by the applicable statute. Annual Report On September 13, 2017, the TBID Board met in its regular monthly meeting to finalize the 2016- 17 annual report (Attachment C). Public noticing for the TBID Advisory Board meeting was performed through the posting of the agenda on the City’s website and in the kiosk in front of City Hall by 5:00 pm on September 8, 2017. For convenience, the agenda was also distributed to TBID constituents and stakeholders via email. The annual report reiterates the use of the TBID funds within the defined marketing platform that guides the strategy used to deliver on the TBID’s objective and goals. The report content includes: Packet Pg 207 9 1. TBID Background and Advisory Body 2. 2016-17 Year by the Numbers 3. Strategic Plan Implementation and Program Approach 4. 2016-17 Summary of Activities 5. 2016-17 Financial Statement 6. Looking Ahead to 2017-18 7. Charts and Graphs showing various results Next Steps Should the City Council approve the annual report and adopt the resolution of intention, a public hearing will be noticed for November 7, 2017. The public hearing will allow hoteliers to submit comments, voice concerns, and protest the assessment. As set forth in Sections 36524 and 36525 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Council has the ability to continue the proposed citywide TBID at this public hearing, unless oral or written protests are received from City hoteliers that pay 50% or more of the proposed assessments. In that event, the Council cannot consider continuation of the TBID in the City of San Luis Obispo for at least one year. Noticing Schedule Legal notices regarding the City Council’s review and approval of the TBID annual report were sent to TBID properties on Wednesday, October 4, 2017. For convenience, the link to the agenda was also distributed to TBID constituents and stakeholders via email. FISCAL IMPACT The current unaudited year-end TBID revenue for 2016-17 is approximately $1,440,300.00 which is approximately $5,000 more than the budgeted amount. In 2017-18, the TBID projected revenue is $1,465,787.00 and is budgeted for program costs including staffing. Approximately $29,000 is budgeted to cover the City’s administrative costs associated with collecting and disbursing the assessment. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may choose to not approve the report or levy the assessment. This action is not recommended as the advisory body has fully reviewed the report and recommended the approval to City Council in order to move forward with the Public Hearing for the Tourism Business Improvement District. Attachments: a - SLOTBID Annual Report 2016–17 b - Resolution of Intention 2017 c - 09-13-2017 TBID minutes DRAFT Packet Pg 208 9 SLO TBID ANNUAL REPORT 2016–2017 Packet Pg 209 9 2 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 A Letter from the Chair A LETTER FROM THE CHAIR The Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) for San Luis Obispo has worked together with its local lodging constituents to record another year of TOT growth. Faced with an exceptionally wet winter and the sudden and ongoing closure of the Pacific Coast Highway, San Luis Obispo innkeepers and hoteliers were able to increase average daily rate (ADR) while mitigating the reduction in occupancy. In one sense, it is difficult to pinpoint the specific benefit of the TBID’s efforts when everything is going well. If the weather cooperates and Highway 1 is open, it is less apparent to an individual constituent precisely what is making the difference between a good year and a great year; there is little incentive to even spend time figuring it out. Conversely, when the unprecedented year-over-year growth that we had begun to take for granted begins to taper off, the benefit of a communal marketing effort led by the TBID becomes very clear. The story of FY16 is essentially this; after many years of growth in occupancy and ADR, SLO hoteliers pushed rate. We set rates many months to sometimes years in advance, and none of us has a crystal ball—rates are set based on past performance, instinct and hope. We had no reason to believe the ever-increasing occupancy might taper off. So we set our rates higher than ever, and were able to maintain increased revenue through higher ADR in spite of decreased occupancy. Where does the TBID fit in all this? One anecdote that I feel illustrates what we do well is that we literally have a program called “Money for a Rainy Day.” When it started raining, and then didn’t stop when it normally does, we kicked our program into action and were able to demonstrably move the needle—even garnering free publicity in the LA Times for our unique promotion through our joint PR efforts with the Chamber of Commerce. This is exactly the function we are meant to serve, and the need for us is greater in challenging years than when everything comes easily. After having gone through the Strategic Planning process, and then a completed mid-point check-up, we are reaching an organizational maturity that is being noticed and emulated. Visit California recognized our efforts with a “Poppy Award” for best overall marketing program. Our competitors have noticed as well, and we see discussions taking place in neighboring communities that we were having three years ago. The benefits from the decisions we are making now will continue to pay dividends for our constituents and the city which we are so grateful to be a part of for years to come. Sincerely, Matthew Wilkins Sands Inn & Suites SLO TBID Board Chair Packet Pg 210 9 3 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Background on TBID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Background ............................................4 Advisory Body ..........................................4 2016–17 Advisory Board ..................................4 Advisory Body Bylaws ...................................5 2016-17 Year By the Numbers (TOT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Strategic Plan Implementation Year & Program Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 TBID Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Snapshot of the Progress ................................8 Branding ...............................................8 Website ...............................................10 Digital & Print Media ....................................11 Social .................................................13 Public Relations ........................................17 Travel & Tradeshows ....................................18 Special Promotions .....................................19 Guest Services ........................................22 Strategic Partnerships .................................24 Event Promotion ......................................26 Industry Relations .....................................27 2016–17 Financial Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Income ...............................................28 Expenditures ..........................................29 Looking Ahead to 2017–18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 TOT Chart 2016–17 .....................................32 TOT Month to Month 2016–17 ...........................32 OCC Month to Month 2016–17 ...........................33 ADR Month to Month 2016–17 ...........................33 RevPar Month to Month 2016–17 .........................34 Packet Pg 211 9 4 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Background on TBID BACKGROUND ON TBID BACKGROUND In June 2008 the City Council adopted Ordinance 1517 establishing the tourism business improvement district (TBID) in the City of San Luis Obispo as requested by the local lodging industry. The assessment of two percent of gross receipts for the district became effective on October 1, 2008 and the use of funds was defined in Section 12.42.030 of the Municipal Code as follows: “This ordinance is made and enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Sections 36500 et. seq., of the California Streets and Highways Code). The purpose of forming the district as a business improvement area under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 is to provide revenue to defray the costs of services, activities and programs promoting tourism which will benefit the operators of hotels in the district through the promotion of scenic, recreational, cultural and other attractions in the district as a tourist destination.” ADVISORY BODY The use of the assessment fund is based on the recommendation of the Tourism Business Improvement District advisory board that is staffed by City of San Luis Obispo hotel owners, operators, and/or managers. The board members are appointed by the City Council and serve for an initial term of four years with the opportunity to serve second term for a maximum of eight years. 2016-17 ADVISORY BOARD NAME PROPERTY TERM Dean Hutton Apple Farm 3/31/17 2nd term Kimberly Walker Granada Hotel & Bistro 3/31/21 2nd term LeBren Harris Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton 3/31/21 Nipool Patel (Past Chair)Lamplighter Inn & Suites 3/31/20 2nd term Pragna Patel-Mueller Lexington Inn 3/31/19 Clint Pearce Madonna Inn 3/31/19 2nd term Matthew Wilkins (Chair)Sands Inn & Suites 3/31/20 2nd term Packet Pg 212 9 5 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 ADVISORY BODY BYLAWS In addition to the governing City ordinance, the TBID Board established its advisory body bylaws and further defined its role and functions as: The functions and duties of the TBID Board shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Planning a comprehensive program to promote tourism to the City of San Luis Obispo and prepare an annual marketing program consistent with industry goals and objectives. B. Develop advertising and promotional programs and projects to benefit the lodging industry in San Luis Obispo. C. Present an annual assessment report to the City Council regarding the implemented promotional programs and projects. D. Perform any other lawful tasks as directed by the Council. The Board meets monthly on the second Wednesday at 10 a.m. for its regular board meeting. In 2016–17, the Board met in 11 regular monthly meetings and 2 special meetings. Additionally, based on the continued implementation of the TBID 5-year Strategic Plan, the Board maintained the standing subcommittees - the Management Committee and the Marketing Committee, each is made up of three board members. The Marketing Committee members also serve on the joint Event Promotion Committee with three members of the Promotional Coordinating Committee to consider event sponsorship commitments. In order to keep the lodging constituency abreast of all TBID business, the Board is assigned properties to liaise. Each board member is responsible for communication with his/her respective group of hotels. Staff continue to visit all properties at least once a year to personally bring TBID updates and marketing opportunities to each property. Background on TBIDPacket Pg 213 9 6 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 2016-17 Year by the Numbers 2016-17 YEAR BY THE NUMBERS The 2016-17 fiscal year produced modest growth in the tourism industry in San Luis Obispo. The City collected nearly $7.4 million dollars (+2.8%) in transient occupancy tax (TOT) – the largest collection ever recorded for the City of San Luis Obispo. The collections slightly exceeded the City’s forecasted and budgeted growth which is contributed directly into the City’s General Fund. However, based on the Smith Travel Research (STR) reports, the occupancy rate in the City decreased by 1.2%. Overall, occupancy was down consistently for the first three quarters of the fiscal year apart from November and January. It began to rebound in the fourth quarter where we saw a record 11% occupancy growth in April 2017. The dip in occupancy can be attributed in part to the seasonal weather patterns achieved by the mountain regions that produced the significant snow fall, the closure of Highway 1, and the impact of a competitive and crowded tourism market throughout the region. The 2016-2017 fiscal year concluded with average annual occupancy rate over 71%, a slight decline in occupancy compared to the 2015-16 fiscal year. While the occupancy rate decreased, the Average Daily Rate (ADR) was up 2.8% to $143.49. Nearly, every month within the year out rated the same month in the prior year. Additionally, the RevPAR, defined as Revenue Per Available Room, grew by 1.8% to $104.13. This means that although the occupancy was down overall for the properties, the lodging businesses received higher profits based on rate increases with less day-to-day impact on the properties. Additionally, the downtown Visitor Center served nearly 86,000 in person guests. San Luis Obispo lodging properties achieved twenty five sell out weekends in 2016–17. 2016-17 YEAR BY THE NUMBERS See the appendix for complete graphs. MEASUREMENT FY 2016-17 RESULT % CHANGE FROM FY 2015-16 TOT $ 7,357,923 2.8 % Occupancy 71.58 -1.2 % ADR $ 143.49 2.8 % RevPAR $ 104.13 1.8 % Packet Pg 214 9 7 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Strategic Plan Implementation Year & Program Approach STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION YEAR & PROGRAM APPROACH In 2016-17 the TBID continued the focused implementation of the 5-year Strategic Clarity Plan, a document that serves as the framework for the direction and decisions made by the TBID Board for the tourism program. The plan defines the work programs for the TBID and is used as a guide for the decisions made for the overall promotion of San Luis Obispo. Within the plan, the TBID identified five Strategic Imperatives: • Deliver Smart Growth • Develop the SLO Brand • Build Meaningful Partnerships • Contribute to an Unforgettable SLO Experience • Ensure Organizational Excellence This fiscal year marked the halfway point for the plan. In the fall of 2016, the TBID Board held workshop to revisit the plan and they modified it as needed for the remaining two years of implementation. While none of the Strategic Imperatives changed, the Board added new initiatives to drive new program efforts. Mission The SLO TBID builds awareness to grow tourism, serving as the voice of San Luis Obispo. Values Integrity | Accountability | Adaptability | Collaboration | Determination | Innovation Unique Role of Value The SLO TBID provides the City of SLO with comprehensive tourism brand management through strategic partnerships and a robust marketing and promotional budget. Vision In SLO TBID manages the brand for the destination of San Luis Obispo, delivering balanced growth of tourism, with creativity and integrity. Vision Out San Luis Obispo is an unforgettable place where visitors engage in a unique lifestyle they aspire to, become emotionally attached, and return for renewal. Brand Intention Heart Side: Happy | Pride of Place | Inspiring | Relaxed | Rejuvenating Head Side: Experiential | Beautiful | Artisinal | Healthy | Authentic Strategic Imperatives Deliver Smart Growth | Develop the SLO Brand | Build Meaningful Partnerships | Contribute to an Unforgettable SLO Experience | Ensure Organizational Excellence Unique Value Proposition San Luis Obispo is an authentic and inviting California community where you can play, taste, explore, relax, and recharge. Strategic Clarity The elements of our Strategic Clarity are the SLO TBID’s “North Star” for the upcoming five fiscal years, setting the level of expectation and the tone and tenor of everything we plan. As we move into defining specific initiatives, our Strategic Clarity will serve as a touchstone. Vision In What kind of organizational culture are we committed to being? Vision Out What is the ideal future state we will strive to create? What are we committed to making happen?Mission What is most important to us as we strive to realize our vision? What is the focus of our work?Values What are the fundamental beliefs that shape how we work together to serve our mission? Unique Role of Value What unique and valuable role do we play amongst our peer organizations? HOW do we provide value? Strategic Imperatives What must be accomplished during the planning horizon? Unique Value Proposition What unique and sustainable value does the destination of San Luis Obispo deliver? WHY San Luis Obispo? Brand Intention WHAT is the experience we want our destination to be known for? Mission Values Unique Role of Value Vision In Vision Out Brand Intention Strategic Imperatives Unique Value Proposition Vision In Vision Out Mission Values Unique Role of Value Strategic Imperatives Unique Value Proposition Brand Intention Packet Pg 215 9 8 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 TBID Activities TBID ACTIVITIES SNAPSHOT OF THE PROGRESS Fiscal year 2016–17, was a very accomplished year for the TBID activities. • Deployed “It Means Something Different Here” campaign 2.0 • Created and distributed unique content that inspired returning and new tourists • Implemented a marketing automation program to enhance email marketing efforts • Captured and created a library of candid, “local perspective” video content • Expanded library of professional photography • Developed and distributed new collateral materials • Executed new social media opportunities including Snapchat & Instagram Stories • Developed seasonal promotional campaigns, including Cal Poly Lodging Loyalty Program, Money for a Rainy Day, Exclusive Seattle Promotion and tradeshow-specific promotions • Developed individualized event promotion strategies • Partnered with Visit SLO CAL on new co-op placements In order to implement the complex marketing programs, the TBID Board and staff work closely with the team of contractors from the marketing agencies Barnett Cox & Associates (BCA) and Matchfire formerly StudioGood, and the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. Packet Pg 216 9 9 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 TBID Activities BRANDING The TBID manages the tourism brand for the destination of San Luis Obispo, delivering balanced growth of tourism, with creativity and integrity. In fiscal year 2016–17, the advertising campaign “It Means Something Different Here” was continued across digital and print channels. Additionally, the TBID expanded their print collateral and created a new small brochure to complement our SLO Inspiration Guide & Maps brochure featuring eye catching photography. These pieces are used to promote San Luis Obispo and are disturbed at various tradeshow, events, and through Certified Folder Displays in airports visitor centers and hotels throughout California. San Luis Obispo Brand Messaging Pillars: • Cultural • Culinary • Outdoor • Family Packet Pg 217 9 10 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 WEBSITE www .SanLuisObispoVacations .com The City’s official tourism website, SanLuisObispoVacations.com, is the primary marketing tool used to represent our destination. It is designed mainly for consumers, but also serves the travel trade, meeting planners, TBID members and media. It features robust content including a detailed calendar of events integrated with SLO Happenings, lodging property listings for all TBID constituents including hotels and permitted homestay properties, itinerary suggestions and features, the ShareSLO blog, and featured press coverage. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) ensures the relevancy and success of the TBID’s website. Organic search traffic to the site continues to stand as the top traffic channel, making up 36% of site sessions. The work is done monthly to optimize pages with top keywords, meta tags and meta descriptions, ShareSLO blog posts and social content were created based on forecasted keyword and search trends. Thus, pages now rank in the top position on Google for San Luis Obispo searches including Bubblegum Alley, Night Life and Shopping. Key 2016–17 Website Results: • 60% increase in site sessions • 51% increase in average monthly users • 32% increase in referral traffic year-over-year Highlights of Website Activities: • Updated Email Sign-Up Form in August • Launched Automated Welcome Series and Hotel Page Abandonment Email • Updated Mobile Navigation, #ShareSLO Blog and Filtering Functionality in November • Revamped Events Page in February • Refreshed Hotel & Homestay Property Pages in June • Added 15 new pages and updated over 35 pages See the appendix for complete graphs. TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 218 9 11 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 DIGITAL & PRINT MEDIA Digital Media Online programmatic campaigns are the most effective marketing and advertising tool to target the drive markets in California for leisure travelers to San Luis Obispo. The TBID continues to use branded advertising to maximize online reach for the promotion of San Luis Obispo through strategic placement on top travel and lifestyle sites through a programmatic digital advertising program. In 2016-17, the advertising program for the TBID was focused on the mix of digital display that hit key websites to target the right customer and the use of video pre-roll using the 5 pillar videos in desired markets. TBID Activities CUMULATIVE DIGITAL ADVERTISING MEASUREMENTS Total Number of Digital Ad Impressions 12,639,406 Total Number of Clicks 879,325 Print Advertising Limited print advertising placements were continued in the TBID’s media mix through BCA in the 2016–17 fiscal year. Traditional print campaigns are an important tool to reach niche market visitors primarily in the mature demographic and to reinforce travel inspiration and build brand awareness for the destination. The TBID placed print ads only in cooperative advertising campaigns with regional partners like Visit SLO CAL and Central Coast Tourism Council (CCTC). • SLO CAL Destination Visitors Guide • Alaska Airlines in-flight magazine for the launch of the new flight • SLO Chamber Visitors Guide • Central Coast Tourism Map ad • California State Travel Guide in the 8-page Central Coast feature • BuzzFeed article • Matador article & video Packet Pg 219 9 12 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Email Marketing The TBID continued to utilize email marketing activities through the newsletter to communicate regularly with potential visitors on activities in SLO to build brand loyalty and encourage repeat visitation and an extended length of stay. The newsletter promotes upcoming events and special promotions as well as compliments our seasonal advertising campaigns and public relations outreach. This year the TBID refocused their attention on enhancing their email marketing efforts beyond the monthly newsletter. In 2016-17 the TBID concentrated their email marketing on growing their audience, tracking the behaviors and following up with relevant messaging that ultimately drove visitation to San Luis Obispo. Their investment in marketing automation garnered nearly 2000 new email subscribers on the TBID site by updating the form and the placement of the sign up. Additionally, they launched an automated Welcome Series to acknowledge new subscribers. And they implemented a Hotel Page Abandonment series which sent visitors a personalized email if they left hotel pages without taking action. Highlights of Email Marketing Activities: • 37% increase in database size • 1,783 submitted through new email sign-up form • 7 SLO Vacations’ e-newsletters • 2 ongoing, automated emails based on user behavior • 9 targeted emails for Lodging Loyalty program • 6 targeted emails for tradeshow promotion • 2 targeted emails for Money for a Rainy Day promotion • 1 promotional email for Festival Mozaic TBID Activities NEWSLETTER ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS Total Number of Newsletters Sent 25 Database Size 23,361 Packet Pg 220 9 13 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 SOCIAL #SHARESLO This year, the TBID continued to captivate ShareSLO fans and grow their social media footprint through great, engaging content. They continued to leverage user-generated content in 2016-17, along with adding TBID created content including “local perspective” videos. With an emphasis on engaging site content, the TBID drove social traffic to SanLuisObispoVacations.com by linking to relevant content whenever possible. ShareSLO continues to maintain a network of engaged social fans on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. In 2016–17, the ShareSLO cumulative social fan base grew by over 62,000 fans and followers across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. The total social media engagements across all platforms was over 203,760, representing a 74% increase in engagements over 2015–16. The ShareSLO blog, featured on SanLuisObispoVacations.com continues to perform exceptionally well as a source to drive traffic to the website. In addition to general content each month, the ShareSLO blog featured dedicated campaigns including: Meet the Brewers Series in October, ShareSLO Chef Series in January, Bike Month in April, SLO in the News throughout the year. Thus, the ShareSLO blog saw a 171% increase in page views within the blog compared to the prior year. TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 221 9 14 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 #SHARESLO (Cont .) 2016–17 ShareSLO Activities Included: • 54 ShareSLO blogs published • Activated on Snapchat & Instagram Stories • Consistent, daily community management • Activated Instagram Giveaways: Brews & Bites, SLO Film Fest, Cal Poly Baseball Tickets & First Pitch Giveaway • Participated in 3 Visit CA sponsored Twitter chats: #HikerChat, #FoodieChat, #Kidifornia • Uploaded 4 new videos to ShareSLO’s YouTube channel • Captured event photography and videography at Cow Parade SLO Launch Event and Amgen Tour • Real-time posting at events on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat TBID Activities SHARESLO PROGRAM MEASUREMENTS Total Number of Blog Posts 54 Total Number of Fans 118,956 Total Hashtag Uses (Instagram & Twitter only) 41,830 Total Video Views (YouTube)34,181 Packet Pg 222 9 15 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 TBID Activities SHARE SLO SOCIAL METRICS 2016–17 % CHANGE FROM 2015–16 Facebook Total New Fans 58,163 226.23% Average New Fans per Month 4,847 226.18% Total Fans 104,275 129.09% Total Reach 8,262,200 31.75% Average Reach per Post 7,764 45.23% Average Daily Engaged Users 789 106.01% Total Engagements 65,207 31.38% Twitter New Followers 304 46.57% Average New Followers per Month 25 46.81% Total Followers 3,744 8.62% Total Engagements 6,567 24.87% Total #ShareSLO 4,294 4.48% Instagram New Followers 3,719 25.63% Total Followers 10,937 51.52% Total Engagements 131,986 112.44% Total #ShareSLO 37,536 53.67% YouTube Video Views on Main Video 34,181 54.07% #SHARESLO (Cont .) Packet Pg 223 9 16 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Paid Social Media In 2016–17, the TBID continued to invest in paid social media to enhance the effectiveness and reach of the ShareSLO brand on Facebook. Adding a paid element to the posts has helped to expand the reach and increase engagement among ShareSLO fans, followers, and friends. Paid promotion on social media is very cost-effective for the TBID and provides the ability to extend the promotion of San Luis Obispo almost year- round. Paid social media on Facebook in 2016–17 included ads to drive page likes, website conversions, video views, lead generation and prompted posts. TBID Activities Paid Media Results 2016–17 2015–16 % Change Facebook Page Likes Page Likes 54,173 14,300 278.83% Impressions 1,091,175 649,193 68.08% Avg. Cost per Click $0.24 $0.70 65.71% Avg. Cost per Like $0.31 $0.75 58.67% Website Conversions Link Clicks 53,887 11,944 351.16% Actions 150,966 112,103 34.67% Impressions 3,294,166 1,533,533 114.81% Avg. CTR (All)2.26%1.67%35.33% Avg. CTR (Link)1.33%0.73%82.19% Video Views Video Views 444,798 915,418 51.41% Avg. Duration of Video Viewed 00:00:09 00:00:14 35.71% Lead Generation Leads 2,155 N/A N/A Total Reach 156,006 N/A N/A Promoted Posts Total Reach 953,384 825,646 15.47% Total Engagements 102,527 94,512 8.48% Packet Pg 224 9 17 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 PUBLIC RELATIONS In 2016–17, the TBID and PCC continued to jointly hold a dedicated contract with the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce for Public Relations efforts. On behalf of the City’s community promotions program, the SLO Chamber is responsible for establishing professional relationships with media outlets and journalists in various markets to build and maintain awareness of San Luis Obispo as a travel destination. The 2016-17 contract elements with the SLO Chamber for Public Relations included: pitching to media, bringing in media, coordinating media trips, sending out media releases, responding to natural media inquiries, use of the Chamber’s photography library for editorial requests and press releases, planning and executing press trips and developing media kits. This focused PR effort continued to prove success for San Luis Obispo. During the 2016–17 fiscal year, the PR activities generated at least 275 total mentions or media placements that highlighted San Luis Obispo in international, national, regional and even local publications. A few specific publications include: Toronto Star, Coastal Living Magazine, Travel Channel, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. A new focus in 2016–17 for PR efforts was tailored to digital media outlets. Primary targets included influential lifestyle, outdoors and parent with long-term, loyal and engaged audiences that are in line with San Luis Obispo’s focused messaging efforts. On behalf of the City’s community promotion, the Chamber proactively connected with various digital outlets to position the San Luis Obispo message. As a result, the TBID was featured on Sweet, a Snapchat Discover channel that reaches 100 million daily active users. Other digital outlets include: Goop, Lonely Planet, Thrillist and Matador Network. Additionally, coordinated media visits or press trips were secured to promote the destination with the goal of earning valuable editorial coverage. In fiscal year 2016-17, nearly 40 media outlets, both domestic and international were hosted in San Luis Obispo. Top domestic and international media outlets hosted include: Fodor’s Travel Guide, General Motors, Los Angeles Magazine, the Toronto Sun. TBID Activities PUBLIC RELATIONS MEASUREMENTS Total Number of Media Outlets Hosted 40 Number of Mentions 275 Potential Reach 769,122,617 Packet Pg 225 9 18 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 TRAVEL & TRADESHOWS Consumer Travel Shows The TBID continues to maximize the consumer travel show strategy. Consumer shows provide the TBID an opportunity to take San Luis Obispo on the road to key markets. The three consumer tradeshows attended were: Los Angeles Travel & Adventure Show, Bay Area Travel & Adventure Show, and San Diego Travel & Adventure Show. The booth featured key information on San Luis Obispo including lodging information, maps and upcoming events. Shows were selected based on their anticipated attendance, quality of attendees, and target drive market location. Booth visitors were presented with the call-to-action to book two nights in SLO and receive a $100 VISA gift card upon arrival. In addition to one-on-one conversations with potential visitors, the TBID also met with numerous travel media and operators in the booth. Industry Tradeshows In 2016–17, the TBID returned to the industry tradeshow IPW. The U.S. Travel Association’s IPW is the travel industry’s premier international marketplace and the largest generator of travel to the U.S. The TBID had previously participated in 2011 and 2012 but had since declined, in order to focus on consumer-only efforts. However, this year the TBID Board made a strategic decision to partner with SLO CAL, the San Luis Obispo County’s tourism marketing district, at the show. During the three-day show booked with intensive pre- scheduled business appointments, the TBID met with over 55 representatives interested in booking travel to San Luis Obispo. TBID Activities CONSUMER TRADE SHOW MEASUREMENTS Number of Shows Attended 3 Newsletter Registrations Collected 1,798 Total Room Nights Booked Through Promotion 36 Packet Pg 226 9 19 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 SPECIAL PROMOTIONS Money for a Rainy Day In 2016-17, the TBID Board ran for the second year a special promotional offer designed to drive overnight stays in the City of San Luis Obispo during the slowest months of the year. Through the promotion, visitors were required to book two consecutive nights at a lodging property in the City of San Luis Obispo between January – March 2017 and they would receive a $100 Visa Gift Card to spend how they choose. More than 660 Visa gift cards were redeemed through the promotion. As a result, the promotion garnered over 1500 room nights during January through March. TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 227 9 20 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 SPECIAL PROMOTIONS (CONT .) Seattle Flight Promotion In April 2017, Alaska Airlines launched non-stop service between San Luis Obispo and Seattle. To maximize the promotion of this flight, the TBID utilized their $100 VISA card promotion to promote overnight stays in San Luis Obispo coordinated with the launch of the flight. This promotion was marketed via targeted facebook ads and through PR outreach. As a result, over 46 room nights were booked in San Luis Obispo in conjunction with a round trip flight to SLO from Seattle. Additionally, the TBID partnered with Atascadero on an overnight discovery trip to Seattle. This overnight trip provided an opportunity for the TBID to participate in the inaugural flight to Seattle, meet with key staff at the Visit Seattle office, coordinate consumer information with the Seattle AAA office and host a media dinner with targeted Seattle digital influencers and journalists. TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 228 9 21 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 SPECIAL PROMOTIONS (CONT .) Cal Poly Lodging Loyalty Program In 2016–17 the TBID launched a pilot lodging loyalty program for new Cal Poly Parents. This program encouraged visiting parents to stay in San Luis Obispo and as a reward after 10 nights achieved the registered parent would earn one free night stay. The program was launch to a select number of parents and supporters who had registered with the TBID during the Cal Poly SLO Days events. Over 240 parents signed up for the program resulting in over 270 room nights consumed in San Luis Obispo. TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 229 9 22 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 GUEST SERVICES Through a dedicated contract with the TBID, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce provides a suite of guest services to the TBID. In 2016–17 this included: • Provide dedicated customer service for San Luis Obispo City hotels at the Downtown Visitor Center. • Provide a 800-number separate phone line exclusively for the TBID. Only SLO TBID properties will be recommended through this phone line. Provide staff to respond to a TBID-only phone line during Visitor Center Hours and return after hours phone calls. • Provide dedicated customer service on SanLuisObispoVacations.com with a Live Chat feature. *Trialed from August to October • Perform “hotel availability call arounds” and keep a record of current availability for all SLO City hotels. • Educate local hoteliers about the hotel availability program and how they may best utilize it. During fiscal year 2016–17, Visitor Center staff contacted every TBID property each week and maintained a record of which hotels were sold out and which have availability for each Thursday, Friday and Saturday as well as impacted weekdays throughout the year to help guests, who would otherwise need to call each property on their own to find a room in SLO. This service also allowed for TBID properties to refer their clients directly to the Visitor Center for centralized guest services. In addition, this information was widely utilized to assist visitors to the Visitor Center in keeping the traveler in the City of San Luis Obispo. Since July, 2016, the Chamber was able to make use of this availability information in conjunction with TBID marketing materials to refer SLO TBID properties 10,266 times. In addition, the Chamber is contracted to answer each call made to the TBID’s 1-877-SLO-TOWN number, which is serves as a response tool to the TBID’s advertising efforts and digital presence. This creates the option for a ‘real person’ to assist in trip planning, ensuring that travelers seeking personal guidance have a friendly, live voice to shape their experience of San Luis Obispo before even arriving. The telephone number, 1-877-SLO-TOWN, is a separate line that rings in the Chamber and is used solely to refer and promote TBID properties. During fiscal year 2016–17 over 2000 calls were answered on the 1-877-SLO-TOWN line, an increase of 270% over the prior year. Much of this is attributed to the seasonal promotions and Cal Poly Lodging Loyalty program implementation and fulfilment. TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 230 9 23 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 GUEST SERVICES (CONT .) Live Chat To better enhance the San Luis Obispo guest experience, the TBID piloted a live chat service in 2016-17 to make sure that no potential guest encountered any barrier to staying in SLO. Live chat gave website users the opportunity to interact with guest service providers in real-time. The service engaged with users and supported SanLuisObispoVacations.com during peak traffic times when site visitors are planning their trip. The service was piloted from August – October 2016 and nearly 4000 chats were held during that period. Chat Topics: • 30% of chats were hotel related (where to stay, affordable hotels) • 38% of chats were area related (general activities, transportation) • 29% of chats were itinerary related (specific activities/destinations) TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 231 9 24 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS The TBID collaborates with numerous community partners and industry nonprofit organizations in marketing San Luis Obispo as a destination which makes the TBID more efficient in promotional activities. The TBID’s strategic partnerships allow the marketing agencies to build relationships with the organizations below, elevating the destination as a whole. Promotional opportunities with each organization give the TBID new platforms and audiences to build brand awareness. Top partnerships achievements include: Cal Poly Athletics • TBID maintains the exclusive hotel industry sponsor to advertise with Cal Poly Athletics • TBID hosted nearly 650 room nights for visiting teams, recruits, and coaches • Basketball suite event for TBID sales teams • ShareSLO throws 3 first pitches at Cal Poly Baseball • CP Athletics Facebook page posts • Banner ad in ongoing Athletics newsletters • Cal Poly Alumni E-blast & Alumni Getaway Giveaway • Radio spots for basketball • Homecoming game ticket giveaway • New rotating graphics submitted for LED banner at Mott Gym • Soccer Visiting Teams Guide • ShareSLO Track & Field Meet • Program ad • :15 scoreboard video using new footage SLO Wine • Deployed e-newsletters to over 12,000 subscribers that included TBID content, logo, and links • Hosted travel, lifestyle, wine writers in San Luis Obispo for various media visits resulting in media coverage in: Wine Enthusiast, SF Gate & SF Chronicle, USA Today, LA Time, 805 Living, Chicago Tribune • The “Stay” page on SLOwine.com garnered over 30,000 views • Partnered to host an integrated marketing experience at LA Magazine’s The Food Event in October 2016 TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 232 9 25 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS (CONT .) Cal Poly’s New Student & Transition Programs Cal Poly New Student & Transition Programs (NSTP) sees over 50,000 guests of students and their families between Open House, Student Life Orientation Days, and Week of Welcome annually. Through a new partnership in 2016–17 the TBID partnered with NSTP to engage and connect with our new students and their families. In addition to website presence and logo inclusion, the TBID activations include representation at the following events: • Open House • SLO Days • Week of Welcome/Move-in Weekend TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 233 9 26 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 EVENT PROMOTION In 2016–2017, the TBID sponsored, promoted, and was represented at more than a dozen local events of different shapes and sizes. Over the course of the year, the TBID continued to shape an event strategy to ensure all SLO TBID-sponsored events are well-aligned with the brand, and that expectations and best practices were clear. These guidelines allowed the TBID to reach visitors before, during, and after an event takes place, which in turn arms the TBID with the tools we need to leverage events to put heads in beds. In 2016–17, the TBID took a new approach to supporting a few of the sponsored events. Instead of simply funding out of area marketing, the TBID dedicated their sponsorship dollars along with the marketing agency time to help create and manage the out of area promotional campaigns. This strategy was successful for the TBID. TBID Sponsored Events: • Sustainable Ag Expo • Bacon & Barrels SLO • Festival Mozaic—Winter Mezzo & Summer Event • CowParade SLO—Sponsorship & Event Promotion • SLO Beer Week • SLO Film Festival • SLO Marathon + Half • SLO Jazz Festival • Cal Poly Open House • Roll Out the Barrels TBID Activities EVENT SPONSORSHIP MEASUREMENTS Number of Events Sponsored 13 Estimated Total Number of Event Attendees Reached through Sponsorship 28,350 Total Sponsorship Investment $ 104,250 Packet Pg 234 9 27 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 INDUSTRY RELATIONS Visit California The Visit California partnership has been critical in the growth of our brand within the California Tourism product. San Luis Obispo has received coverage though the marketing activities performed by Visit California including travel trade, press, and industry outreach. Monthly submissions are uploaded to Visit California for media outreach, trade contacts, and newsletter content. Additionally the TBID maintains ongoing coordination to keep City of San Luis Obispo destination page up to date. ShareSLO also participated in Visit California sponsored Twitter chats. The TBID attended the Visit California Outlook Forum educational event in the spring. Central Coast Tourism Council The Central Coast Tourism Council (CCTC) is an organization of tourism and hospitality professionals whose marketing efforts accomplish collectively what no single tourism entity can do alone—promote the entire California Central Coast as a destination and maximize our members’ tourism revenue. The CCTC serves as the Central Coast’s voice in Sacramento, and partners with California Tourism’s global marketing and advertising campaigns. The TBID is actively involved in CCTC with the Tourism Manager as the President and Regional Board Member. In 2016-17, the TBID leveraged the CCTC activities through media and trade leads, blog and social presence, and travel trade leads. SLO CAL The TBID maintains participation with SLO CAL by having two representatives on the Board of Directors and the Tourism Manager on the Marketing Committee. The TBID Board leverages the partnership with Visit SLO CAL to promote San Luis Obispo on a national and international level- beyond the local and state reach the TBID’s marketing plan focus to achieve. The TBID’s participation in Visit SLO CAL also encompasses group sales, film commission, county-wide public relations, and county-wide special events like Restaurant Month and Wine Month. In 2016-17, the TBID partnered with Visit SLO CAL an may initiatives including: participation in IPW, hosting of a China travel trade delegation familiarization visit, Alaska Airlines in-flight magazine advertising co-op, and Matador Network and BuzzFeed content and video co-ops. TBID ActivitiesPacket Pg 235 9 28 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 2016–17 FINANCIAL STATEMENT 2016-17 Financial Statement INCOME SOURCE 2016–17 TOT Revenue Assumption (Revised with Supplement)$7,186,000 TBID Assessment (20% of TOT Revenue)$1,437,200 2016–17 Requested Carryover $68,200 2016–17 Fund Balance $153,000 TBID Fund Reserve $100,000 TBID Program Budget $1,658,400 INCOME Packet Pg 236 9 29 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 2016-17 Financial Statement EXPENDITURE ALLOCATED Operations/Staffing Administration Overhead (2% of TBID Assessment)$28,744 Tourism Manager Salary (.75 FTE)$89,788 Tourism Coordinator Salary (FTE)$102,000 Contracts Marketing Contract $814,500 Additional Rainy Day Funding $14,000 RaceSLO Arch $5,000 Chamber of Commerce - PR $51,000 Chamber of Commerce - Phone $34,000 Chamber of Commerce - Media Monitor $8,000 Chamber of Commerce - Live Chat $4,000 Chamber of Commerce - Special Promotion Partnership $8,000 CCTC Black Diamond Co-op $1,200 Partnerships Cal Poly Athletics $95,500 SLO Wine $17,000 Cal Poly NSTP $20,000 SLO County History Center $6,700 EXPENDITURE ALLOCATED Events Promotion General Events Promotion $108,532 Salmondid Restoration Conference $3,000 CowParade Media Hosting $3,000 ROTB 2016 Expenses $150 Bacon & Barrels SLO Expenses $1,000 Tradeshows Tradeshows & LA/SF/SD Travel Shows & Seattle $35,000 Tourism Conferences $4,000 IPW Co-op $8.125 Tourism Organizations/Research Central Coast Tourism Council Membership $1,000 Smith Travel Report $1,500 Support/Meetings Tourism Manager Expenses $4,000 FAM Trip Hosting $10,000 Getaway Winners $2,500 Past Due CP Rooms $1,000 Corragio Group - Strategic Plan Update $8,000 Cal Poly Printing $600 Earmarked Funds for 2017–18 Programs $100,000 Total Allocated Expenditure $1,353,627 EXPENDITURES *This figure represents the total allocated expenditures. The difference will be available for carryover to the 2017-18 program budget. Packet Pg 237 9 30 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Looking Ahead to 2016-17 LOOKING AHEAD TO 2017–18 As the TBID moves into 2017-18, the Board is committed to the continued implementation of the 5-year Strategic Clarity Plan. In the next fiscal year, the Board will begin to prepare for the development of their next plan as well. As stated in the marketing plan, BCA and Matchfire will update the SLO TBID Marketing Plan each fiscal year. It is imperative to acknowledge trends, be observant of growth or decline and make changes according to the current tourism climate on an ongoing basis. The SLO TBID Marketing Plan coupled with the SLO TBID Strategic Clarity Plan provides a foundation for building the City of SLO brand and establishing real tactics for consistently improving tourism in the City of San Luis Obispo. The highest priority Strategic Clarity Plan initiatives for the 2017–2018 fiscal year are: • Deliver Smart Growth -Develop an engaging and comprehensive marketing plan -Develop a SLO identity for attracting corporate visitors -Identify, map and prioritize target audiences for marketing and PR • Develop the SLO Brand -Clarify and strengthen the SLO (TBID/City) brand platform, including minimization of brand confusion -Identify assets and build a unique identity for the City of SLO • Build Meaningful Partnerships -Maximize our strategic partnerships at the national, regional, state and local level -Create a comprehensive Cal Poly/Cuesta partnership plan • Contribute to an Unforgettable SLO Experience • Further define and evaluate the need of a loyalty program • Create a packaged program for “How to do SLO” • Develop a world-class event Packet Pg 238 9 31 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Looking Ahead to 2017–18 LOOKING AHEAD TO 2017–18 (CONT .) The key program activities include: • Venture into new geographic markets, including Seattle and Denver • Explore new tradeshow opportunities, including new markets and B2B events • Develop content specific to tiered markets and target personas • Enhance video strategy from real-time activations to short form, pillar videos • Amplify Cal Poly partnerships through the New Student & Transition Programs, Athletics and Parent Programs • Leverage expected travel trend of increased “bleisure” travelers to market to business travelers during mid-week and shoulder season • Develop email campaign that delivers interest focused content to spur “traveling by passion” • Develop new creative campaign and assets to inspire travel to SLO • Build on existing successful seasonal promotions strategy to increase hotel stays in shoulder season • Utilize effective event strategies from 2016-17, including personalized media buys and creative, to increase out-of-area event attendance and stays in San Luis Obispo lodging properties In addition, the TBID is looking forward to growing the district membership, to include new hotel properties coming into the City of San Luis Obispo. Packet Pg 239 9 32 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Appendix APPENDIX TOT CHART 2016-17 TOT MONTH TO MONTH 2016-17 Packet Pg 240 9 33 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Appendix OCC MONTH TO MONTH 2016-17 ADR MONTH TO MONTH 2016-17 Packet Pg 241 9 34 SLO TBID Annual Report 2016-17 Appendix REVPAR MONTH TO MONTH 2016-17 Packet Pg 242 9 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE SAN LUIS OBISPO TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO CONTINUE THE BASIS FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE DISTRICT, AND TO SET A DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DISTRICT AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR 2017-18 WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989, sections 36500 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code, authorizes cities to establish business improvement districts for several purposes, one of which is promotion of tourism; and WHEREAS, the lodging businesses within the proposed City of San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District had requested the City of San Luis Obispo establish such a self- assessment improvement district in 2008; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District was established in July 2008 and incorporated into the Municipal Code under Chapter 12.42; and WHEREAS, the assessment went into effect on October 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council appointed an advisory board to provide oversight, guidance, and recommendations regarding the use of the assessment funds; and WHEREAS, the City Municipal Code and the Parking and Business Improvement Law require the advisory board to prepare and submit an annual report stating proposed changes, improvements and activities for the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, notices regarding the approval of the annual report were sent on October 4, 2017 to all assessed properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: a) That the Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Report for fiscal year 2016- 17 as filed by the advisory body is hereby approved. b) The San Luis Obispo City Council proposes to continue the established Tourism Business Improvement District in the City of San Luis Obispo in accordance with City Municipal Code Chapter 12.42 and the California Streets and Highways Code, sections 36500 et seq. (Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989). Packet Pg 243 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ c) The assessment levied by the Tourism Business Improvement District shall be used to promote lodging at the hotels within the district and administer a marketing program that increases overnight hotel stays pursuant to the set goals. d) The assessment will be levied and allocated by the City of San Luis Obispo. e) The assessment is proposed to be levied on all “hotels”, as that term is defined in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 3.04.020, to wit: any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof. f) The assessment shall be based on two percent (2%) of gross room rent. g) New hotels shall not be exempt from immediate assessment. h) The public hearing, held pursuant to the City Municipal Code Chapter 12.42 and the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989, section 36535 of the Streets and Highways Code, is to allow for comments on the District and proposed assessment, and is hereby set for 6 P.M., Tuesday, November 7, 2017, before the City Council of San Luis Obispo at the City Council Chambers at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. i) At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the continuation of the District, the boundaries of the District, or the furnishing of specified types of improvements or activities will be heard. j) Any protest against the continuation of the City of San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District and the levying of the assessment, or any aspect thereof, may be made in writing. A protest may be withdrawn at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Any written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of San Luis Obispo as the owner of the business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the authorized representative of the business. Any protest as to the regularity or evidence of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to the City of San Luis Obispo at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. k) If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record, written protests by the owners of businesses within the proposed San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District, no further proceedings to continue the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District shall occur. New proceedings to form the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Packet Pg 244 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ Improvement District shall not be undertaken again for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding. If the majority of written protests are only as to an improvement or activity proposed, then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the San Luis Obispo Tourism Improvement District. BE IT FURTHER THEREFORE RESOLVED, the City Clerk is instructed to provide notice as required by the City Municipal Code Chapter 12.42 and the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989, section 36534, subpart (a)(7) of the Streets and Highways Code, to wit: the City Clerk shall give notice of the public hearing by causing the resolution of intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City no less than seven days before the public hearing. 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 245 9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 246 9 DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 1 Minutes - DRAFT TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD Wednesday, September 13, 2017 Tourism Business Improvement District Board CALL TO ORDER A Meeting of the Tourism Business Improvement District Board was called to order on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Wilkins. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members Pragna Patel-Mueller, Bruce Skidmore, Kimberly Walker (10:01), LeBren Young-Harris, and Chair Matthew Wilkins Absent: Board Member Clint Pearce and Vice Chair Nipool Patel Staff: Tourism Manager Molly Cano, Tourism Coordinator Liesel Kuehl, and Recording Secretary Kevin Christian PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER HARRIS, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER SKIDMORE, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the Consent Calendar Items C1 through C6. C1. Minutes of Meeting on Wednesday, August 9, 2017 C2. Smith Travel Report C3. Chamber Public Relations Report C4. BCA + Matchfire Marketing Report C5. Chamber Guest Services Report C6. Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) Report Packet Pg 247 9 DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 2 PRESENTATIONS 1. Marketing Agency Monthly Report Representatives from BCA + MatchFire reviewed their monthly marketing activities. Highlights included new metrics on website book-now use, a promotional video featuring Bubblegum Alley, #shareslo use increases, and a report on the Cal Poly Parent Program activity with the students moving in this week. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comments--- No action was taken on this item 2. SLO Chamber of Commerce Monthly Report Chamber of Commerce representative Molly Kern, Director of Communications and Business Education, reviewed their Public Relations report for August. Highlights discussed included coverage in Seattle Magazine, the Mercury News, the East Bay Times, and A Practical Wedding which had a piece entitled, “23 Best North American Honeymoon Destinations.” Public Comments: None. ---End of Public Comments--- No action was taken on this item. Packet Pg 248 9 DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 3 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. 2018 SLO Jazz Festival Sponsorship Consideration Tourism Manager Cano recapped the TBID Board’s funding requirements for the awarded $10,000 for the 2018 SLO Jazz Festival. Jazz Festival representative Scott Andrews reviewed the Jazz Festival concerns about the TBID stipulated marketing requirements, outlined the Festival’s priorities to increase outside attendance, and expressed their belief that the marketing efforts should drive attendees directly to the Jazz Festival website in the most streamlined method possible. Tourism Manager Cano and representatives from BCA + MatchFire reviewed the past Jazz Festival website traffic and related ticket sales statistics for the Board and responded to questions. The Board discussed their priorities and the expressed marketing concerns of the Jazz Festival. Jazz Festival representative Scott Andrews was informed that there would be no change in the funding requirement terms. Public Comments: None. ---End of Public Comments--- No action was taken on this item. 2. 2016-17 TBID Annual Report Tourism Manger Cano presented an overview of changes and highlights for the draft FY 2016-17 TBID annual report, played a sizzle real presentation, and informed the Board that the report would be presented to the City Council on October 17, 2017. Board member Patel-Mueller requested a spelling change to her name. Board members Harris and Walker each requested minor changes to the names of their respective hotels. Public Comments: None. ---End of Public Comments--- ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER WALKER, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER SKIDMORE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the report with the minor changes discussed. Packet Pg 249 9 DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 4 3. Board Member Committee Assignments Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the management and marketing committee meeting schedules. The Board discussed their availability, directed staff to make some changes to meeting dates, and decided on the following sub committee assignments. The new committee assignments will begin in October 2017. Management Marketing Patel-Mueller Young-Harris Patel Walker Pearce Skidmore Public Comments: None. ------------------ ---End of Public Comments--- Packet Pg 250 9 DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 5 4. Property Liaison Assignments Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the background and purpose of property liaison assignments. The Board made changes to the assignments to group them geographically as follows: 2017-18 Board Liaison Property Name Clint Budget Inn Clint Homestead Motel Clint Los Padres Motel Clint Madonna Inn Inc Clint San Luis Obispo Travelodge Clint Villa San Luis Motel Bruce Royal Oak Bruce Economy Motel Bruce Holiday Inn Express Bruce La Cuesta Inn Llc Bruce Vagabond Bruce Embassy Suites Kimberly Avenue Inn Kimberly Granada Hotel & Bistro Kimberly Hostel Obispo Kimberly San Luis Creek Lodge Kimberly SLO Brew Lofts LeBren Motel 6 #1373 LeBren Motel 6 #138 LeBren Rose Garden Inn LeBren Courtyard By Marriott LeBren Hampton Inn & Suites Matt Inn at San Luis Obispo Matt Sunbeam Matt Sands Inn & Suites Matt Super 8 Motel Matt The Butler Hotel Matt Petit Soleil Nipool America's Best Value Inn Nipool Lamplighter Nipool Quality Suites San Luis Obispo Nipool Ramada Olive Tree Inn Nipool San Luis Inn & Suites Pragna Lexington Inn Pragna Apple Farm Pragna Garden Street Inn Bed & Breakfast Pragna Heritage Inn Pragna Peach Tree Inn Packet Pg 251 9 DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 6 Public Comments: None. ------------------ ---End of Public Comments--- ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER WALKER, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER HARRIS, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the assignments as discussed. TBID LIAISON REPORTS &COMMUNICATIONS 1. Hotelier Update No further discussion at this time. 2. Management Committee Update Tourism Manager Cano reported on changes to the STR report contract and additional committee activity. 3. Marketing Committee Update Tourism Manager Cano reported on MindBody University, upcoming travel show booth changes, and approval of the 2017-18 Media Plan. 4. Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) Update Tourism Manager Cano reported on the activities of the PCC, specifically covering approval of the SLO Happening program plan and work on their Strategic Plan. 5. Visit SLO CAL Update Tourism Manager Cano reported on activities of the Visit SLO CAL Marketing Committee. 6. Tourism Program Update Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the following: • Cal Poly partnership – Move-In weekend at Cal Poly • Promotional Gift Cards left over from the Rainy Day promotion • Central Coast Tourism Council • Short-term rental program and AirBnB compliance Packet Pg 252 9 DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 a.m. The next Regular meeting of the Tourism Business Improvement District Board is scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 253 9 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 254 9 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: PILOT PROGRAM FOR WINTER OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE RECOMMENDATION 1. Pursuant to prior Council direction, receive a staff presentation on a proposed two-year pilot program to extend the hours of use of the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve when daylight savings time is not in effect; and 2. Approve a Resolution (Attachment A) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the Project (Attachment B). DISCUSSION Background The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands that feature a trail network totaling over 50 miles for passive recreation purposes. The City’s current Open Space Regulations allow for passive recreational use of these properties from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset, unless otherwise approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. On August 16, 2016, in response to public testimony regarding a request for reconsideration of the City’s published hours of use for open space, “a majority of the City Council directed staff to bring back on a future agenda a project plan for revising the ordinance limiting public access of the open space from dusk to dawn.” (Council Minutes, August 16, 2016, pgs. 1-2). On February 21, 2017, a majority of the City Council voted (4-1) to receive and file the Project Plan for evaluation of the Open Space hours of use regulations as a Consent Agenda item. Numerous individuals and interested groups provided written public comments, as well as testimony at the hearing. The City Council provided parameters including eliminating from consideration any extended hours of use at the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and to consider winter hours up to a level commensurate with summer hours of use (Council Minutes, February 21, 2017, pgs. 5-6). On March 21, 2017, the City Council received and filed the staff-prepared report, An Evaluation of Hours of Use for City of San Luis Obispo Open Space, and conducted a study session to receive public input and testimony regarding Open Space hours of use and regulations. At that meeting, a majority of Council members (4-1) directed staff to bring back an approach for Council consideration that would allow for limited, site specific expanded hours of use, including the possibility of a pilot program that would allow for additional data to be collected and the ability to scale back down, if needed (On-Demand Meeting Videos, City Council Meeting: March 21, 2017 part 3). Packet Pg 255 10 Pilot Program at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve During Winters of 2017-18 and 2018-19 In response to prior Council discussion and direction, staff proposes to implement a pilot program at the 118-acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (the “Reserve”) that would allow extended evening hours of use for passive recreational purposes along approximately 4.9 miles of trails during the winter months when daylight savings time is not in effect. The pilot program is proposed to take place during the winter season of 2017-18 (Sunday, November 5 to Sunday, March 11) and 2018-19 (Sunday November 4 to Sunday March 10). During these time periods, public use is proposed to be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. During daylight savings time the hours of use for the public would return to one hour before sunrise through one hour after sunset. No change to the City’s existing Open Space Regulations [Municipal Code 12.22, adopted by Ordinance 1332 § 1 (1998)] is required to implement this limited-duration pilot program over the course of two winter seasons: 12.22.050(B.): Presence in Open Space Lands Restricted to Certain Hours—No Overnight Usage. Open space lands where public access is permitted shall be open to the public from dawn to dusk. It shall be unlawful to enter or remain within such lands between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise of the following day without approval from the director (emphasis added). The pilot program, developed in response to prior Council direction, would be implemented under the Parks and Recreation Director’s existing authority to approve additional hours of use pursuant to 12.22.050(B). All other provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space Regulations shall remain in effect. Parks and Recreation Ranger Service personnel will continue to provide oversight and will implement additional patrol of the Reserve during the pilot program. Ranger Service and Natural Resources Program staff will deploy an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, and will also deploy four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. At the conclusion of the pilot program, staff will prepare a summary report of the pilot program for Council’s consideration, and at that time would seek further guidance based on the levels of use during the pilot program and evaluation of the data collected. Pilot Program Site Selection A variety of criteria were identified for selection of where an appropriate pilot program could be located. Through the course of public input and Council discussion, primary considerations have been related to concerns about potential impacts to nocturnal wildlife and neighborhood compatibility along with direction to select a site (or sites) that would be meaningful to members of the public that are seeking expanded hours of use during the winter. Site selection, in summary, was based on: 1) avoiding open space properties where wildlife use is thought to be most prolific; 2) avoiding neighborhoods; and, 3) open space properties that have relatively straightforward emergency response access. Packet Pg 256 10 Johnson Ranch Open Space and Irish Hills Natural Reserve are part of a much larger mosaic of wildlife habitat that is ecologically connected to the larger Irish Hills landscape, while Stenner Springs Natural Reserve and Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve are similarly connected to the Los Padres National Forest. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, Te rrace Hill Open Space, South Hills Natural Reserve, and Islay Hill Open Space are all very proximate to existing neighborhoods. This left Laguna Lake Natural Reserve and Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve as possible candidates for site-specific hours of use; both properties are located away from neighborhoods, feature designated parking areas, and have emergency vehicle access. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve, however, was deemed to not likely be meaningful as it offers a relatively limited trail network. Wildlife Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005) includes a wildlife survey as an appendix that was prepared by Tenera Environmental precedent to the preparation of the conservation plan [Final Report on the Wildlife Resources of the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (May 28, 2004)]. Given that this survey work is now over thirteen years old, a focused update was recently completed by Terra Verde Environmental [Summary and Results of Wildlife Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California (September 13, 2017)]. The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and 2004 wildlife survey are available on the City’s website. The Terra Verde Environmental survey is includ ed as Attachment C to this Council Agenda Report. In addition, the City’s Ranger Service has already deployed four wildlife game cameras at various sites throughout the Reserve and recorded numerous wildlife findings. The combined findings of these surveys indicate that no threatened or endangered wildlife species are known to occur within the Reserve. One special status wildlife species, San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) has been documented in the Reserve. Several species of local concern that have been documented, including the western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), raptors (in general), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor). Other notable, recently documented wildlife species included deer (Odocoileous spp.), fox (Vulpes spp.), coyote (Canis latrans), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and barn owl (Tyto alba). Although no direct habitat modification will occur through the proposed pilot program as visitors would be using existing trails within the Reserve, it is possible that a direct adverse effect could occur if one of these species were struck directly while crossing a trail, for example, but this is unlikely. It is also unlikely that either direct or indirect impacts would occur to the special status San Diego desert woodrat, as the documented nest locations are located well away from existing trails in protected opuntia scrub habitat characterized by prickly pear cactus. Possible indirect impacts to other species of local concern include: • Disruption of normal foraging for nocturnal and crepuscular species (i.e., those that forage at or just after sundown); • Increased energy usage as a result of disturbance; Packet Pg 257 10 • Disruption of breeding or nesting behaviors; • Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and • Abandonment of habitat near recreational uses. It is likely that some level of indirect impact will occur, however the extent and severity of those potential impacts remain unknown. To address and analyze these potential impacts, an Initial Study and Environmental Review has been prepared and is discussed below. As noted above, staff will continue to monitor the wildlife in the pilot program area throughout the period during which these hours of use are being “tested”. CONCURRENCES The Parks and Recreation Director and Ranger Service Supervisor concur with the recommendation provided herein. The Parks and Recreation Director seeks Council’s affirmation of the exercise of her authority to authorize this pilot program due to its two-year duration and the top priority community objective to protect and maintain the City’s Open Space. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study and Environmental Review has been prepared for the proposed pilot program that concludes that significant impacts on the environment could occur, but these impacts will be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the area of Biological Resources. These potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant with the following mitigation measures: BIO-1 Wildlife Monitoring and Adaptive Management. City staff and biological consultants shall conduct regular, weekly monitoring and evaluation of both human use and wildlife use of the Reserve. This will be done by deploying an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, as well as four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) and a bat detector (Petterson D500x) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. Regular evening patrols of the trails within the Reserve by Ranger Service staff will also provide anecdotal observations. If human use exceeds expected levels and intensity and / or if significant direct or indirect impacts to wildlife are observed, the pilot program will be ceased. BIO-2 Wildlife Water Sources. The Reserve features a developed spring proximate to the historic Lemon Grove. This spring will be used to gravity feed water to two wildlife- friendly “guzzlers,” or troughs, while still returning flow to the natural drainage path of the spring. This will provide additional watering sources that will benefit wildlife by decreasing the level of energy required to find water and decreasing competition among different species for water. BIO-3 Public Information and Education Materials. City staff shall develop additional information and educational materials for the public that is specific to this pilot program. These materials will re-iterate the City’s rules and regulations in effect, as well as Packet Pg 258 10 highlight the sensitivity of evening use and potential for wildlife interactions and impacts. These informational materials will be available on the City’s website, on the main kiosk at the entrance of the Reserve, and on pamphlets that can be handed out or placed in a rack on the kiosk. Other less than significant impacts were also identified in the areas of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, and Recreation. FISCAL IMPACT The direct fiscal impacts associated with the proposed pilot program in terms of new expenditures or capital outlay are minor and consist of purchasing the water “guzzlers” and printing costs for the new educational materials described in mitigation measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, respectively. However, it should be noted that existing Ranger Services staff resources will be burdened by the additional oversight, patrol, and monitoring efforts described in mitigation measure BIO-1, above. As a result, available Ranger staff hours for other purposes will be limited. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council could request additional information or make changes to the proposed pilot program. Depending on the extent of changes that might be requested, it may be necessary to recirculate the required 30-day Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The City Council could elect not to proceed with the proposed pilot program at this time. Attachments: a - Resolution b - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration c - Final Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Wildlife Memo 09-13-17 Packet Pg 259 10 R _____ RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PILOT PROGRAM FOR WINTER OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection, management, and public use of open space lands and cultural resources acquired by the City; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages fourteen Open Space properties totaling approximately 3,850 acres, as well Open Space or Conservation Easements totaling approximately 3,400 acres; and WHEREAS, members of the public provided testimony to the City Council requesting expanded hours of use in City open space during the winter, and City staff have identified a pilot program for winter open space hours of use at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve following a Council-directed process; and WHEREAS, a pilot program at the 118-acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve would allow extended evening hours of use for passive recreational purposes along approximately 4.9 miles of trails during the winter months when daylight savings time is not in effect; and WHEREAS, the pilot program will take place during the winter season of 2017-18 (Sunday, November 5 to Sunday, March 11) and 2018-19 (Sunday November 4 to Sunday March 10). During these time periods, public use is proposed to be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. During daylight savings time the hours of use for the public would return to one hour before sunrise through one hour after sunset. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: The City Council hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a pilot program for winter open space hours of use at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve based on the following findings: 1. The pilot program is considered a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in Public Resources Code §21065 because it represents an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and because it is an activity directly undertaken by a public agency. 2. An Initial Study and Environmental Review has been prepared for the pilot program that concludes that significant impacts on the environment could occur, but these impacts will be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the area of Biological Resources. These potentially Packet Pg 260 10 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ significant impacts are reduced to less than significant with the following mitigation measures, which are incorporated herein: BIO-1 Wildlife Monitoring and Adaptive Management. City staff and biological consultants shall conduct regular, weekly monitoring and evaluation of both human use and wildlife use of the Reserve. This will be done by deploying an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, as well as four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) and a bat detector (Petterson D500x) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. Regular evening patrols of the trails within the Reserve by Ranger Service staff will also provide anecdotal observations. If human use exceeds expected levels and intensity and / or if significant direct or indirect impacts to wildlife are observed, the pilot program will be ceased. BIO-2 Wildlife Water Sources. The Reserve features a developed spring proximate to the historic Lemon Grove. This spring will be used to gravity feed water to two wildlife- friendly “guzzlers,” or troughs, while still returning flow to the natural drainage path of the spring. This will provide additional watering sources that will benefit wildlife by decreasing the level of energy required to find water and decreasing competition among different species for water. BIO-3 Public Information and Education Materials. City staff shall develop additional information and educational materials for the public that is specific to this pilot program. These materials will re-iterate the City’s rules and regulations in effect, as well as highlight the sensitivity of evening use and potential for wildlife interactions and impacts. These informational materials will be available on the City’s website, on the main kiosk at the entrance of the Reserve, and on pamphlets that can be handed out or placed in a rack on the kiosk. 3. Other less than significant impacts were also identified in the areas of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, and Recreation. 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 261 10 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 262 10 Packet Pg 263 10 Packet Pg 264 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Pilot Program for Extended Open Space Hours of Use During Winter Months, Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager 805-781-7211 4. Project Location: 1000 Fernandez Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designations: Open Space 7. Zoning: C/OS - 20 Packet Pg 265 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 2 8. Description of the Project: The City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands comprised of fourteen major properties held in open space reserve, natural reserve, agricultural reserve, or ecological reserve status. These properties, collectively, feature a trail network of both single-use trails and multi-use trails totaling over 50 miles. The Natural Resources Protection Program works in close collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department’s Ranger Service to form the “Open Space Team” in order to ensure the highest care, long-term stewardship, and appropriate public use of the City’s Open Space network. Following citizen testimony in 2016 and a City Council study session, the City of San Luis Obispo now proposes to implement a pilot program at its 118-acre Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (the “Reserve”) that will allow extended evening hours of use for passive recreational purposes along approximately 4.9 miles of trails during the winter months when daylight savings time is not in effect. The pilot program will take place during the winter season of 2017-18 (Sunday, November 5 to Sunday, March 11) and 2018-19 (Sunday November 4 to Sunday March 10). Hours open to public use will be between one hour before sunrise until 8:30 PM. No change to the City’s existing Open Space Regulations [Municipal Code 12.22, adopted by Ordinance 1332 § 1 (1998)] is required to implement this limited-duration pilot program over the course of two winter seasons: 12.22.050(B.): Presence in Open Space Lands Restricted to Certain Hours—No Overnight Usage. Open space lands where public access is permitted shall be open to the public from dawn to dusk. It shall be unlawful to enter or remain within such lands between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise of the following day without approval from the director (emphasis added). The pilot program, therefore, would be implemented under the Parks and Recreation Director’s existing authority to approve additional hours of use pursuant to 12.22.050(B). All other provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space Regulations shall remain in effect. Ranger Service personnel will provide oversight and additional patrol of the Reserve during implementation of the pilot program. Ranger Service and Natural Resources Program staff will deploy an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, and will also deploy four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. At the conclusion of the pilot program, it is reasonably foreseeable that the City Council may elect to initiate a permanent ordinance revision. 9. Project Entitlements Required: None. Packet Pg 266 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 3 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Existing uses surrounding the Reserve are as follows: West: Rural lands; County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction North: Rural lands (C/OS-20) East: U.S. Highway 101; single-family residential neighborhood (R-1) South: Rural land, (C/OS-20) 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes associated with the project area have not requested consultation in writing as of the date of issuance of this Initial Study / Environmental Determination. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Packet Pg 267 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Tribal Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Noise Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish a nd Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). Packet Pg 268 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 5 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. September 14, 2017 Signature Date Robert A. Hill Natural Resources Manager Printed Name Title Packet Pg 269 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA p rocess, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Packet Pg 270 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 7 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2 --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 2 --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 2 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2 --X-- Evaluation In the local area, Cerro San Luis serves as a substantial public scenic resource as the immediate backdrop for downtown San Luis Obispo and many other areas of the City. Unobstructed public views of Cerro San Luis can be gained along U.S. Highway 101 North and South, from other City of San Luis Obispo open space properties such as Terrace Hill Open Space and Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve, as well as numerous neighborhoods to the north and east of the project site. a) and d) Hikers and mountain bikers typically utilize headlamps or mounted lighting equipment during evening hours. These lights can sometimes be seen from offsite locations under existing evening use of the Reserve. However, this visibility is distant, intermittent, and short in duration (ranging from a few moments to a few minutes) and therefore does not result in substantial adverse effects associated with light and glare. b) There are no designated scenic highways near the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources visible from a scenic highway. c) There would be no physical changes to the landscape associated with the project, and therefore nothing that would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Conclusion: The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 5 --X-- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 5 --X-- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 5 --X-- Evaluation a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of St atewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for conservation/open space in the General Plan and is zoned C/OS-20 (Conservation/Open Space-20 acre minimum lot size). The project site is surrounded by open and park space to the north and west, and an established single-family neighborhood buffered by an open space easement is located to the east. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for Packet Pg 271 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 8 agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) The proposed project will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated. Conclusion: No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? --X-- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? --X-- e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? --X-- Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) The project would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to violate air quality plans and standards, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, or produce objectionable odors in the area. Conclusion: No impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 6 --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 6 --X-- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 --X-- d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1, 4, 6, 8, 9 --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1, 2, 3, 6 --X-- Packet Pg 272 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 9 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1, 6 --X-- Evaluation The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve is a 118-acre site consisting of grassland, coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, opuntia scrub, and several areas or stands of introduced trees. “The topography of the property is generally moderate to steeply sloping and elevations within the Reserve boundaries range from around 190 feet along Highway 101 to nearly 920 feet along the western boundary. Currently, recreational activities constitute the predominant land use within the Reserve. Recreational users access authorized trails within the Reserve from the trailhead off Fernandez Road…Common recreational activities within the Reserve include hiking, jogging, and mountain biking. The Reserve was used historically as rangeland, thus cattle and horses are periodically present.” (Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, 200 5). According to the San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey (Riggs et. al, 2015), the Reserve averages between 400 to 600 visito rs per day, with one peak of nearly 1,300 visitors on a long weekend during a period of pleasant weather. This survey also observed during November and December of 2014 that approximately 5% of average daily use was occurring between the hours of 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM, despite the City’s existing Open Space Regulations provision that Open Space is closed one hour after sunset. a) No state or federal listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the Reserve. One special status wildlife species, San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) has been documented in the Reserve. Several species of local concern that have been documented, including the western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), yellow- rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), raptors (in general), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor). No habitat modification will occur through the proposed project as visitors would be using existing trails within the Reserve. It is possible that a direct adverse effect could occur if one of these species were struck directly while crossing a trail, for example, although this is unlikely. It is also unlikely that either direct or indirect impacts would occur to the special status San Diego desert woodrat, as the documented nest locations are located well away from existing trails in protected opuntia scrub habitat characterized by prickly pear cactus. Possible indirect impacts to other species of local concern include: • Disruption of normal foraging for nocturnal and crepuscular species (i.e., those that forage at or just after sundown); • Increased energy usage as a result of disturbance; • Disruption of breeding or nesting behaviors; • Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and • Abandonment of habitat near recreational uses. It is likely that some level of indirect impact will occur, however the extent and severity of those potential impacts are unknown. Mitigation measures, identified below, will reduce the potential for impacts to less than significant. b) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve does not contain any significant riparian habitat. Other sensitive natural communities described in the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (20 05) include coastal scrub and coast live oak woodland communities on the upper slopes of the Reserve, as well as three areas where seeps and springs exist. The coastal scrub community is very dense and virtually impenetrable by humans. The coast live oak woodland exists on very steep side slopes that are not conducive to human use off of the established trail. The seeps and springs are not located near the trails within the Reserve, with the exception of the spring course proximate to the Lemon Grove where an established crossing exists to avoid any potential impacts. c) The proposed project does not include any “direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption” of federally pr otected wetlands. d) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve was selected for the pilot program, in part, because it does not contain riparian Packet Pg 273 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 10 habitat for migratory fish (i.e. south-central California coast steelhead) and it does not have immediate connectivity to other larger, core habitat areas such as the Los Padres National Forest located north of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Reserve does have some habitat connectivity to other open space areas or private ranch properties, however, that are likely used by native resident wildlife species. The effects of evening use of a passive recreational area such as the Reserve, compared to normal daytime use, are primarily associated with general human presence and temporary light exposure. A 2012 study in Boulder, Colorado, which cited sever al other studies, found that this “spotlighting” effect can have immediate short-effects on wildlife that disrupt natural patterns of movement and foraging; however, this study concludes that the “severity and scope of impact to individual animals or populations is uncertain.” Another study titled “Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review” (Larson, Reed, Merenlender, Crooks, 2016) analyzed the findings and trends of 274 other peer-reviewed articles and located a clear trend exists documenting negative effects of recreation on mammals such as coyote, lion, bobcat, or lion , while concluding that overall long-term effects are still relatively unknown. This article also found that spatial restrictions are a common management technique that lessens or minimizes potential recreational use impacts. The City of San Luis Obispo employs spatial restrictions, and the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005) identifies areas designated for habitat, management, restoration, and cultural / historic areas, per the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (2002). The trail corridors within the management designated areas of the Reserve total approximately 4.9 miles in le ngth. The trails are typically two to three feet wide. Assuming a thirty-foot buffer, the total trail corridor area within the Reserve is approximately 18 acres within the total Reserve area of 118 acres, or 15%. Given that passive recreational trail use represents a small proportion of the overall project area, that there is nothing associated with the project that would physically block or impede wildlife movement, that the increased seasonal hours of use are proportionally small compared to overall annual use, and that evening use is existing at present, the proposed project does not represent a substantial change to the environment effecting wildlife movement or corridors. Nesting, denning, or nursery sites within the trail alignments were not observed during surveys; the proposed project would not directly impede the use of such sites. Indirect impacts to nesting or denning activity could occur, however most of the wildlife species identified during surveys are nesting or denning in the spring and summer, after the proposed seasonal extension of hours is over. Mitigation measures, identified below, will reduce the potential for impacts to less than significant e) The City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (“COSE”) expresses a clear priority for protection of natural resource values, while allowing passive recreation when consistent with this primary goal. COSE policies 7.3.1, 7.3.2, and 7.3.3 state that the City shall protect list ed species, species of local concern, and wildlife corridors. As discussed under sub-section a), above, adverse effects to listed species or species of local concern are not considered to be significant. COSE Figure 3 depicts wildlife corridors and potential wildlife corridors; however, the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve is not identified as containing either a wildlife corridor or potential wildlife corridor. COSE policy 8.5.1 describe provisions for public access within City open space areas: “Public access to open space resources, with interpretive information, should be provided when doing so is consistent with protection of the resources… The City shall also designate open space areas that are not intended for human presence or activity.” The Reserve contains two separate kiosks with multiple panels containing contemporary interpretive information about natural and biological resources, as well as rules and regulations. The City has also designated an open space area that is not intended to for human use or activity, consistent with this policy, at its Filipponi Ecological Reserve property. COSE policy 8.5.5 regarding passive recreation states, “The City will consider allowing passive recreation where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources… in accordance with an approved open space conservation plan. Passive recreation activities may include: hiking, nature study, bicycle use, rock climbing, horseback riding or other passive recreational activities as permitted and regulated in the Open Space Ordinance.” As discussed in the Project Description, the City’s Open Space Ordinance allows for the Parks Director to approve hours of use. The Open Space Ordinance states that open space lands have been acquired for specific purposes, “… such as protection of scenic character, wildlife habitat values, passive recreation and agriculture.” The Open Space Ordinance also contains similar language to that found in COSE policy 8.5.5: “…uses on open space land owned or managed by the City… May not include uses which would degrade or significantly impact resources preservation…” In sum, existing City policies and ordinance pertinent to open space indicate passive recreational uses are allowed , provided that they will not substantially or significantly impair natural resources. The proposed project has the potential for indirect significant Packet Pg 274 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 11 adverse effects that could degrade open space resources, as described above, but the limited seasonal expansion of hours of use is proportionally small, and evening use is occurring under existing circumstances. Therefore, the proposed project should not be considered in conflict with existing policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified, below. f) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2005), which was adopted and approved by City Council resolution, contains several management goal statements in Chapter 3, which are: 3.1 To conserve, enhance and restore natural plant communities; to protect sensitive and endangered plant species and their habitats; and maintain biodiversity of native plants and animals. 3.2 To provide the public with a safe and pleasing natural environment in which to pursue passive recreational activities, while maintaining the integrity of the resource and minimizing the impact on the wildlife and habitats represented. 3.3 To preserve and restore creeks, wetlands and ephemeral seeps or springs in a natural state, and provide suitable habitat to all native aquatic and riparian species… 3.4 To conserve and protect native plant and animal species and enhance their habitats in order to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. As described above, the proposed project has the potential to for indirect significant adverse effect that will degrade open space resources. However, the limited seasonal expansion of hours of use is proportionally small, and evening use is occurring under existing circumstances. Therefore, the proposed project should not considered to be in conflict with the adopted local conservation plan for the property with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified, below. No other regional or state habitat conservation plans are applicable to this site. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1 Wildlife Monitoring and Adaptive Management. City staff and biological consultants shall conduct regular, weekly monitoring and evaluation of both human use and wildlife use of the Reserve. This will be done by deploying an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, as well as four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) and a bat detector (Petterson D500x) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior . Regular evening patrols of the trails within the Reserve by Ranger Service staff will also provide anecdotal observations. If human use exceeds expected levels and intensity and / or if significant direct or indirect impacts to wildlife are observed, the pilot program will be ceased. BIO-2 Wildlife Water Sources. The Reserve features a developed spring proximate to the historic Lemon Grove. This spring will be used to gravity feed water to two wildlife-friendly “guzzlers,” or troughs, while still returning flow to the natural drainage path of the spring. This will provide additional watering sources that will benefit wildlife by decreasing the level of energy required to find water and decreasing competition among different species for water . BIO-3 Public Information and Education Materials. City staff shall develop additional information and educational materials for the public that is specific to this pilot program. These materials will re-iterate the City’s rules and regulations in effect, as well as highlight the sensitivity of evening use and potential for wildlife interactions and impacts. These informational materials will be available on the City’s website, on the main kiosk at the entrance of the Reserve, and on pamphlets that can be handed out or placed in a rack on the kiosk. Conclusion: With implementation of the above listed Mitigation Measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on Biological Resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. --X-- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1 --X-- Packet Pg 275 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 12 archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? --X-- d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? --X-- Evaluation a, c-d) There are no historic structures, paleontological resources, unique geologic features, or known human remains or formal cemeteries associated with the Reserve that would be effected by the proposed project. b) The Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan states that there are two archaeological sites located on the Reserve. However, a limited expansion of evening hours would not impact these resources in a manner different that under existing hours of use that would cause a substantial adverse change. Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: --X-- I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X-- IV. Landslides? --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 --X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks to life or property? --X-- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? --X-- Evaluation a, c-e) The project does not propose any structural development or result in a situation where it would create a situation placing people permanently on site exposed to earthquake activity. b) The continuous use of dirt surface trails can result in some soil erosion or loss of top soil over time; however , the effect of the limited expansion of hours of use should be considered very minor . The proposed project will occur during the typical rainy season for San Luis Obispo where trail use at any time of day could result in rutting, rilling, or track -out of dirt; however, City Open Space is closed during rain events and thereafter until conditions allow for this reason. Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact in relation to soil erosion and no impact on geological factors. Packet Pg 276 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 13 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? --X-- Evaluation a,b) The State of California’s Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gas es in the State of California. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. The proposed project, however, does not include structural development subject to the efficiency measure typically applied in those cases. SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to the extent feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions: • Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities; • The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful evaluation. All available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts); and, • The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic, technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant.” The expanded passive recreational use of Reserve would not result in any direct emissions as only hiking, jogging, or biking are allowed. The San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey (2015) indicated 400 -600 average daily visits to the Reserve, of which approximately 5% is after currently allowable hours of use. Taking the mid -point of average daily use after allowable hours and assuming it increases two-fold, and that each of those visitors arrives at the Reserve in a vehicle as a single occupant, the expected new vehicle trips to the Reserve are anticipated to be 25 per day. The San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey also found that 32% of open space users walk, bike, or use other means of accessing open space other than driving a car. Therefore, indirect emissions from vehicle trips associated with travel to and from the Reserve are far below the thresholds of significance. Conclusion: Less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? --X-- b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the --X-- Packet Pg 277 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 14 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? --X-- d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? --X-- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? --X-- Evaluation a-h) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various hazards and hazardous materials considered under this section. Conclusion: The project would have no impact in relation to hazardous materials. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? --X-- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre -existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? --X-- c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? --X-- d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? --X-- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or --X-- Packet Pg 278 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 15 provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? --X-- g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? --X-- h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? --X-- i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? --X-- j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? --X-- Evaluation a-j) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various hydrology or water quality aspects considered under this section. Conclusion: The project would have no impact in relation to hydrology or water quality. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? --X-- b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3, 6 --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 2, 3, 6 --X-- Evaluation a) The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. b, c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? --X-- b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? --X-- Evaluation a,b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in t he loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or othe r Packet Pg 279 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 16 land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? --X-- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? --X-- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X-- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 10 --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose pe ople residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? --X-- --X-- Evaluation a-c; e-f) The proposed project would not have any effect on noise as considered under these sub -sections. d) The expanded hours of use under the proposed project could result in additional noise associated with vehicles within the parking area for the Reserve, or audible voices along the trails. Amplified music is prohibited by the City’s Open Space Regulations. Additional noise impacts, however would be less than significant because the expanded hours of use would be short term and would still be within the hours (7:00 AM – 10:00 PM) and noise levels (60dB) for residential (due to transportation sources) allowed by City’s Noise Element and Ordinance. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? --X-- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? --X-- --X-- Evaluation a-c) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various population and housing aspects considered under this section. Conclusion: No impact. Packet Pg 280 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 17 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 11 --X-- b) Police protection? 11 --X-- c) Schools? --X-- d) Parks? --X-- e) Other public facilities? --X-- Evaluation a,b) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department and Police Department. It is possible that expanded hours of use during the evening as proposed by the project could result in increased calls for service. However, with only 1-2 calls per month for emergency services under existing circumstances, it is very unlikely that the proposed project would result in the need to the construct new fire or police facilities; therefore this impact would be less than significant. c-e) The proposed project would not have any effect on public services as considered under these sub -sections. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 7 --X-- b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? --X-- Evaluation a) The proposed project could increase the use of the Reserve compared to existing levels by an estimated 25 additional visits per day (see section 7, above) and would not result in substantial physical deterioration of the facility. Therefore, impacts to recreational facilities that would result from the proposed proj ect are less than significant. b) The proposed project does not include construction of new facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or --X-- Packet Pg 281 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 18 highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? --X-- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? --X-- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? --X-- f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? --X-- Evaluation a-f) The proposed project area is served by all modes of transportation and would not have any effect on the various transportation/traffic aspects considered under this section. Conclusion: No impact. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1(k)? --X-- b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. --X-- Evaluation a,b) The expanded hours of use proposed by the project would not have impact tribal cultural resources in a manner that is different than under existing hours of use. Conclusion: No impact. 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? --X-- b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? --X-- c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? --X-- Packet Pg 282 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 19 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? --X-- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? --X-- f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? --X-- g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? --X-- Evaluation a-g) The proposed project would not have any effect on the various utilities and service systems considered under this section. Conclusion: No impact. 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 4, 6, 8, 9 --X-- The project has the potential to impact wildlife species, but these impacts are characterized as less than significant with mitigation (see section 4). The project would have a remote potential to impact two archaeological sites, but otherwise would have no impact on examples of California history or prehistory (see section 5). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of prob able future projects)? --X-- The project will not have cumulative effects, as the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve is the only City of Sa n Luis Obispo open space property (out of 14) proposed for expanded winter hours of use. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --X-- The project will not have substantial adverse effect on human beings. Less than significant impacts that could affect humans were identified in the areas of aesthetics, noise, and public services. Packet Pg 283 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 20 20. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. n/a b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addr essed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. n/a c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. n/a 21. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve Conservation Plan; City of San Luis Obispo (2005) 2. Conservation and Open Space Element; City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006) 3. Open Space Regulations; City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 12.22 (1998) 4. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo (1996) 5. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/ (retrieved 08 September 2017) 6. Summary and Results of Wildlife Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California; Terra Verde Environmental (2017) 7. San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey; Riggs et. al. (2015) 8. Nighttime Access Management White Paper Analysis; ERO Resources Corporation, prepared for the City of Boulder, CO (2012) 9. Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread thro ugh a Global Systematic Review; Larson, Reed, Merenlender, Crooks (2016) 10. Noise Element; City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006) 11. Safety Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2000; rev. 2014) Attachments: All of the above documents are included by reference and are on file at the City. 1. Location Map 2. Greenbelt Map Packet Pg 284 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 21 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM BIO-1 Wildlife Monitoring and Adaptive Management. City staff and biological consultants shall conduct regular, weekly monitoring and evaluation of both human use and wildlife use of the Reserve. This will be done by deploying an EcoCounterTM device to track frequency of human use and hours of use at the Reserve, as well as four wildlife game cameras (Bushnell or similar model) and a bat detector (Petterson D500x) to monitor and track nocturnal wildlife composition, activity, and behavior. Regular evening patrols of the trails within the Reserve by Ranger Service staff will also provide anecdotal observations. If human use exceeds expected levels and intensity and / or if significant direct or indirect impacts to wildlife are observed, the pilot program will be ceased. BIO-2 Wildlife Water Sources. The Reserve features a developed spring proximate to the historic Lemon Grove. This spring will be used to gravity feed water to two wildlife-friendly “guzzlers,” or troughs, while still returning flow to the natural drainage path of the spring. This will provide additional watering sources that will benefit wildlife by decreasing the level of energy required to find water and decreasing competition among different species for water . BIO-3 Public Information and Education Materials. City staff shall develop additional information and educational materials for the public that is specific to this pilot program. These materials will re-iterate the City’s rules and regulations in effect, as well as highlight the sensitivity of evening use and potential for wildlife interactions and impacts. These informational materials will be available on the City’s website, on the main kiosk at the entrance of the Reserve, and on pamphlets that can be handed out or placed in a rack on the kiosk. Packet Pg 285 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 22 ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map Packet Pg 286 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 23 ATTACHMENT 2 Greenbelt Map Packet Pg 287 10 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 September 13, 2017 Mr. Bob Hill Natural Resources Manager City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Summary and Results of Wildlife Surveys at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California The City of San Luis Obispo (City) is considering extending the hours of use for one or more City open space properties. Of specific interest is Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve (Reserve) based on location, surrounding land uses, proximity to traffic, and amount of use currently occurring on the Reserve. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) was retained to assist the City with gathering data that will help inform the City’s decision-making process for extended use hours of the Reserve. Prior to conducting the surveys, a review of aerial photography was conducted and a site visit with City staff occurred on September 8, 2017. Past reports prepared for or by the City regarding this property were also reviewed (City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources; Tenera Environmental 2004). General Survey Methodology Terra Verde biologists Brooke Langle and Rhett Blanton conducted the first survey on September 9, 2017. The survey was conducted along the Lemon Grove Loop Trail with a visual scan of surrounding areas. During this survey, four coverboards were installed in two differing habitat types, acoustic monitoring for bats was set up, and spotlighting for wildlife was conducted. Environmental conditions consisted of partially clear skies, 5- mile per hour (mph) winds, and temperatures ranging between 60 and 70° Fahrenheit (F). Methods for the acoustic bat monitoring are discussed below in further detail. A second survey was conducted on September 12, 2017 by Ms. Langle accompanied by staff associate Levi Heit. Coverboards were checked, additional acoustic data collection occurred, and spotlighting for wildlife was conducted. Environmental conditions Packet Pg 288 10 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 consisted of overcast/foggy skies, 8-15 mph winds, and temperatures ranging between 65 and 70° F. During the surveys, all species observed directly and/or indirectly (e.g., tracks, scat, call, remains, and acoustic observation) were documented. Acoustic Bat Monitoring Methodology A Pettersson D500x bat detector was employed for several hours after sunset during the two survey periods. The detector was placed along the margins of a eucalyptus row on the east side of the City’s project, near a recently installed water trough. Bats were observed emerging from the eucalyptus as well as coming up from the residential neighborhoods downslope. Following field acoustic monitoring, recorded full spectrum data was analyzed using SonoBat US West (Szewczak). Each bat recording was identified to species level when possible. Additional acoustic monitoring is planned for the upper, rocky peak areas of the Reserve. Wildlife Results Environmental conditions and anthropogenic activity levels varied between the September 9 and September 12, 2017 survey efforts. The first survey had mostly clear skies, warmer weather, and very little human activity noted at the beginning of the survey and no activity noted after dark. The second survey occurred with high fog cover, higher wind conditions, cooler weather, and more human activity. On September 12, the parking lot at the trailhead was full and people were observed heading up the mountain at 6:30 p.m. After sunset and for approximately one-half hour after sunset, several mountain bikers were observed coming down the mountain with headlamps illuminated. One flashlight was observed coming down from the peak of Cerro San Luis Obispo at approximately 10:00 p.m. Coverboards Two of the coverboards were placed in coastal sage scrub off the lower Lemon Grove loop trail. Two additional coverboards were placed under the canopy of a coast live oak tree and downslope from that board, in a mixed scrub habitat. It often takes a period of time for coverboards to develop an advantageous microclimate and for species to discover them. As such, the check of the newly installed coverboards did not result in finding any species under them. Coverboards remained at the site following the surveys for follow-up data collection. Bats The first night of acoustic monitoring resulted in up to three species of bat being recorded. The highest confidence recording was of a Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida Packet Pg 289 10 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 brasiliensis), with two poorer recordings indicating hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans). Approximately 10 bats were visually observed flying over the recording station within the first hour after sunset. Some of these bats appeared to be flying up the mountain from the surrounding neighborhood. Mexican free-tailed bats are known to inhabit daytime roosts in the surrounding neighborhoods, including residential structures (Langle, personal communication). The second night was less ideal for capturing bat recordings due to windy and cooler conditions. Only one bat was observed flying above the recording station and no bat calls were captured by the detector. Spotlighting After bat recording was set up and observations occurred during the hour after sunset, the biologists walked the trail system, stopping frequently to scan up the surrounding area with high powered flashlights or spotlights. Any eyeshine detected was investigated and binoculars were used to identify species. The survey occurred up to three hours after sunset. The following species were observed during the first spotlighting effort: great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) roosting in eucalyptus grove above trail, barn owl (Tyto alba) foraging from top of small cypress tree near trail, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and two mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The area around the eucalyptus tree line, the coast line oak woodland higher up the mountain, and the seep appeared to be more active than the more open grassland habitats. The second spotlighting effort resulted in observing: great horned owl (on the edge of the eucalyptus grove, a coyote (Canis latrans) near the spring, two mule deer, a mountain lion (Puma concolor), and three raccoons (Procyon lotor). Wildlife Species Discussion There are numerous wildlife species that inhabit the Reserve and surrounding areas of Cerro San Luis. There is a potential for special status species to occur, however, there are limited records of sensitive species occurring within the Reserve. The report prepared for the City in 2004 noted the following sensitive species: • San Diego desert woodrat (federal and state species of special concern) • Bats, unknown species (local concern) • Ornate shrew (local concern) • Raptors (local concern) Packet Pg 290 10 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • Yellow-rumped warbler (local concern) • Rufous-crowned sparrow (local concern) • Western skink (local concern) • Monarch butterflies (local concern) The recent survey effort added to this list with the following species observed: • Bats (Mexican free-tailed, hoary – local concern) • Mountain lion (local concern) The results of the September 2017 surveys provide a small sample of wildlife utilizing Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve. A true inventory of species would require a long-term survey and monitoring effort occurring over multiple seasons and conditions to thoroughly understand and document wildlife usage of the Reserve. The City has set up remote sensing camera stations and they intend to monitor those over a period of time. The results of species captured by these cameras will further inform the City about the diversity of wildlife using the Reserve. The Reserve is heavily used by the public including occasional unauthorized nighttime use, as confirmed during the 2017 surveys. As such, baseline disturbance has been occurring on the Reserve. Impacts to wildlife by authorizing extended hours on the Reserve are largely unknown but may include: • Disruption of normal foraging for nocturnal and crepuscular species (i.e., those that forage at or just after sundown); • Increased energy usage as a result of disturbance; • Disruption of breeding or nesting behaviors; • Increased risk for predation for species flushed by human activity; and • Abandonment of habitat near recreational uses. The amount of disturbance and impacts to wildlife species as a result of nighttime activity will be variable depending on the level of use, the type of uses, and the season of use. For example, hikers that may linger at certain locations will likely cause more disturbance than a single mountain bike passing by quickly. The addition of dogs, especially if not kept on leash, would increase the level of disturbance to wildlife using the Reserve. Of particular concern for all species, uses during breeding, nesting, and rearing seasons for wildlife on the Reserve may have the greatest level of impact. Maternal roosts of bats are particularly sensitive to disturbance and parents may abandon young/roosts during this season. Packet Pg 291 10 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Generally speaking, the time of year that most species are breeding, nesting, and rearing is from February through early September. A range of seasons for some of the species known to or expected to occur are listed below. Mountain lion (Puma concolor) Females may be in estrus at any time of the year, but in California, most births probably occur in spring. Gestation period 82-97 days; litter size is 2-4 (range 1-6). Young become independent during second year. Habitat includes caves and other natural cavities, and thickets are used for denning. Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Breeding occurs February to March, with most births occurring in April, following a gestation of approximately 63 days. Average litter size is 4 pups; range 2-7. Young are weaned at 4 weeks and become independent at around 10 months. Habitat includes dens in natural cavities, in rocky areas, snags, logs, brush, slash and debris piles, abandoned burrows, and under buildings. Nest material is usually dry grass, leaves, or shredded bark. Townsend’s big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Breeding occurs November to February; gestation lasts 56-100 days. Births occur in May and June, peaking in late May. A single litter of one is produced annually. Young are weaned in 6 weeks and fly in 2.5-3 weeks after birth. Maternity roosts are found in caves, tunnels, mines, and buildings. Small clusters or groups (usually fewer than 100 individuals) of females and young form the maternity colony. Maternity roosts are in relatively warm sites. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Breeding occurs October to February with fertilization delayed; gestation is 53-71 days. Young are born from April-July, mostly from May-June. Litter size is 1-3. The altricial young are weaned in 7 weeks, and are observed flying in July and August. Habitat includes day roosts in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and buildings. Roost must protect bats from high temperatures. Night roosts may be in more open sites, such as porches and open buildings. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) Breeding occurs February to October, with peak from May to August. Female only incubates, for about 28 days. Average clutch 4-5 eggs, range 3-6. Young fledge in 35-40 days. Habitat includes a nest of loosely piled sticks and twigs and lined with grass, straw, or rootlets. Nests are often placed near top of dense oak, willow, or other tree stand; usually 6-20 m (20-100 ft) above ground. Nests are located near open foraging area. Packet Pg 292 10 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Breeding occurs January to April; gestation period is about 200 days. Does can give birth to one, two, or three fawns, though triplets are rare. Fawns are born in late spring to mid-summer. Fawns are weaned in the fall after about 60-75 days and continue to stay with their mothers during the first year. Habitat includes foothills and mountain peaks. Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Breeds in spring. Young emerge 4 days after eggs are laid, with 2 weeks as a caterpillar, and 10 days as a chrysalis. Habitat includes open fields and meadows with milkweed. Overwintering habitat based on microclimate that provides wind protection. Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) Breeds March to July, with peak activity in April and May. Lays 3-9 eggs, usually 6-8, with an incubation of 14-16 days. Altricial young tended by both parents in nest about 20 days, and for another 3-4 weeks after leaving the nest hole. Habitat includes nest of grass, moss, mud, hair, feathers, and fur in woodpecker hole, natural cavity, or nest box. Sometimes partially excavates own cavity. Nests up to 10 meters (32 feet) above ground, but usually lower. Often breeds near water. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Breeds March to July, peaking in May and June. Clutch of 2-5 eggs, usually 2-3, laid in March and April. Incubates 28-32 days. Semialtricial young fledge in 40-45 days. Habitat is usually placement of nests in large trees near openings, in older, mature forests, especially riparian deciduous habitats. Occasionally nests on cliffs or low ledges. Nests 9- 21 meters (30-70 feet) above ground in trees, higher on cliffs. Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) Breeds February to July, with peak activity April and May. Clutch size 1-5 eggs, usually 3. Young are independent in 17 to 19 weeks. Habitat includes nests in dense riparian habitats. Builds a nest of sticks about half way up in a tall tree. Nest located next to main tree trunk, or on old nests of squirrels, hawks, or crows; lined with strips of bark, dry leaves, and sprigs of evergreens. Western screech owl (Megascops kennicottii) Breeds early February to June. Eggs mostly laid in April. Clutch size 1-8, usually 3-4. Incubation 21-30 day, with nestlings fledging at 28-35 days. Obligate secondary cavity- nester. Habitat includes uses such as abandoned woodpecker hole, or other cavity in snag, hollow tree, log, stump; occasionally uses nest box. Nest usually 4.6 to 18 m (15-60 ft) above ground. Packet Pg 293 10 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Barn owl (Tyto alba) Breeds January to November. Clutch size 3-11, usually 5-7. Incubation 21-24 days, with young fledging at 52-70 days. Habitat is usually nesting on ledges, crevices, or other sheltered areas of cliffs or human-made structures. Also nests in cavities in trees or snags, burrows, culverts, or nest boxes. Summary The information provided is from a limited survey effort during one season of the year, and as such, does not provide a robust analysis of wildlife usage of the Reserve. It is likely that nighttime use will impact wildlife occurring on the Reserve, but the extent and severity of that impact is unknown. Efforts to reduce use during the breeding, nesting, and rearing periods of a year will lessen potential impacts to wildlife. If you should have any questions or require further information, please contact Brooke Langle at blangle@terraverdeweb.com. Sincerely, Brooke Langle Principal Biologist Packet Pg 294 10 Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager SUBJECT: WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEES RECOMMENDATION 1. Consider options for water and wastewater capacity and connection fees; and 2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) amending the water and wastewater capacity and connection fees selecting option 2 for water and option 4 for wastewater effective January 1, 2018. REPORT-IN-BRIEF On February 7, 2017, staff conducted a Study Session with City Council (Attachment A). At the Study Session, the City Council provided staff input on the update to what was formerly identified as the City’s water and wastewater development impact fees. At that session, Council supported the name change to “capacity and connection” fees to more clearly communicate what the fees were paying for and directed staff to explore four options when completing the 2017 Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study (2017 Study). Water and wastewater capacity and connection fees are recommended to increase consistent with City policy (Land Use Element, Policy 1.13.9). The recommended fees are the maximum amount allowed by law (Assembly Bill 1600) based on the capital improvements identified for each fee and are tied to the cost of existing infrastructure and capital improvements serving future development. This methodology equitably distributes infrastructure costs to ensure both new development and existing water and wastewater ratepayers pay their fair share of infrastructure-related investments. The completion of the study has been timed to align with the City’s Capital Facilities Fee Program update so that the City Council and community understand the effect of the proposed capacity and connection fees in context with other development-related fees charged by the City for public infrastructure. DISCUSSION This staff report provides water and wastewater capacity and connection fees options for Council consideration. This report analyzes the costs and benefits of each option and highlights the potential impacts to water and wastewater rates because capital costs not recovered through capacity City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use Element Policy 1.13.9. Costs of Growth. The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City shall consider a range of options for financing measures so that new development pays its fair share of costs of new services and facilities which are required to serve the project and which are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the development. Packet Pg 295 11 and connection fees would then need to be recovered via monthly water and wastewater service charges. Chapter 4.20.140 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes water and wastewater development impact fees, hereinafter referred to as capacity and connection fees. Water and wastewater capacity and connection fees are recommended to increase consistent with City policy (Land Use Element, Policy 1.13.9). The recommended fees are the maximum amount allowed by law based on the capital improvements identified for each fee (Assembly Bill 1600) and are tied to the cost of existing infrastructure and future capital improvements serving future development. This methodology equitably distributes infrastructure costs to ensure both new development and existing water and wastewater ratepayers pay their fair share of infrastructure-related investments. If Council provides direction to adjust these fees, staff recommends continuing this discussion so that staff can prepare the appropriate analysis and return with appropriate recommendations at a future meeting. For wastewater, the recommended capacity and connection fees eliminate catchment area fees. The catchment area fee is described in detail below. This simplifies fee implementation; however, because the overall cost of capital improvements remains the same, citywide, the fee substantially increases. This change, combined with an increase tied to the data in the new 2017 Study, create the total proposed increase to the citywide wastewater fee. The proposed fees are shown in Attachment B, Exhibits A and B. Infrastructure Master Planning Following the adoption of the General Plan’s updated Land Use Element in December 2014, the City completed water and wastewater infrastructure master plans to identify and prioritize necessary capital improvements, including those projects to provide capacity to serve future growth. These include: • Potable Water Distribution System Master Plan (2015) • Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (2015) • Water Resource Recovery Facility Facilities Plan (2015) • Recycled Water Master Plan (2017) These master plan documents, along with the City’s Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Plan, provide the basis for identifying future project capital costs. 2017 Study Methodology Capacity and connection fees are developed under the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq., which require a nexus and rough proportionality between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are levied. The 2017 Study, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. was prepared in accordance with the requirements of AB 1600. The methodology used for the 2017 Study divides the value and/ or cost of existing and future capital improvement costs by the estimated number of future growth units. For water and wastewater capacity and connection fees, a “growth unit” is represented by a quantity of water demand and wastewater generation by one residential unit. The City updated the projections for Packet Pg 296 11 future residential and non-residential development in “equivalent dwelling units,” or EDUs, based on a reduction in average water use and wastewater generation, finding that 5,821 future EDUs can be accommodated. This is based on capacity at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility and infrastructure modeling conducted for recent master plans. In the 2017 Study, the residential fee category was modified to add new categories to correspond to residential units between 451 and 800 square feet and 801 square feet or more as water demand and wastewater generation correlates more closely to unit size than a single- or multi- family residential land use designation. Fees for non-residential EDUs in the 2017 Study are based on water meter safe operating capacity ratios from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) specifications. Study Session Direction At the February 7, 2017 Study Session, the City Council directed staff to explore four options when completing the 2017 Study, described below and summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Water and Wastewater Fee Options Citywide Fee Existing 2017-18 Impact Fee Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Water $11,322.16 $11,872 $15,7803 N/A N/A Wastewater $ 3,830.213 $ 8,1652 $9,5222 $10,721 $12,6023 NOTES: 1. All fees are per equivalent dwelling unit (or EDU). 2. Additional catchment area fees from Table 2, where applicable. 3. Represents the staff recommendation. Option 1. The capacity and connection fees calculated in Option 1 include only debt-financed water and wastewater assets and do not include a buy-in component to other existing water or wastewater infrastructure. Under Wastewater Option 1, additional wastewater catchment area fees would apply, where applicable (see Table 2). Option 2. The capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 2 are based on a methodology that values all existing and future water and wastewater assets. Under Wastewater Option 2, additional wastewater catchment area fees from Table 2 would apply, where applicable. Capital Improvement Costs ÷ EDUs to be Served = Cost per EDU Option 1: Debt-Financed Capital Improvement Costs ÷ EDUs to be Served = Cost per EDU Option 2: Capital Improvement Costs of all Assets ÷ EDUs to be Served = Cost per EDU Packet Pg 297 11 Wastewater Catchment Area Fees. Of the over 5,800 future EDUs in the City, approximately 80 percent, or 4,600 future EDUs, are served by wastewater lift stations and force mains. These “catchment areas” include the Orcutt, Margarita, Airport (Avila Ranch, Fiero, East Airport), San Luis Ranch, and Froom Ranch specific plan areas. These catchment areas are primarily located in the southern portion of the City, except for the Foothill catchment area located in the northeast area of the City. The total cost of catchment area improvements is over $34 million, with approximately $15 million attributed to future development. These costs are allocated based on flow generation in each of the catchment areas. Under Wastewater Options 1 and 2, these additional catchment area fees would be added to the fee, where applicable. The Airport and Foothill catchment area fees support the replacement of existing lift station infrastructure. The Buckley catchment area fee is applicable to development in the Airport Area Specific Plan, including the Avila Ranch project and other development east of that project along Buckley Road. Options 3 and 4. The wastewater capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 3 uses the methodology from Option 1 plus the catchment area improvement costs. This results in one citywide wastewater capacity and connection fee. Option 4 uses the methodology from Option 2 plus the catchment area improvement costs resulting in one citywide fee. FISCAL IMPACT The City’s water and wastewater utilities are classified as enterprise funds. Fundamentally, the revenue requirement to operate each utility is expected to be covered by system user rates. General Fund revenues (such as property taxes, Measure G revenues, transient occupancy taxes, etc.) are not used to support the work of the utility. There are two significant sources of revenue for the water and wastewater utilities – system user Table 2: Catchment Area Fees Catchment Area 2017-18 Development Impact Fees Option 1 & 2 Catchment Area Fees Calle Joaquin $1,878.64 $2,898 Laguna $503.30 $434 Margarita $2,819.50 $3,830 Silver City $1,392.80 $2,429 Tank Farm $3,728.52 $3,192 Airport N/A $6,372 Buckley N/A $643 Foothill N/A $22,319 NOTE: All fees are per equivalent dwelling unit (or EDU). Catchment area fees apply only under Options 1 and 2. Wastewater Option 3: Debt-Financed Capital Improvement Costs + Catchment Area Costs ÷ EDUs to be Served = Cost per EDU Wastewater Option 4: Capital Improvement Costs of all Assets + Catchment Area Costs ÷ EDUs to be Served = Cost per EDU Packet Pg 298 11 rates and capacity and connection fees. The main revenue source (approximately 90 percent) for the water and wastewater utilities are system user rates. This is a relatively stable, predictable source of funding. System user rates are set to meet the operations, maintenance, and long-range capital infrastructure needs for each utility. Capacity and connection fees are a secondary revenue source. The revenue from these fees is tied to the capital projects identified in the 2017 Study (prior capacity and connection fees were tied to prior studies). The capacity and connection fee program ensures that existing ratepayers and new development equitably apportion costs related to existing and future capital expenditures. There is a correlation between capacity and connection fee revenue and system user rates. Fees not collected through the capacity and connection fee program are supported by the water and wastewater ratepayer through the rates. Most frequently, the capital expenditure for future development is made before the total capacity and connection fee revenues are realized. Full revenue collection can occur over several decades. However, assuming construction of 5,821 EDUs in 25 years, Table 3 and Table 4 present a comparison of the potential revenue from the current fee and capacity and connection fee options. Over a 25-year period, an estimated $574 million in total water fund revenue would be collected toward capital improvements (including debt service) of which $91.8 million would be the fair share from new development. Likewise, an estimated $458 million in wastewater fund revenue for capital improvements (including debt service) of which $73.4 million would be the fair share from new development. Without revenue from capacity and connection fees under water Option 2 and wastewater Option 2 or 4, water rates would increase approximately five percent and wastewater rates would increase approximately ten percent to generate adequate revenue. As described above, staff is recommending Water Option 2 and Wastewater Option 4, shown in Attachment B, Exhibits A and B, which are the options that include valuation of all existing and future water and wastewater assets and eliminate catchment area fees. These options represent cost-based capacity and connection fees based on the fair share of existing infrastructure and capital improvements needed to serve future development. The water and wastewater capacity and connection fees were studied as a component of the total fee burden for all AB 1600 fees which is detailed in the Study Session’s October 17, 2017 staff report. Table 3: Water Fund Revenue from Capacity and Connection Fees Citywide Fee Fee Per EDU Water Fund Revenue (over 25 years) Annualized 25 Year Revenue Assumption Potential Rate Impact if not Collected Existing Water Fee $11,322 $ 65,906,293 $ 2,636,251.73 - Water Option 1 $11,872 $ 69,106,912 $ 2,764,276.48 ~0.5% Water Option 2* $15,780* $ 91,855,380 $ 3,674,215.20 ~5% NOTE: *Represents the staff recommendation. Packet Pg 299 11 Table 4: Wastewater Fund Revenue from Capacity and Connection Fees Citywide Fee Fee Per EDU Wastewater Fund Revenue (over 25 years) Annualized 25 Year Revenue Assumption Potential Rate Impact if not Collected Existing Citywide Wastewater Fee $3,830 $22,295,652 $891,826 - Wastewater Option 1 / Option 3 $8,165 / $10,721 $62,406,941 $2,496,278 ~8% Wastewater Option 2 / Option 4* $9,522 / $12,602* $73,356,242 $2,934,250 ~10% NOTE: Assumes catchment area fees would yield total revenue requirement over 25 years. *Represents the staff recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Modification of rates and charges by public agencies is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the Public Resources Code because the change in fees is not intended to fund expansion of capital projects not otherwise evaluated under CEQA. Both Wastewater and Water Treatment Master Plans were evaluated for their respective impacts to the environment and this action to adjust fees merely provides a more equitable distribution of costs associated with envisioned infrastructure. CONCURRENCES As the 2017 Capacity and Connection Fee Study supports the goals and policies found in the City’s General Plan, the Community Development Department concurs with the recommendation. ALTERNATIVES 1. Water Fee Option 1 and Wastewater Fee Option 1. The Council could elect to approve this option, which includes only debt-financed water and wastewater infrastructure in the citywide fees plus wastewater catchment area fees. Option 1 is not recommended as it places a greater portion of the capital improvement costs on existing water and wastewater ratepayers. 2. Wastewater Option 2. The Council could elect to approve Wastewater Option 2, which includes a citywide wastewater fee plus cat chment area fees. Wastewater Option 2 maintains the same cost split between new and existing development as the recommended Option 4. It reduces the citywide fee and increases fees in areas based on capital costs specific to those catchment areas. This option is not being recommended for two reasons. One is having one citywide fee simplifies fee administration. Reason two is current policy does not differentiate among zones of service for existing system users. It applies the “one happy family” or postage stamp approach as opposed to the train ticket approach used with catchment areas. Packet Pg 300 11 3. Wastewater Option 3. The Council could elect to approve Wastewater Option 3, which includes the Option 1 citywide wastewater fee plus catchment area fees, including three ne w catchment areas (Airport, Buckley, and Foothill). This Option yields the same total impact fee revenue as Option 1 with the catchment area lift station costs attributed to the area served by that lift station. Option 3 is not recommended as it places a greater portion of the capital improvement cost on the existing wastewater ratepayer. Attachments: a - February 7, 2017 Study Session Staff Report b - Resolution Amending Water and Wastewater Impact Fees c - Council Reading File - 2017 Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study, by HDR Engineering, Inc Packet Pg 301 11 Meeting Date: 2/7/2017 FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director, Wastewater Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director, Water Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEES RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation on the development of a Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee Study in a study session and provide feedback on the proposed approach. DISCUSSION Report-in-Brief The City’s Utilities Department is in the process of updating the fees charged to new development for water and sewer service. Previously, the City calculated development impact fees for water and sewer services using only major system assets (generally projects that were debt financed). After the presentation on this subject, staff is requesting feedback on whether or not to incorporate both existing and future assets that provide capacity for new growth is desirable. Staff is also seeking direction on changing the name of the fee from development impact to capacity and connection to more clearly communicate what the fee is assessed what the fee actually is for, as well as eliminating sewer catchment area or “add-on fees.” The study may result in higher fees depending on the guidance received. As a result, staff is seeking policy direction as to the desired approach before the study takes place. Background In the City, customers are provided water service through a multi-source water supply, raw water conveyance systems, the Water Treatment Plant, and a water distribution system that includes treated water storage reservoirs and tanks, pump stations, and pipelines. Wastewater service is provided through a collection system of pipelines and lift stations, and the Water Resource Recovery Facility. The community has made an investment in its water sources and its water and wastewater infrastructure incrementally over many years. These facilities require upgrades from time to time to meet new regulatory requirements or replacement at the end of their service life. These systems and facilities must be sized to provide necessary capacity as the City grows and may need to be expanded over time, or relocated, to provide the capacity necessary to serve new annexation areas or as densities increase through infill development. The purpose of water and sewer development impact fees is to recover the cost of the portion of those improvements that benefit future development. To impose a water or sewer development impact fee, the City must determine the relationship between the need for the public facility, its cost, and the amount attributed to future development. The City’s water and sewer impact fees are based on growth under the General Plan used in conjunction with capital improvement Packet Pg. 7 1 Packet Pg 302 11 planning to ensure adequate water supply, water treatment capacity, wastewater collection infrastructure, and wastewater treatment capacity. According to the 2015 Housing Element, the City’s population has grown at a slow, steady pace since 1980, at an average rate of about one percent per year, with periods of faster or slower growth reflecting national and statewide economic cycles. The City experienced a much slower annual average growth rate of 0.3 percent between 1990 and 2013. Revenue from water and sewer development impact fees varies with this rate of growth, however the water and sewer infrastructure needed to support growth in the City is either already in place or has been planned. Generally speaking, with a 2016 population of approximately 46,000 residents and an estimated future population of 57,200 residents, 80 percent of the City’s population is existing and 20 percent is planned. Past and Current Fee Studies The City conducted previous water and wastewater development impact fee studies in 1991, 1994, 2004, and 2013 to identify the cost of serving future development. The 2013 fees used population estimates, growth projections, project costs and the application of water and wastewater policy available at that time. In the past, impact fees only included the costs of major infrastructure and specific capacity expansion projects and did not include the existing water distribution and wastewater collection systems. Also, under the existing sewer fees, “add-on” fees are charged to development in areas that benefit from sewer lift station service. Funding for the Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee Study was approved by the City Council as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Significant Operating Program Change, Water and Sewer Administration and Engineering Contract Services, and described on page 3-25. The proposed fees will be based, in part, on growth anticipated under the General Plan Land Use Element adopted in 2014 and water and wastewater master planning efforts completed in 2016. In accordance with State law, existing approved tracts with “vested rights” will not be affected by the update to these fees (approximately 600 housing units). Current Approach The terminology used for this fee – capacity and connection rather than development impact – is proposed to better convey the concept of the facilities and systems associated with the provision of water and wastewater service by the City. In some communities, these fees may be referred to as system development charges, impact fees, capacity reserve charges, or infrastructure investment fees. Regardless of the term used to identify them, their objective is the same. That is, these charges or fees are intended to provide funds to the utility to finance all or a part of the capital improvements needed to serve and accommodate future growth. Water and wastewater systems and facilities provide capacity to serve: 80% Existing population 20% Planned growth Packet Pg. 8 1 Packet Pg 303 11 This study identifies the cost to provide capacity for new development in the City’s existing water and wastewater systems and facilities. In some cases, expansion costs are identified where future improvements are necessary facilities to provide adequate capacity to serve new development. In establishing capacity and connection fees, there are differing methodologies. The buy-in method is based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. The incremental cost method is based on the value or cost to expand the existing system’s capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has limited or no capacity to serve new development now and into the future. The combined approach is based on a blended value of both the existing and expanded system’s capacity. This method is typically used where some capacity is available in parts of the existing system (e.g. source of supply), but new or incremental capacity will need to be built in other parts (e.g., treatment plant) to serve new development at some point in the future.” The City’s existing water development impact fee includes the proportionate share of a limited list of water assets including: Nacimiento Pipeline Project, Water Reuse Project, 1994 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade, 2006 Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Sedimentation Process, and 2007 Bishop Tank replacement project. The City’s existing sewer development impact fees include the following wastewater assets: 1991 upgrade of Units 3 and 4 at the Water Reclamation Facility (now referred to as the Water Resource Recovery Facility, and all phases of the planned upgrade of the Water Resource Recovery Facility. This study proposes to analyze those additional water and Water Capital Assets not included in current fees Water - Source of Supply Existing Whale Rock Reservoir capital assets and planned capital improvements Existing ground water capital assets and planned capital improvements Water Treatment Existing Water Treatment Plant capital assets (prior to 1994 upgrade) and planned capital improvements Potable and Recycled Water Storage/Distribution Existing Potable Water Storage/Distribution capital assets Existing Recycled Water Distribution capital assets Planned Potable Water Storage/Distribution capital improvement Planned Recycled Water Storage/Distribution capital improvement Wastewater Capital Assets not included in current fees Wastewater Collection System Existing and planned Wastewater Collection System capital assets Water Resource Recovery Facility Existing Water Resource Recovery Facility assets (prior to 1991 upgrade) Planned Water Resource Recovery Facility Upgrade NOTE: Existing water and wastewater assets are valued using the asset’s replacement cost less depreciation. Packet Pg. 9 1 Packet Pg 304 11 wastewater capital assets that provide capacity for future development, but were not included in the prior fee study. Attachment A provides an overview of the City’s present development impact fees and the detailed methodology for the capacity and connection fee study. Area-Specific Fees Area-specific fees create charges of different amounts to new development in various parts of the City. The City’s current sewer development impact fees include five area-specific catchment area charges where an area is served by sewer lift stations. The catchment area fees are charged to new development for its proportionate share of the City’s capital costs for sewer lift station construction. For example, new development in the Calle Joaquin lift station catchment area is charged the fee as the development is served by the lift station. In the City, these fees currently range from approximately $500 per unit in the Laguna catchment area to approximately $3,700 per unit in the Tank Farm catchment area making the cost to develop in these areas higher. The City has similar transportation area fees. Although there may be technical justification to support area-specific fees, like the City’s sewer catchment area fees, these fess can be more cumbersome to implement than applying one citywide sewer impact fee. It is appropriate when updating these fees to consider whether the catchment area fees remain as the most effective method of charging new development for sewer service. Outreach Efforts In addition to this Study Session, staff has engaged the development community to discuss the scope and schedule of the Capacity and Connection Fee Study at the Developer’s Roundtable on October 20, 2016. Staff has scheduled another meeting with that group to discuss progress on the Capacity and Connection Fee Study on February 13, 2017. Legal Basis and Policy Nexus for Capacity and Connection Fees In establishing capacity and connection fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented in conformance with state and local laws. The laws for the enactment of capacity fees in California, passed by AB 1600, are codified in California Government Code sections 66013, 66016, and 66022, which are interspersed within the ‘Mitigation Fee Act.’ The Mitigation Fee Act is comprehensive legislation dealing mainly with impact fees, although the above sections set forth the various requirements for imposition of capacity fees in California: calculation of the fees, noticing, accounting and reporting requirements, and processes for judicial review. The City’s proposed capacity and connection fees are “capacity charges” as defined in the California Government Code. The basic principle that needs to be followed is that the charge be based on a proportionate share of the costs of the system required to provide the service and that the requirements for adoption and accounting be followed in compliance with California law. The City also has existing General Plan policies and programs related to the cost of growth and development impact fees. Policy 1.13.9 (Costs of Growth) in the Land Use Element states: Packet Pg. 10 1 Packet Pg 305 11 The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City shall consider a range of options for financing measures so that new development pays its fair share of costs of new services and facilities which are required to serve the project and which are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the development. Program 1.14.7 (Maintain Development Fee Program) in the Land Use Element states: The City shall maintain a development fee program that covers the costs associated with serving projects with City services and facilities. This maintenance will include periodic review of the fees collected to ensure they are adequate to cover City costs. Total Fee Burden As the City considers updates to its impact fee structure, it is important to keep the total fee burden experienced by a given development project in context. As part of the infrastructure financing strategies identified in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, a series of study sessions have been presented to the City Council that outline the various options available for financing important infrastructure. For example, with single-family residential development, a rule of thumb is that the fee burden should not exceed 15 percent of the cost of the unit. This is illustrated in the following graphic. The City’s water and sewer capacity and connection fees will include an analysis of the overall fee burden on various types of development projects to maintain overall financial feasibility. The following graph illustrates the findings presented to the City Council in 2015. The full report is included in the Council Reading File. While this information is helpful as context, it is not the only but significant one in shaping future decisions. Packet Pg. 11 1 Packet Pg 306 11 The City’s Community Development Department is concurrently preparing a Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study. This Study will update the City’s existing Transportation and Parks development impact fee programs and consider new impact fee programs for General Government and Public Safety facilities. City staff working on these program updates will coordinate efforts to ensure consistency and compatibility across the fee program from the standpoint of fee administration and financial feasibility. Summary and Next Steps The table below provides a summary of the approaches under consideration. Current Water and Sewer Development Impact Fees Potential Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fees Meets legal requirements Meets legal requirements Lower fee with buy-in of certain water and sewer assets providing capacity for new development May result in higher fee with buy-in of all water and sewer assets providing capacity for new development Includes area specific sewer catchment area fees in locations served by lift stations One citywide water and sewer fee with area specific water or sewer fees The consideration of the Final Capacity and Connection Fee Study is on the Council Agenda for May 2, 2017 with implementation of the new fees planned for July 1, 2017. Packet Pg. 12 1 Packet Pg 307 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is a study session, so staff is not recommending Council take any action on the Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee Study at this time. Modification of rates and charges by public agencies is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the Public Resources Code because changes in fees is not intended to fund expansion of capital projects not otherwise evaluated under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT This is a study session and there is no fiscal impact associated with it. Fiscal impacts will be developed for consideration of the Final Capacity and Connection Fee Study for City Council consideration. Packet Pg. 13 1 Packet Pg 308 11 FOCUSED QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council direction to help guide the City Council in their deliberations: Questions for City Council Direction Yes No 1. Is the name change from Water and Sewer Development Impact Fees to Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fees helpful to more clearly communicate the service provided? 2. Should the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fee include: a. The water assets identified in the prior water development impact fee study? b. All existing and future water assets that provide capacity to serve new development? 3. Should the City’s Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee include: a. The wastewater assets identified in the prior sewer development impact fee study? b. All existing and future wastewater assets that provide capacity to serve new development in the Sewer Capacity and Connection Fees? 4. Should the City eliminate area-specific sewer Catchment Area fees in favor of one citywide Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee? The presentation at the Study Session will include a similar decision matrix to help focus Council direction. Attachments: a - WSC and HDR SLO Capacity Fee - Final Packet Pg. 14 1 Packet Pg 309 11 City of San Luis Obispo 1 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study Technical Memorandum To: Jennifer Metz – City of San Luis Obispo From: Shawn Koorn – HDR Judy Dean – HDR Joshua Reynolds, PE - WSC Date: 1/09/17 Subject: Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study Introduction Water Systems Consulting (WSC) with HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) as a subconsultant was retained by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) to develop water and wastewater capacity and connection fees. The purpose of capacity and connection fees is to bring equity between existing customers and new customers connecting to the City’s water and wastewater systems. By establishing cost-based capacity and connection fees, the City will be taking an important step in providing adequate infrastructure to meet growth-related needs, and more importantly, providing this required infrastructure to new customers in a cost -based, fair and equitable manner. The City’s water and sewer development impact fees were last updated in 2013. As part of the process, HDR was retained to provide a peer review of the 2013 study. Based on that peer review, HDR was of the opinion that the City appears to be using a reasonable and appropriate methodology to calculate the fees, given available data and that the fees are in compliance with California State law. HDR further recommended that in the f uture the City consider including existing water distribution and collection system infrastructure that will aide in providing service to new customers and that the City consider collecting data that can facilitate developing the fee on a cost per gallon/unit basis. The recommendations from this peer review in 2013 will be used to develop the proposed capacity and connection fees for the City’s water and wastewater utilities which will replace the City’s current Development Impact Fees for the water and se wer utility. In addition to the 2013 peer review recommendations, all capacity and connection fees should be updated every five years or when planning documentsare updated to assure fees are updated and based on a cost basis. In addition to the City’s General Plan being updated since the 2013 study the Utilities Department has also completed several key planningdocuments including the Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan which was completed in December 2015, the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan which was adopted in June of 2016 and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy which was completed in December of 2015. In addition, the Recycled Water Master Plan is currently being updated and will be incorporated into the analysis as needed and as available. These studies will be used to update key growth and infrastructure planning components for both the water and wastewater capacity and connection fees. Packet Pg. 15 1 Packet Pg 310 11 City of San Luis Obispo 2 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees At some utilities, capacity and connection fees may be referred to as system development charges, impact fees, capacity reserve charges, or infrastructure investment fees. Regardless of the label used to identify them, their objective is the same. That is, these charges or fees are intended to provide funds to the utility to finance all or a part of the capital improvements needed to serve and accommodate new customer growth. The purpose of a capacity and connection fee is to provide equity between existing customers and new customers connecting to the system (i.e., new development). For the purposes of this discussion, the capacity and connection fee is defined as follows: System development charges are one-time charges paid by new development to finance construction of public facilities needed to serve them.”1 Simply stated, capacity and connection fees are a contribution of capital to either reimburse existing customers for the availablecapacity in the current system, or help finance planned future growth-related capacity improvements. Absent these fees, many utilities may be unwilling to build growth-related facilities (i.e., burden existing rate payers with the entire cost of growth- related capacity expansion). To understand why capacity and connection fees are an equitable method of assessing new customers for the cost of available capacity (i.e., infrastructure) one must consider the issue of time. As an example, consider a water facility that was built in 2006 and sized to accommodate both existing customers and future anticipated growth. Now, consider the customer that connects (develops) to the system in 2016. Up to this point, and for the last 10 years, the existing water ratepayers have been paying for the value of the excess capacity (i.e., carrying costs/debt) which is available for future development. When a new customer “connects” to the system in 2016, the capacity and connection fee must take into consideration the impact of the development, the value of the available excess capacity, and potentially, the value of any other needed (future) improvements required to accommodate customer growth. Depending upon system characteristics and available excess capacity, a capacity and connection fee will likely have a component related to reimbursing the existing customers for the value of the excess capacity in system that they have been funding up to the current point in time, but also for the potential future improvements needed to continue to accommodate growth. Purpose of Capacity and Connection Fees Capacity and connection fees are generally imposed as a condition of service. The objective of capacity and connection fees is not to generate money for the utility, but to create fiscal balance between existing customers and new customers so that all customers seeking to connect to the utility’s system bear an equitable share of the cost of capacity that is invested in both the existing and any future growth-related expansions. Through the implementation of equitable and cost - based capacity and connection fees, existing customers will not be unduly burdened with the cost of new development. If cost-based capacity and connection fees are not implemented by the City, then the existing customers will bear (i.e., pay for) a greater portion of the costs associated with new development. Ultimately, the adoption of the final capacityand connection 1 Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Facilities, Lewis Publishers, New York, 1995, p. 1, Packet Pg. 16 1 Packet Pg 311 11 City of San Luis Obispo 3 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study fees is a policy decision by the City Council regarding the sharing of costs between new development and existing customers. The adoption of a cost-based capacity and connection fee implies that “growth pays for growth”. Economic theory suggests that equity and fairness is derived when those that create the costs, pay for the costs. Legal Basis for Capacity and Connection Fees In establishing capacity and connection fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws regarding the establishment, calculation and implementation of capacity and connection fees. The main objective of most state laws is to assure that these fees are established in such a manner that they are fair, equitable and cost -based. In other cases, state legislation may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to establish the fees. The laws for the enactment of capacity and connection fees in California are codified in California Government Code sections 66013, 66016, and 66022, which are interspersed within the Mitigation Fee Act.’ The Mitigation Fee Act is comprehensive legislation dealing mainly with capacity and connection fees, although the above sections set forth the various requirements for imposition of capacity and connection fees in California: calculation of the fees, noticing, accounting and reporting requirements, and processes for judicial review. A summary of the relevant statutes required in the calculation of capacity and connection fees is as follows: 66013 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.” 66013 (b) (3) ‘Capacity charge’ means a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities. A “capacity charge” does not include a commodity charge.” The City’s proposed capacity and connection fees are “capacity charges” as defined in the preceding provision. The basic principle that needs to be followed under California law is th at the charge be based on a proportionate share of the costs of the system required to provide service and that the requirements for adoptions and accounting be followed in compliance with California law. Packet Pg. 17 1 Packet Pg 312 11 City of San Luis Obispo 4 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study Proposition 218 and 26 and Capacity and Connection Fees In 1996, the voters of California approved Proposition 218, which required that the imposition of certain fees and assessments by municipal governments require a vote of the people to change or increase the fee or assessment. Of interest in this particular study is the applicability of Proposition 218 to the establishment of capacity and connection fees for the City. In Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist., 32 Cal.4th 409 (2004), the California Supreme Court held that water connection fees (capacity fees) are not “assessments” under Proposition 218 because they are imposed only on those who are voluntarily seeking water or wastewater service, rather than being charged to particular identified parcels, and therefore such fees are not subject to the procedural or substantive requirements of Proposition 218. The court also held that such fees can properly be enacted by either ordinance or resolution. In November 2010 the voters of California passed Proposition 26, an initiative based state constitutional amendment that provided a new definition of the term “tax” in the California Constitution. Under Proposition 26 a fee or charge imposed by a public agency is a tax unless it meets one of seven exceptions. Capacity and connection fees fall within exception 2 – i.e., it is a charge imposed for a specific government service. Provided that a capacity and connection fee does not charge one fee payor more in order to charge another fee payor less (i.e., a cross - subsidy), and it does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service, the fee is not a tax within the meaning of Proposition 26. Under proposition 26, the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Methodology for Development of Capacity and Connection Fees In establishing capacity and connection fees, there are differing methodologies. The AWWA M-1 Manual discusses three generally accepted methods; The buy-in method is based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. The incremental cost method is based on the value or cost to expand the existing system’s capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has limited or no capacity to serve new development now and into the future. The combined approach is based on a blended value of both the existing and expanded system’s capacity. This method is typically used where some capacity is available in parts of the existing system (e.g. source of supply), but new or incremental capacity will need to be built in other parts (e.g., treatment plant) to serve new development at some point in the future.”2 2 AWWA M-1 Manual, p 6th Edition, p. 265-266. Packet Pg. 18 1 Packet Pg 313 11 City of San Luis Obispo 5 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study At the present time, both the water and wastewater system have available capacity to meet present and future demands with identified improvements from the recent master planning processes. Therefore, the “combined approach” methodology will be utilized for the development of the capacity and connection fee. This will be a change in the approach to setting cost-based capacityand connection fees as the City currently uses a modified combined approach in the development of the current development impact fees. As noted in the 2013 peer review, the City has historically only included the costs of major infrastructure and specific capacity expanding projects, which does not include the total system value or costs associated with providing service to new customersconnecting to the system. There are “generally accepted” methodologies that are used to establish capacity and connection fees. Withinthe “generally accepted” methodologies, there are a number of different stepsused to establish cost-based and equitable capacity and connection fees. These steps are as follows: 1. Determination of system planning criteria 2. Determination of equivalent dwelling units (EDU) 3. Valuation of system component costs 4. Determination of any financing credits Step 1 – Determination of System Planning Criteria The first step in establishing capacity and connection fees is the determination of the system planning criteria. This implies calculating the amount of water or wastewater capacity required by a single-family residential customer. The use of an adopted facility plan or master plan for the utility provides the basis for the fee’s system planning criteria. These plan documents provide the rational planning basis and criteria for the facilities and investment needed to properly and adequately operate and maintain the system. Generally for a water system, two different criteria are determined due to differences in planning criteria. The first planning criterion is the peak day water usage per EDU and the second is a water storage requirement per EDU. These two different planning criteria are developed since a majority of the water system infrastructure is sized to meet the peak day demand, and water storage is sized to meet equalizing, emergency and fire flow requirements. For wastewater systems, average daily demand (wastewater contribution) per EDU is most often used, since this total flow represents the flow, imposed by the customer. Average inflow and infiltration is added to the customer’s flow since this represents the total volumetric flow and hence capacity requirement at the treatment plant. As previously mentioned the City’s recently approved documents the 2015 Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the 2015 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, and the Water Resource Recovery Facility plan will be used to develop key growth and infrastructure planning components for both the water and wastewater capacity and connection fees. Packet Pg. 19 1 Packet Pg 314 11 City of San Luis Obispo 6 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study Step 2 – Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) The next step is the determination of the equivalent dwelling units or EDUs. An EDU provides a common denominator” for assessing the impact on a utility system. The determination of the total system EDUs is an important calculation in that it provides the linkage between the amounts of infrastructure necessary to provide service to a set number of customers. This implies that if the system is designed to provide service for demands up to the year 2035, then the infrastructure costs are divided by the EDUs in 2035 to determine the equitable and proportionate cost per EDU. The City’s aforementioned planning documents will be used to update the EDU definition. The capacity and connection fee will follow the time frame outlined in these documents for the projected capital improvements needed and will be the basis for establishing both the existing EDUs and future (new/additional) EDUs. Step 3 – Valuation of System Component Costs The next step in the analysis is to determine the valuation of the system infrastructure. There are different methods for the valuation of the existing assets (buy -in component). A common methodology for the valuation of existing assets is to use each asset’s ori ginal cost and place them at current replacement value in order to more fairly reflect the carrying costs associated with the excess capacity. By using this valuation method, all assets (existing and future) are brought up to current day dollars. The inclusion of any expansion related assets (i.e., future expansion-related capital projects) within the analysis are based upon an adopted capital plan or master plan and valued at today’s cost, regardless of the timing of when the facility will be built. The calculation of the capacity and connection fee generally includes both historical assets and planned future assets. Essentially, the capacity and connection fee analysis determines the value of the total assets and the capacity and connection fee is composed of a “buy-in” component i.e., existing assets) and an expansion component. The expansion component is related only to future capital projects which provide an expansion of capacity to accommodate future growth. Given a value for capacity and the number of equivalent capacity units, the basic formula for calculating the capacity and connection fee is relatively straight-forward. The basic formula for calculating a capacity and connection fee appears as follows: System Value (Existing or New Facilities) = Capacity and Connection Fee/Equivalent Dwelling UnitSystemCapacity (Equivalent Units) In the determination of the capacity and connection fee, the cost per equivalent dwelling unit as shown above is the “gross capacityand connectionfee”. The “gross capacity and connectionfee” is calculated before any credits for debt service. The City’s asset inventory record listing will be used to establish existing assets and will be value d at replacement cost based in 2016 base dollars. The only exception to this is the land assets will be based on original asset costvalueand date put in service and escalated to current dollars using a cost index (e.g. the Engineering New Record, Construction Cost Index; ENR CCI). Packet Pg. 20 1 Packet Pg 315 11 City of San Luis Obispo 7 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study The updated planning documents for both water and wastewater detailed facilities that will be decommissioned or facilities that may be upgraded. A review is being undertaken to make sure the inventory record listing used to calculate the capacity and connection fee will only include those assets considered part of the operations of the water and wastewater system. The capacity and connection fee will follow the time frame outlined in these documents for the projected capital improvements needed and will be the basis for establishing both the existing EDUs and future (new/additional) EDUs. Step 4 – Determination of Any Financing Credits The last step in the calculation of the capacity and connection fee is the determination of any credits. The provision of debt service credits, if applicable, is a calculation to prevent customers from paying twice for an asset; once through the valuation of the asset contained in the capacity and connection fee and then again through any debt service payments included within the utility’s rates. A similar crediting mechanism is also utilized if general obligation or tax revenue has been used to finance the infrastructure. In addition, any contributed capital through developer contributed facilities or grant funded facilities will not be included in the capacity and connection fee calculation. Overview of the City’s Present Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees The City currently has water and wastewater development impact fee in place. The fees include a fee class for secondary dwelling units (studio units less than 450 square feet) that is 30 percent of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. The fees also include an updated multi-family unit development impact fee that is 70 percent of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. Provided below in Table 1 is a summary of the City’s present water development impact fees. Packet Pg. 21 1 Packet Pg 316 11 City of San Luis Obispo 8 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study Table 1 Summary of Present Water Development Impact Fees ($/EDU) Land Use Type Equivalent Dwelling Unit EDU) Water Development Impact Fee Residential Single family Unit 1.00 $11,023 Multi-family Unit 0.70 7,716 Mobile Home 0.60 6,614 Studio Unit, 450 square feet or less 0.30 3,307 Non-Residential (Meter Size) 3/4” inch 1.00 11,023 1” inch 1.70 18,739 1-1/2” inch 3.40 37,478 2” inch 5.40 59,523 3” inch 10.70 117,944 4” inch 16.70 184,081 6” inch 33.40 368,162 The current wastewater development impact fees are based on a city wide fee for service plus additions for catchment areas. These catchment areas are regions with wastewater mains, lift stations, and force mains that collect wastewater from identified areas of the City. Each catchment area varies in the amount of flow contributions to the W RRF, due to its applicable topography and land uses. The wastewater catchment areas are Margarita, Tank Farm, Silver City, Calle Joaquin and Laguna, each corresponding to a lift station service area. All fees for the various residential and non-residential land uses are determined by multiplying the single family residential wastewater fee for the City wide and each catchment area by its applicable EDU factor. Table 2 provides the citywide fee and summarizes the add-on fees for each catchment area for both residential and non-residential development. Packet Pg. 22 1 Packet Pg 317 11 City of San Luis Obispo 9 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study Table 2 Summary of Present Wastewater Development Impact Fees ($/EDU) Land Use Type Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) City Wide Margarita Tank Farm Silver City Calle Joaquin Laguna Residential Single-family Unit 1.00 $3,815 $2,808 $3,713 $1,387 $1,871 $ 501 Multi-family Unit 0.70 2,670 1,966 2,599 971 1,310 351 Mobile Home 0.60 2,289 1,685 2,228 832 1,123 301 Studio Unit - 450 sq. ft or less 0.30 1,144 842 1,114 416 561 150 Non-Residential 3/4” inch 1.00 3,815 2,808 3,713 1,387 1,871 501 1” inch 1.70 6,485 4,774 6,313 2,358 3,181 852 1-1/2” inch 3.40 12,970 9,548 12,626 4,716 6,362 1,704 2” inch 5.40 20,600 15,164 20,053 7,490 10,104 2,707 3” inch 10.70 40,818 30,047 39,734 14,843 20,020 5,364 4” inch 16.70 63,707 46,896 62,015 23,166 31,247 8,371 6” inch 33.40 127,413 93,792 124,031 46,332 62,494 16,472 As a part of updating these fees, the City’s existing methodology is proposed to be revised and updated for current costs and other planning parameters. There are a number of key assumptions being reviewed as a part of the study as discussed in the memo. Among the key assumptions currently being reviewed are the following: The valuation of existing water and wastewater facilities (assets) will be based upon replacement cost less their depreciation (booked) value. The development of future equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) will be based on the City’s annexation policy, planning maps, and land use designation. Assumed future growth will be based on the growth assumptions as developed in the City’s general plan. Future expansion related water and wastewater capital projects will be based upon the City’s current capital improvement plan and planned future capital improvements needed to service future growth. The capacity and connection fees for both water and wastewater will be reviewed based on components for water of supply, reservoirs, treatment, storage, distribution and wastewater treatment and collection. Annual adjustments of the Capacity and Connection Fee should be based on an industry standard index (e.g., ENR CCI). The final report to be developed for this study will document these and any other key assumptions of the study. Packet Pg. 23 1 Packet Pg 318 11 City of San Luis Obispo 10 Water and Wastewater Capacityand Connection Fee Study Summary This discussion paper has provided an introduction and overview of the development of water and wastewater capacity and connection fees. Development of capacity and connection fees is an equitable method to finance the cost of growth and expansion facilities. The water and wastewater capacity and connection fees will be updated to reflect the City’s current costs and value of capacity. The intent is to provide a calculated cost-based water and wastewater capacity and connection fees that are fair to both existing customers and future development. There are no proposed changes to implementation or administration of the water or wastewater capacity and connection fees when compared to the current Development Impact Fees. Packet Pg. 24 1 Packet Pg 319 11 Packet Pg 320 11 Packet Pg 321 11 Packet Pg 322 11 Packet Pg 323 11 Packet Pg 324 11 Packet Pg 325 11 Packet Pg 326 11 Packet Pg 327 11 Packet Pg 328 11 Packet Pg 329 11 Packet Pg 330 11 Packet Pg 331 11 Packet Pg 332 11 Packet Pg 333 11 Packet Pg 334 11 Packet Pg 335 11 Packet Pg 336 11 Packet Pg 337 11 Packet Pg 338 11 Packet Pg 339 11 Packet Pg 340 11 Packet Pg 341 11 Packet Pg 342 11 Packet Pg 343 11 Packet Pg 344 11 Packet Pg 345 11 Packet Pg 346 11 Packet Pg 347 11 Packet Pg 348 11 Packet Pg 349 11 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEES WHEREAS, Chapter 4.20.140 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code established water and wastewater development impact fees, herein after referred to as capacity and connection fees, and provides for the setting of the fee amounts and other matters by resolution of the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan including distribution system and storage improvements necessary to accommodate additional recycled water demand anticipated under the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Water Resource Recovery Facility Facilities Plan including regulatory requirements and capacity improvements necessary to accommodate growth under the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan including distribution system, pump station, and storage improvements necessary to accommodate growth under the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy including capacity improvements necessary to accommodate growth under the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2004 the Council for the City of San Luis Obispo directed staff to proceed with participating in the Nacimiento Pipeline Water Supply Project to provide additional water supplies for new development and service reliability for existing customers; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2006 the Council approved the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan improvements which provided additional treatment process and capacity to meet General Plan build-out; and WHEREAS, updated cost information for proposed capital projects necessitate updated fees to address new development’s share; and WHEREAS, modification of rates and charges by public agencies is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the Public Resources Code because the change in fees in not intended to fund expansion of capital projects not otherwise evaluated under CEQA. All Master Plans were evaluated for their respective impacts to the environment and this action to adjust fees merely provides a more equitable distribution of costs associated with envisioned infrastructure; and Packet Pg 350 11 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ WHEREAS, a public hearing has been noticed and held in accordance with the requirements set forth in Government Code §§ 66016, 66017, 66018 and 66019; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the required amendments to both the water and wastewater capacity and connection fees to support the City’s operations, maintenance and debt service in the Nacimiento Pipeline Water Supply Project, the facility and system improvements identified in the 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan, the Water Resource Recovery Facility Facilities Plan, the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan, and updated cost information for lift stations and other capital projects have been completed and amended fees identified as included in the attached Exhibits A and B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings a) The purpose of capacity and connection fees is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing adequate water supply, treatment, distribution and wastewater collection and treatment facilities to satisfy the needs of new development and to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City’s water and wastewater facilities and improvements. b) The capacity and connection fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used only to pay for facilities and improvements identified in the capacity and connection fee analysis and shall not be in lieu of any other fee or tax as may be required by the Municipal Code. c) There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the capacity and connection fees are imposed and the use of the capacity and connection fees and the need for the facilities and improvements. All new development requires adequate water supply, treatment and distribution as well as wastewater collection and treatment facilities to protect the public health and safety. d) As required by Government Code Section 66001 et seq., there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the capacity and connection fee and the cost of the facilities and improvements attributable to the developments on which the capacity and connection fees are imposed. The estimated costs of facilities and improvements, including financing costs, to be paid for as shown in the 2017 Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. the findings and analysis of which are hereby incorporated by reference, have been allocated to new development on the basis of dwelling unit size and type (residential) or water meter size (non-residential). SECTION 2. Authority This Resolution is and the water and wastewater capacity and connection fees being established herein are adopted pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 4.20.140. For purposes of this Resolution, the term “water and wastewater capacity and connection fees” shall Packet Pg 351 11 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ have the same meaning as water and wastewater development impact fees as set forth in said section. SECTION 3. Amount of Capacity and Connection fees Effective January 1, 2018, water and wastewater capacity and connection fees shall be in the amounts set forth in Exhibits A and B attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the Council, the amount of the capacity and connection fees will automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each subsequent year by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), all cities average for the prior year. SECTION 4. Time of Payment a) Capacity and connection fees for any development project or portion thereof shall be payable prior to issuance of building permits required for that development or at a later time as determined by the Community Development Director, and shall be collected by the Building Official. Under Government Code § 66007(b), the City is authorized to collect the capacity and connection fee at the time of building permit issuance or at a subsequent date because the capacity and connection fees are for public facilities and improvements for which an account has been established and funds appropriated, and for which the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule, or the capacity and connection fees are to reimburse the City for expenditures previously made. b) For any development project or portion thereof, capacity and connection fees shall be assessed at the time of application and remain valid for as long as the application is proceeding through valid processing. SECTION 5. Exemptions a) Fire Protection. Upgrading existing water services and/or meters for the sole purpose of providing new or improved fire protection facilities shall be exempt from any capacity and connection fee provided for in this Resolution. b) Landscape Irrigation. Any water services and/or meters installed solely for landscape irrigation purposes for properties with existing water service shall be exempt from any capacity and connection fees provided for in this Resolution. However, if an increase in water demand is required, the Utilities Director shall impose a water capacity and connection fee consistent with the amounts set forth in this Resolution. SECTION 6. Separate Accounts. The Finance Director shall deposit fees collected under this Resolution in separate water capacity and connection capacity and connection fee and wastewater capacity and connection capacity and connection fee accounts as required by Government Code Section 66013(c). Within one hundred eighty (180) days of the close of each fiscal year, the Finance Director shall make available to the public an accounting of the fund as required by Government Code Section 66013(d). Packet Pg 352 11 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______ SECTION 7. Severability. Each capacity and connection fees established by this Resolution is severable from every other capacity and connection fee. Should any capacity and connection fee be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining capacity and connection fees shall continue in full force and effect. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 353 11 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 R ______ EXHIBIT A WATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEE Effective January 1, 2018 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Water Capacity and Connection fee Residential (by Unit Size) Residential Unit (801 square feet or more) 1.0 $15,780 Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.7 $11,046 Mobile Home 0.6 $9,468 Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.3 $4,734 Non-Residential (by Meter Size) ¾” 1.0 $15,780 1” 1.7 $26,826 1.5” 3.4 $53,652 2” 5.4 $85,212 3” 10.7 $168,846 4” 16.7 $263,526 6” 33.4 $527,052 EXHIBIT B WASTEWATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEE Effective January 1, 2018 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Residential (by Unit Size) Residential Unit (801 square feet or more) 1.0 $12,602 Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.7 $8,821 Mobile Home 0.6 $7,561 Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.3 $3,781 Non-Residential (by Meter Size) ¾” 1.0 $12,602 1” 1.7 $21,423 1.5” 3.4 $42,847 2” 5.4 $68,051 3” 10.7 $134,841 4” 16.7 $210,453 6” 33.4 $420,907 Packet Pg 354 11 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 355 11